V.A.W.A. Why are people opposed to people having a violence free family life?

Question

This act encompasses a wide range of issues that affect the life of women and children. This is verbatim:
Our Mission
The Family Violence Prevention Fund works to prevent violence within the home, and in the community, to help those whose lives are devastated by violence because everyone has the right to live free of violence.

What We Do

For more than two decades, the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) has worked to end violence against women and children around the world. Instrumental in developing the landmark Violence Against Women Act passed by Congress in 1994, the FVPF has continued to break new ground by reaching new audiences including men and youth, promoting leadership within communities to ensure that violence prevention efforts become self-sustaining, and transforming the way health care providers, police, judges, employers and others address violence.
If men have a problem with this act why don't they lobby for their own interest group and become proactive?

I mentioned in my question that instead of whining that women and children are being protected for a change they can lobby for their own interest group. I recall a certain person posting their were 2500 member to his little masculine league. Maybe they could work on something more constructive then just trolling and bashing.

Remember also that until the 1980's there were no laws in place to protect women and children. The majority of domestic violence is perpetrated against women and children and I am sure that Baba Yaga has some statistics to back that up.

Answer 1

As a survivor of domestic violence, I'm with you. I was upset that my ex only spent 5 weeks in jail when someone caught with marijuana would have served more time. He also contacted me from jail. The prosecutors said that would automatically be a year, but because the letter wasn't threatening, he got out. Law enforcement needs to take this seriously, but, unfortunately, a lot of cops are wife-beaters. Who are these women going to call? My ex's family were cops. I was a mess. I still have the pictures in a box somewhere. E-mail me if I can help.

Answer 2

First of it is sexistic. It is formulated gender specific and not only in the titel. Second its open to abuse and abused more frequently than used regularly. Divorce lawyers and women use it frequently to ban the to be ex husband out of the house although he never hit the wife. There is no need for proof when a woman calls for VAWA and that is a big problem. Iamgine if your husband could call the police and issue an restraining order against you banning you from the cooed homed own anytime. That is the power Vawa gives to women, but does not do the same for men. Also it should be rewritten to be gender neutral.
Alexandra as opposed to the patriot Act, which on the paper should be a big concern to Americans since it basically voids all of their rights, so far it has not affected law abiding citizens or felons which did commit crimes that were not directed torwards the state, at least I did not hear of it.

Answer 3

This question is a strawman argument. Just because someone opposes this particular attempt to address domestic violence, it doesn't mean they support domestic violence. There is a huge difference.

For instance, does a person who refuses to support the death penalty for a man who has raped and murdered multiple children mean that person supports the acts of the criminal and hates the victims?

So in like manner, not supporting VAWA doesn't necessarily mean that someone doesn't support violence-free homes. It could mean that they don't like the unfairness, misuse, or politics. If the stats are correct that 50% of women misuse restraining orders to remove non-violent men, then shouldn't that be a reason to look twice?

I believe that women need to come together as a community and come down hard on women that get restraining orders for frivolous reasons and women who falsely report violence. It is getting to where being raped or abused is not a legal defense in court for killing the abuser. Why? Because too many women have disrespected the many women who have been raped or abused throughout history by telling lies out of convenience or to punish others. So now, when women are victims, they are not being heard because too many have abused the system.

As for men, they tend to be silent victims. Pride or the inability to feel often keep them from coming forward. It is not in a man's genes to deal with things cooperatively and collectively. I think it is more than just socialization at work.

Answer 4

Cassius is right when he said:
"First of it is sexist. It is formulated gender specific and not only in the title."
That is why I dislike it. It protects women without the slightest care for men and is open for abuse.

Furthermore, your comment that:
"The majority of domestic violence is perpetrated against women and children"
is wrong.

My statistics are here:
http://www.amen.ie/Papers/15270.htm
The link covers Ireland, United Kingdom, United States and Canada.
Note the statistics that were carried out by the National Crime Council (NCC), in association with the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
How accurate are these?
"According to the Government Departments (Health and Justice) who have responsibilities in this area, the NCC study is the DEFINITIVE piece of research on domestic violence in this country."

People keep saying that women are the primary victims. This is NOT true.
29% of women will report such abuse while only 5% of men will.
The fact that someone would create a law to protect ONLY women, when with so little effort it could protect everyone is very dissappointing.



Edit:
Why is this answer getting voted down so much?
I have stated a good clean reason why some people do not like the V.A.W.A. as per the question asked.
Do people hate the idea of protecting men to the same extent of women?

Answer 5

People are opposed to VAWA because it is DISCRIMINATORY.

Have you ever been to the "Feminist Majority Foundation?" I'm sure you have. Read this link:

http://www.feminist.org/other/dv/dvfact.html#mutuality

* Although many studies report that men and women use physical violence at equal rates within intimate relationships,7, 8 this fails to take into account the nature of the violence and the level of fear and injury experienced by each party. (This is false- the Conflict Tactics Scale DOES take severity into account.)

* Several studies document that women experience higher levels of fear than men do in domestic violence situations. This is perhaps because women in domestic violence situations are much more likely to be injured -- and injured severely -- than men are. (False- I have plenty of evidence from hundreds of sources refuting this, if you want them.)

NOW, for the extremely important part:

* Recent years have seen an increase in the number of women arrested for domestic violence. For example, the percentage of women arrested for domestic violence increased in Concord, New Hampshire from 23% in 1993 to 35% in 1999. Vermont saw a similar increase from 16% in 1997 to 23% in 1999.

Some have attributed this to the increase in "mandatory arrest" policies, in which police are required to make an arrest if there is probable cause that a person has committed domestic violence. Passage of these laws was advocated by feminists and domestic violence experts to address the inadequate response to domestic violence victims by law enforcement. When officers arrive at the scene of a domestic violence crime, they often cite evidence that both partners have engaged in some aggressive behavior, and arrest both the man and the woman. This "dual arrest" strategy fails to take into account which of two people is primarily responsible for the aggression and which one is responding out of self-defense, and can have devastating effects, particularly if there are children involved in the relationship.

To counteract this problem, some departmental or statewide policies now provide guidelines for an officer to determine who is the "primary aggressor" in a violent incident. For example, the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training publishes a guidebook for officers responding to domestic violence, discouraging "dual arrests" and outlining several factors to consider when determining who is the primary aggressor in a domestic violence situation. The primary aggressor is defined as "the person determined to be the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor." Factors to consider include the history of domestic violence between the people involved, the threats and fear level of each person, and whether either person acted in self defense. These are appropriate considerations when determining who is the primary aggressor, and therefore which of the two parties should be arrested.

---

Can you see the BIAS in that? Women can merely say that they were "more afraid," and almost every single time the police will simply walk in and arrest the man, EVEN IF the woman was more aggressive. The man is of course not going to want to say that he is afraid of his wife, that he was severely abused (although he may say she started the fight and be ignored).

Only a biased individual could believe that one who is against a DISCRIMINATORY measure of legislation is opposed to finding a reasonable solution to a problem.

If you ignore these facts, you are quite simply not a feminist, as you are seeking extra benefits for women to the exclusion of males.

By the way... some males DO protest this, but they obviously don't get too much mention or attention, now, do they?

Men also tried to pass an act for an "Office on Men's Health," which has been denied every year in Congress since about 2001 if I'm not mistaken.

It is wonderful to address domestic violence- read this source:

http://www.familynonviolence.org/articles/holistic.html

But it is NOT acceptable to denigrate one sex to benefit another. It is sickening.

Answer 6

Become it does not encompass men. It is unjust, especially coming from a group claiming to be all about equality. It wouldn't bother me so much if you (feminists) just admitted that you are not for equality.

''If men have a problem with this act why don't they lobby for their own interest group and become proactive?''
The men's movement does not have much political power. It is 'frowned' upon as being a chauvinistic group. (ie: Baba Yaga) Besides, feminists are for equality right? So why not change it?

Why did I bother typing this? You're not going to read it anyway.

EDIT

No need for Baba Yaga, I have all the official sources you need right here!

Answer 7

Their arguement is that women will use this law abusively. Though there are cases, the law should not be scrapped altogether.

It should read Violence Against People Act. Problem solved.

Answer 8

Under this act far too many men are falsely accused of abuse. Why is it Violence Against WOMEN Act? Why is it so one-sided?

Just as the Patriot Act gives "terrorism" an extremely broad definition, VAWA gives "violence" an extremely broad definition.

VAWA also promotes divorce and break-up of families.

Answer 9

NO ONE should be a victim of DV.

Anyone that disagrees with the thinking that ONLY men abuse women and NEVER vice-versa should have a problem with VAWA.

VAWA DEFINES domestic abuse as ALWAYS male on female. That is discriminatory and certainly not factual.

What could possibly be wrong with calling it the domestic violence act and defining ANYONE as a possible victim and ANYONE a possible abuser?

Ardent supporters of the bill, as written (that have actually read and thought about it) show their true feelings about males.

Answer 10

because of VAWA, a male buddy of mine who develop into the sufferer of kinfolk contributors abuse develop into the only which were given arrested. it really is perfect, the sufferer develop into male, and the fhis spouse even confessed to the police yet they suggested that because of VAWA, they had to arrest him.