 |
|
|
"There is one final issue that has been raised, recently, which we would like to take this opportunity to address, and that is the eligibility of men to receive benefits and services under the original Violence Against Women Act and under this reauthorizing legislation. The original Act was enacted in 1994 to respond to the serious and escalating problem of violence against women. A voluminous legislative record compiled after four years of congressional hearings demonstrated convincingly that certain violent crimes, such as domestic violence and sexual assault, disproportionally affect women, both in terms of the sheer number of assaults and the seriousness of the injuries inflicted. Accordingly, the Act, through several complementary grant programs, made it a priority to address domestic violence and sexual assault targeted at women, even though women, of course, are not alone in experiencing this type of violence.
"Recent statistics justify a continued focus on violence targeted against women. For example, a report by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics issued in May 2000 on Intimate Partner Violence confirms that crimes committed against persons by current or former spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends--termed intimate partner violence--is `committed primarily against women.' Of the approximately 1 million violent crimes committed by intimate partners in 1998, 876,340, or about 85 percent, were committed against women. Women were victims of intimate partner violence at a rate about 5 times that of men. That same year, women represented nearly 3 out of 4 victims of the 1,830 murders attributed to intimate partners. Indeed, while there has been a sharp decrease over the years in the rate of murder of men by intimates, the percentage of female murder victims killed by intimates has remained stubbornly at about 30 percent since 1976.
"Despite the need to direct federal funds toward the most pressing problem, it was not, and is not, the intent of Congress categorically to exclude men who have suffered domestic abuse or sexual assaults from receiving benefits and services under the Violence Against Women Act. The Act defines such key terms as `domestic violence' and `sexual assault,' which are used to determine eligibility under several of the grant programs, including the largest, the STOP grant program, in gender-neutral language. Men who have suffered these types of violent attacks are eligible under current law to apply for services and benefits that are funded under the original Act--and they will remain eligible under the Violence Against Women Act of 2000--whether it be for shelter space under the Family Violence Protection and Services Act, or counseling by the National Domestic Violence Hotline, or legal assistance in obtaining a protection order under the Legal Assistance for Victims program.
"We anticipate that the executive branch agencies responsible for making grants under the Act, as amended, will continue to administer these programs so as to ensure that men who have been victimized by domestic violence and sexual assault will receive benefits and services under the Act, as appropriate.
"We append to this joint statement a section by section analysis of the bill and a more detailed section by section analysis of the provisions contained in Title V.
"Thank you."
- Senator Orin Hatch
October 11, 2000
Congressional Record pgs. 10191-92
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And regarding the BMH conference, I'd like to apologize for taking so long to make any mention of it. I'd like to do an in-depth write up on the event like last year, but I just don't think I have the time to do so. So if anyone else who was there would like to volunteer to write up something, I'm sure many others would be interested in reading it.
I have the audio of the talks on tape and hope to convert them to digital format soon so that they can be downloaded and listened to by all. But I doubt this will happen for another week.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note the date on this: Oct. 11, 2000. And if you read the federal VAWA language, it's true, there is no gender-specific language in it. HOWEVER, the individual states have grant applications that DO have gender-specific language. So the states are discriminating against men by institutionally prohibiting grant applications for support of male victims.
What needs to be done is two things:
1) If there's not already a suit in the works, there needs to be one.
2) There needs to be ACCOUNTABILITY built into the next version of this bill (and there will be one) so that the states will have to PROVE that they are not discriminating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What needs to be done is two things:
1) If there's not already a suit in the works, there needs to be one.
2) There needs to be ACCOUNTABILITY built into the next version of this bill (and there will be one) so that the states will have to PROVE that they are not discriminating.
Frank,
NCFM, LA does have a suit (several) in the works. There is no doubt but that this document will come into play when the hearings take place in CA. This practice of discrimination against men will not stand. In this case, the suit will be against all of the So CA Counties where shelter services are denied to men who are victims of domestic violence. Finally, as more money becomes available we will be initiating more suits. We already have over 60 suits in progress and we are just getting started. So yes, there will be accountability. We are finding many key fact in California law that will work in our favor.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So yes, there will be accountability. "
Warb, I'm glad to hear all this and I wish you and you co-conspirators all the best. But what I meant by accountability is for the text of the legislation to include specific language that requires some analysis of the groups served to verify non-discrimination and some manner of sanctions against those who do discriminate. Right now, there is none.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<what I meant by accountability is for the text of the legislation to include specific language that requires some analysis of the groups served to verify non-discrimination >>
I don't care what anyone says, the name VAWA has to go. Call it Violence Against Spouses Act or what ever, the longer it remains a gender described name the longer it is imprinted.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...the name VAWA has to go."
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hatch can ramble on to his hearts content. You can put a coat of paint over a piece of dog crap all you want and it won't keep it from being dog crap. The fact is that the VAWA has funneled a tremendous sum of money into a nationwide system of shelters which ARE ONLY FOR WOMEN. Men are not welcome. Men are sent to motels! These shelters are run by people who have a political agenda that is often anti-male and our tax dollars are paying for this misandry. Not one of our legislators has the balls to admit this and do something about this treacherous and intentional discrimination. They are simply afraid of pissing off the fems.
Write a letter today to you reps and tell them this crap must change. If you don't have time to do a letter, CALL THEM and ask them to explain why the VAWA is not sexist. Force them to tell you that this bill is not discriminating against men. Make them either admit it, or LIE. Trust me, they will lie. We need to hold them accountable, right now they are slithering away in darkness. They are cowards.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men are sent to motels! These shelters are run by people who have a political agenda that is often anti-male and our tax dollars are paying for this misandry.
Yes men are sent to motels...and jail. It turns out that the D.V. shelters are supposed to be providing men with hotel money if they cannot take them in. If you know of any males in So. CA that needed help and were turned away by a shelter, send them to us (NCFM, LA). We want their testimony and we need them to be part of the list of plaintiffs.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @05:02AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
All animals are equal.
(But some animals are MORE equal...)
From George Orwell's book
"Animal farm".
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @06:19PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I am a young male. The more I learn about women the worse I feel about myself. I love women very much but it seems that they do not love men in general. We all talk about these things and all of the hurt we have from women. We as men do so much for women. We die for them. Everything we do is for them almost. It hurts me very much how women make us jump through hoops and then laugh at us and call us stupid for doing it. I pray to god that he will help me understand women. For now I will stay single as I do not trust any of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 01, @05:02PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
To 'Anonymous user'.
While I don't belleive ALL women are selfish, AU, I certainly understand where you're comeing from.
I too have decided to remain single, simply because the risk for men in a realationship these days is to high. I personaly own too little in my life to have it taken away. I.E. in a divorce "settlement", which as a man I'd certainly lose.
I don't beleive that ALL women are sneaking, coniveing, money grubbing, "cash whores". But the problem is there are WAY too many out there who are, and you can't tell one from the other without a program.
Something else.
I have a suggestion I'd like to bounce off you and anyone else that might think this may be a good idea.
As 'AU' said, Men do nearly everything for women, includeing but not limited to dying for them. simply to all too often have them "laugh in our faces", so to speak.
Well, what do you all think of trying a nation wide 'MAN-STRIKE"?
By this I mean we get as many men as possible to "go on strike".
Any and everything done "for women" would simply come to a screeching halt, for a piriod of time.
This, of course, would be done within the limits of law and common sence.
Think about it. Toilet seats could be left up all across America, Canada, Australia, and Great Britan. And that's just for starters.
It could be just the thing to get our message accross. I don't know, but maybe even the MEDIA couldn't ignore THIS!
Feed-back???
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Anonymous User,
When I was a teenager in the 1970's, i used to listen to women's programming on WBAI in New York City. I heard repeatedly that men were evil or else they were the cause of all the evil in the world, that they were part of a conspiracy called the patriarchy, whose sole purpose was to subjugate and oppress women, that men needed education in feminist doctrine, and that women's oppression was a kind of universal, invariant trans-cultural, trans-historical phenonomenon that united all women everywhere in solidarity as an oppressed class; i.e., women could instantly communicate to each other via the common, irreducible experience of oppression at the hands of men, no matter what language they spoke, and no matter what local customs they observed. I heard that because I was male, I was evil, and my lot in life was to become an oppressor of women, but in time I would be made to pay for the countless generations of untold misery that men had visited upon women.
It was a sickening experience. There I was, a withdrawn teenager who spent his time reading the works of the philosophers, who never had a thought of oppressing anyone, but whose destiny was to contribute to the misery of women, merely by the fact of being alive. It was then that I became an enemy, not of equal rights, which I believed were just, but of what I later came to articulate as anti-male bigotry, which was and still is an undercurrent of hatred towards men encouraged by the womens movement that can fairly be characterized as morally no better than racism.
If women "make us jump through hoops and then laugh at us and call us stupid for doing it," then refuse to jump through any hoops. On the political level, let's stop funding their discriminatory programs. These people aren't your friends: they form a powerful political class who expects and demands privilege on account of their gender, and they expect YOU to pay for it. It's not Uncle Sam who wants YOU for the Army; they want you in their place.
I recall an essay by a feminist who was outraged because nuclear war meant that women were now equally likely as men to be killed during warefare. She was concerned about what this meant for women; men's lives didn't matter. Well, you have to hand it to the scientists: there is a solution to the problem of gender bias in the draft, and it need not include women soldiers in the army. All we have to do is step up our use of nuclear weapons, and women and men will be victims in equal numbers. I consider that a form of justice.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
