EXACTLY how does the VAWA threaten men who do not commit violent crimes?

Question

Would somebody PLEASE state EXACTLY what you are complaining about instead of spouting nonsense about straw men???

Give a specific example.

Answer 1

Re VAWA, Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association says: “allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage.”

As usual with feminism, this is a story of stretching the definition of something until it breaks with reality. In this case its the definition of 'domestic violence'. Add a linguistic loophole in the VAWA and - voila: you can jail as many men as you want on false charges. How does this work? Allow me to explain...

"VAWA says, “The term ‘domestic violence'' includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse …”

The Loophole

The term, “includes,” [in the VAWA quote above] is being used as a loophole. Law enforcement officials have been using this loophole to implement statutes allowing people to claim domestic violence or obtain restraining orders if they are merely “afraid” or “fearful” of violence.

Now, 63 percent of all states define domestic violence so that it includes psychological distress, and 33 percent include “harassment.”

Answer 2

I don't grasp why men are upset about this. I see why misogynists are, but not men as a whole.

Women throughout history have suffered at the hands of men. How can you demand equality when the domestic abuse playing field is so drastically lopsided?

I wonder if there were men back in the day getting upset that women wanted the right to vote and demanding "Where's OUR sufferage? We want to vote too!!" You CAN vote. "Yeah, but I want the right-to-vote issue to be for MEN too!!" Well, but... "No! Feminists think they can have it all to themselves!" No, they just want to have the same rights as you do... "Liar! v****a-bearing LIAR!"

Answer 3

Simple, it has stereo typed all of us.  We are all wife beaters, rapist, and adulterers.  An the bottom line is that the average guy can't be trusted and if your a woman you better keep an eye on him before he does something!

Hello, I was brought up in a loving family with good values and every time a woman assume that I could do anything to hurt my wife or family really burns my chaps.

Woman need to learn to look at men as individuals and stop stereo typing. I'm sure you don't care to be stereo typed.

This act is a good thing for those A--holes that commit violent crimes.  But it is killing the average guy to the point that relationships are being destroyed.  Point in case, mine. Even after sixteen years of providing, protecting, and Loving my wife and kids, my wife still thinks all men are jerks because of everything she hears on the news or reads in the paper.  Really,  That all weighs more that the fact that I have been at less a distant husband, lover, and friend over the years.

Answer 4

Wow.  You asked for EXACTLY, and only one person quoted from the law - Doodlebug, and he state that it was NOT the law itself that as the problem, it was the way that judges were interpreting the law in a few cases, which were not cited.

Your analogies are spot-on, and taking a fallacy to its logical conclusion to prove how wrong the logic is make perfect sense and is used in courtrooms across the US.  

Bravo for argueing and keeping these men to the point of the question.

All but one avoided the question.

ALL STRANGER RAPE IS A HATE CRIME.

PUTTING ANOTHER PERSON IN FEAR OF THEIR OWN SAFETY IS ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW.  IT IS A FORM OF CIVIL ASSAULT.  Living in fear is horrible, and the men who stalk use fear as a weapon against their prey.  Men are larger than most women and just their physical presence threatens, like an unarmed man facing a man with a gun.   Men always claim their superiority and brag about their greater physical size, but when it comes time to accept the down size of that fact, they whine and complain.  When the numbers prove that women stalking men is as common as men stalking women, then they can get support in the legislature for a VAMA.  NO one is stopping them from writing their own legislation.  

They just see that women have something they don't have and they are jealous.  I have never seen a better example of pettiness and arguing off point as I see in this question.  

Too bad you didn't get a good, real answer.  I guess there isn't one.

Answer 5

Violence Against WOMEN act has gender neutral language? That appears contradictory.

"The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), a component of the U.S. Department of Justice, provides national leadership in developing the nation's capacity to reduce violence against women through the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and subsequent legislation." ( http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/ovw-fs.htm#fs-g... )

This is actually from the government agency that implements this act. Everything there is about women. Their mission statement is about women, their website is about women, the name of the act is about women.... the entire thing is about women. (but was changed in 2005 to include children).

Are you okay with allowing domestic violence against men? It appears that some believe that you must be okay with abusing men or you must abuse women. I don't see the correlations.... I believe in a 3rd option... how about no domestic violence against anyone.... why is that fought against so hard?

Edit: I see. So, you are okay with allowing women to beat men. That's men's problem.

Feminists making sexist laws is stopping people. This is what happens when men try to get changes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qodygTkTU...  Feminists disrupt it.

The law is sexist... it's truly that simple.

You're actually using a perfect example of strawman... that if you don't believe in being sexist against men, you must beat women. Silly actually.

Edit: So if a guy believes that it's wrong for domestic violence against men, then he must be upset that he didn't get invited to a party? Are you condoning violence against men?

I was never aware that there were so many women who openly are okay and fight for violence against men... and then use strawman's to fight for their hatred. Goes to show you how much Men's Rights groups are needed.

My conclusion is that you will fight hard for the right to be violent against a man.

Answer 6

The below pertains to women who lie.  Kindly realize I am not attacking feminists who want fairness/equality.  I didn't commit a violent crime but my ex-wife did.  Guess who got charged?

No I do not approve of violence towards women.

But I do approve of equality and fairness to both sexes.  

If you are able to forget that women are victims too and look thru the eyes/hearts of men, you will see innocent men being victimized by women who lie and overzealous laws.

America has become Hermerica.  There is nothing "neutral" about laws that protect one gender and are biased against another.  Those laws are used by any woman who is decides to lie.  

So there must be millions of men who are victims

from overzealous liars.  Under those laws women get FREE lawyers, free money to go to school, ability to ask for more $ child support, alimony, shelter, etc, etc.  

A lot of women are double and triple dippers; they

use the system again and again...as one woman told another "if you want to get rid of your husband, just tell the police he hit you."

Answer 7

They want the right to be able commit violent crimes against women, even if they don't actually commit violent crimes against women.

Not sure if you are a fan of Monty Python's "Brian", but it's that same sort of reasoning.

Cheers :-)

Answer 8

I haven't yet seen the wording for the legislation, but the question remains:

Why do fair-minded men, who acknowledge that violence against women is clearly proportionately much more institutionalised than violence against men, have such difficulty with the legislation.

It's important that the government acknowledges the pandemic of violence against women by responding with legislation that deals with it specifically. If violence against men reached the level of violence perpetrated against women on a daily and global basis, there would be specific legislation for men. This is evidenced by anti-vilification laws.

I know that brain dead women bashing misogynists wouldn't be able to grasp this issue, but why do intelligent men (and women), have such difficulty with it?

ETA @ Master_B: I agree that men do not report violence when perpetrated by their female partners as often as women do. Therefore, we can really only depend on statistics that are not camouflaged due to issues such as social stigma.

Statistics regarding domestic homicides have been collated in the US, since 1976.  Alarmingly according to the Deptartment of Justice, as at 2005,  33.3% of women as compared to 2.5% of men who are murdered, are murdered by their partners. I think we can consider this statistic a fairly good indication that violence against women by their partners (and back to the original question re: VAWA), is a far bigger problem, than domestic violence against men.

Ten times bigger problem than for men.

This figure has consistently risen over the past 3 decades, while  rates of homicide against men has declined.

I would say based on those rates, that it's pretty clear why we need legislation such as VAWA.

Answer 9

"Do the opponents here approve of violence against women?" That is a clear illustration of a straw man argument. You've so far failed to refute your "opponents" actual points and instead rephrased their argument so it is easier for you to refute.

Basically I don't think many of them are saying that at all, in fact I believe violence against ANYONE is unacceptable. What this act is a clear example of is how equal rights i.e. equitable and fair treatment is manipulated when it suits your cause. That's the argument. And come on be serious, violence against WOMEN act as the first poster succinctly pointed out.. clue is in the title.

So great that you have your special considerations, but don't expect us to applaud as well..

edit: thing550 I had at least minimal respect for your views until you just presented that straw man argument i.e. a nothing statement.. if you address our arguments fine, if not then there's no point wasting words is there (Y)

edit: it is.. misrepresenting an argument is to create a straw man. Circular logic is entirely different. It's not a word, it's a term actually. Getting technical =D

here's how I saw it: we say- we feel that the VAWA is unreasonable and unfair.

you said- "Do the opponents here approve of violence against women?"

That's a straw man since it doesn't logically follow like the first poster said that to be against preferential treatment is to endorse beating women up.. get it?

edit: @ pookie "Why do fair-minded men, who acknowledge that violence against women is clearly proportionately much more institutionalised than violence against men, have such difficulty with the legislation."

The point is your entire argument rests up a dubious assumption that violence against women is more institutionalised than violence against men. Crime statistics and other sources tell us otherwise. Statistics only deal with recorded crime and in this, yes women are disproportionately the victims. However, you have to realise that most of the unreported crime and unrecorded crime is attributed to men according to victim surveys. This is because they are either too embarrassed to report a violent act against them in the first place or else the police, through legislation such as this, are effectively conditioned into believing the stereotypes that men are always the perpetrators and women the victims and therefore they may refuse to record a violent act of a woman against a man. Or even worse assume that it was in fact the other way round and the woman was just acting in self-defence

As you can see when you disprove the validity of your assumption it isn't hard to see why "intelligent" people have a problem with legislation that could result in perpetuating the lack of interest in violence against men. By all means advertise the fact that women are often victims but don't make the mistake of assuming that men are always perpetrators

Edit: Firstly I concede awareness of domestic violence is necessary. I though i'd made that clear by saying violence against ANYONE is unacceptable. As to you catholic I think you missed my point. I'm against this legislation because it may encourage more men not to report cases of abuse and thus further condition police to assume men are perpetrators. I'm quite aware this is not womankinds fault and I don't remember ever saying that...

Answer 10

Nah! There is no need for specific legislation protecting women from violence perpetrated by men.  In UK its only every 60 seconds that a report comes into the police where a woman is beaten raped or stabbed...police stats. mind, not some braless feminist ones, don't panic! The US, oh! knock so many more seconds off!

Every week in UK at least 2 women are killed in Domestic Abuse homicides, and refuges are invariably full, even the government are starting to fund them, cos they noticed so many women were going missing from home, and costing the economy billions.

But let us not forget the women around the world who are raped, beaten, murdered, stoned, set on fire, have FGM visited on them all done  under the guise of some cultural misdemeanour...and YOU feel threatened and therefore, threaten retaliation? Ask yourself what would happen if women began to piece together the scale of the injsutice perpetrated agianst them?

Violence? Don't believe so...not happening yet!

Answer 11

No matter how much the feminists like to spin it, there is nothing neutral about that law as it clearly favor women but discriminated against men.  Sexist law like that allow female abusers exploit it and use it to their advantage so they can get away with it when they abused men.

Answer 12

When it comes to such things as us women being able to get a way with things such as if we think a man is violent he's going down; no d**n way is that some kiddie game.  There is a distinct difference between the imaginary, the real and the actual.  May I also remind you that this is a subject for the serious minded and should not be toyed with.

Answer 13

Because any woman can walk into a courtroom declaring that they "feel" threatened and get a restraining order.  It's just "part of the process" when women are filing for illigitemate divorces (divorces in which they were neither beaten nor cheated on, but simply feel the man isn't good enough for them any longer).  It is a step in ensuring that custody will be awarded to the woman, despite her being the one to pull the plug.  There is no penalization for a woman wrongfully terminating a marriage, and it is in fact encouraged.  Abuse is defined so vaguely that the restraining order will be issued every time.