Men Railroaded by corrupt Family Violence Research

[jdnation]

MEN RAILROADED BY CORRUPT FAMILY VIOLENCE RESEARCH

http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/images/rosenthal.jpgBy Mark Rosenthal

August 19, 2005

https://newswithviews.com/

For thirty years now, researchers have known that wives kick, punch, stab, or shoot their husbands about as often as husbands kick, punch, stab, or shoot their wives. But federal law ignores the facts and instead uses the power of the purse to get states to impose Kafkaesque policies that punish victimized men and reward violent women.

Back in 1975, the First National Family Violence Survey turned up results that surprised even the sociologists conducting the survey. Wives attack husbands about as often as husbands attack wives. And wives attack first about as often as husbands attack first, which is strong evidence that women’s assaults on men can’t be explained away simply as self-defense.[1] But battered women’s advocates were intent on portraying domestic violence as something only men do and only women suffer from. So they’d conveniently leave out the part about women’s assaults on men whenever they cited the study’s results.[2]

Susan R. Paisner is a criminologist and longtime advocate for abused women and men. She recalls being stunned by the hostile attitudes toward male victims that she encountered at one of the nation’s first conferences on domestic violence. She naively thought that “we were all there to do good – for all who needed it.” Yet when she mentioned having read a brief newspaper article about male victims, many of the other women at the conference turned on her, saying, “This is OUR issue, OUR cause. If men are battered, then let other MEN do something for them.”[3]

The Second National Family Violence Survey was conducted ten years after the first. Contrary to advocates’ claims of an epidemic of wife abuse, violence toward women had declined. But violence toward men by women had not changed since the first survey.[4]

When battered women’s advocates lobbied Congress, they quoted only the part of the results that suited their agenda. And so, in spite of longstanding knowledge among researchers about the existence of significant numbers of abusive women and victimized men, Congress enacted legislation in 1994 that addressed only part of the problem. Rather than passing an inclusive Family Violence Act, they enacted a Violence Against Women Act.

VAWA provided billions of dollars for organizations whose primary purpose is helping abused women, but nothing whatsoever for organizations to help abused men. The Violence Against Women Office, which administers VAWA, states that the law prohibits funding of programs that focus on male victims.[5] At least one state agency that distributes VAWA funds explicitly lists “Programs that focus on children and/or men” under “Ineligible Activities” on their application form.[6]

(contd.)

 

[jdnation]

Even after receiving $5.1 billion under the past two VAWA bills, battered women’s advocates still argue that there’s too little money, and therefore the government should allocate no funding whatsoever for organizations whose primary purpose is to help the 835,000 men the U.S. Dept. of Justice estimates are assaulted by their partner annually.[7] Yet somehow there’s enough money in the current $4.2 billion VAWA reauthorization bill to make special provisions for an estimated 32,600 Native Americans,[8] but of course, only if those Native Americans are female. No males need apply.

RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) has reviewed the VAWA reauthorization bill and identified the numerous serious problems listed below.[9] The bill:

1 Misrepresents domestic violence as almost always man-on-woman violence.

2 Violates men’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.

3 Lacks safeguards against false allegations of domestic violence, thus encouraging the unscrupulous to use false allegations during divorce proceedings to separate children and fathers.

4 lurs the distinction between violent crime and a verbal argument.

5 Allows restraining orders based on a woman’s word; no proof required.

6 Encourages mandatory reporting, mandatory arrest, and “no-drop” prosecutions, policies which even the Feminist Majority Foundation says often end up harming families.[10]

7 Pre-empts state partner assault laws and the federal Victims of Crime Act. Spends $1 billion a year duplicating existing programs.

8 Funds trainings that teach judges to violate the Constitution. In one such training, judges were instructed: “Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Thrown him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’”[11]

9 Funds treatment programs based on ideology, not science.

10 Represents an overreaching of federal power.

11 Corrupts family violence research. VAWA-funded researchers often seek to bias the outcome of their research by interviewing only women, slanting the wording of questions, asking only questions that will produce the desired answer, or by selectively reporting research findings.[12]

12 Funds educational programs that consistently depict men as perpetrators and women as victims of domestic violence.

VAWA should have treated all people equally when it was first enacted. Instead, VAWA tramples on persons’ basic human rights while ignoring what scientific researchers have known for three decades. Our elected officials have a responsibility to make sure VAWA helps all victims of domestic violence.

newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest67.htm

 

[somoreno]

I’m no expert, but I prosecuted domestic violence for a couple of years in a fairly large metropolitan area. I think there may be some things you didn’t consider (Then again, maybe I have had my opinion colored by the things I have read/learned from the DV establishment.)

I treated reports of violence by men as seriously as reports by women, considering other factors. But men are frequently physically larger then thier partners, and so, more capable of defending themselves and avoiding intimidation. Again, maybe I’m missing a lot, but a man can do a lot of intimidating and threatening just by yelling, or getting close when angry that a woman just can’t do.

I also cannot help but notice that generally, (and there are always exceptions) it is the women who primarily care for any children, and therefore, they are less likely to be employed. This makes them much more subject to financial intimidation. They can just be powerless aginst a man who uses “his” money to control the situation.

Again, generally speaking, women are more invested in a relationship more quickly than men. Back to quack anthropology…she needs him to support her while she raises her offspring, he needs to have a lot of offspring…That’s oversimplifying, but it seemed to have some bearing a lot of times in the cases I saw.

I have no doubt that “feminism” has done a lot to hurt women. Not the least of its flaes is that it denigrates men, manhood, and fatherhood, contributing to men’s feelings of powerlessness with regard to their children (how about the man who doesn’t want his wife/girlfriend to have an abortion), and uselessness as husbands and fathers. This does NOT help women.

I have no doubt that women are violent with men. But I think more often, women try to manipulate situations…No doubt some of the general policies you discussed make that easier. False accusations by women are more and more frequent, as women realize they can get him out of the house in a heartbeat by calling the cops. Women frequently know what to do or say to provoke their partner as well, and use it to their unlawful advantage.

Ultimately however, it has been my experience that it is not her words and manipulations that are illegal, it is his violent response, undoubtedly brought on in some instances by the unfairness he faces…

I don’t know if this is in the bible, but it seems almost unquestionable (“orthodoxy” again??) that a manifestation of original sin in men is in part, a desire to dominate their wives, and in women to “trick” their men into getting what they want.

Sad and twisted–yes, irredeemable–no, thank God

 

[BioCatholic]

thank heavens that someone has finally come out and started telling the truth. being on the other end of a frying pan by my wife, i have been harassed and doubted by many, many people. even looked upon as it was MY fault.

in my years as a police officer i have been called to places where a woman has called us because her husband wont leave. they have a non-violent argument, she “throws” him out, he wont leave.

so she thinks she has the right to call us and remove him. “i’m a woman, i can throw him out when i want.” is the attitude.

ex parte orders are so skewed towards removing the man from a residence as well. not restraining orders, orders for a person to vacate a residence.

as far as custody, there is a judge in florida here that 99% of the time gives child custody to the woman, even if they have felony convictions, drug arrests, you name it. time and time, he is screamed to be impeached, but it is the right-wing supporters that keep Jeb and the FDLE from doing it. it’s all about “family values”.

pennsylvania has even had cases where a man who is not the biological father of a child was forced to pay child support.

it is getting out of control, and i dont think it is feminism doing it. feminism would be more likely to encourage a single mother to be more independant, and to sever all ties with an abusive man, not abuse him back and end up in jail.

 

[DaveBj]

I have no first-hand experience with domestic violence (altho my wife does punch me when I come out with a particularly bad pun ), but from what I’ve seen on the Cops TV show, the police seem to be just as quick to arrest the woman where there is evidence that she has assaulted the man as they are to arrest the man in the opposite situation. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an episode where the woman has not been arrested, given evidence that she was the whacker.

DaveBj