Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
RADAR ALERT: VAWA is Not Helping Women, Report Shows
Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2007-02-06 03:12
It's no secret that the Violence Against Women Act often ignores civil liberties and discriminates against male victims. But everyone assumed that at least VAWA was beneficial to women.
RADAR's latest Special Report, "Has VAWA Delivered on its Promises to Women?," reveals this belief may be false.
Packed with DoJ statistics, scientific studies, and actual examples, the report dissects, analyzes, and explodes the myth that VAWA is good for women.
The Special Report documents that:
- VAWA programs have not affected overall trends of intimate partner abuse.
- Aggressive prosecution policies are placing women at greater risk of subsequent violence.
- Real victims of violence can't get the help they need because the system has become flooded with the laughable "David Letterman-type" cases.
- "No-drop" prosecution policies routinely ignore women's wishes for counseling and repair of the relationship.
- Ineffective DV policies may lull women into a false sense of security.
- Draconian law enforcement and prosecution programs ensnare women.
- Female perpetrators of domestic violence don't get the services they need.
- Abuse shelters aren't meeting the needs of victims.
- Overly-broad definitions of child abuse allow children to be removed from their homes.
- VAWA policies and programs serve to escalate partner conflict and harm children.
This report is a must-read, no-holds-barred critique of our nation's domestic violence system. The report can be seen at: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-Has-It-Delivered-on-Its-Promises-to-Women.pdf.
The report follows the RADAR report, "A Culture of False Allegations: How VAWA Harms Families and Children," which was released last week. That report documents how VAWA undermines families and places children at greater risk of abuse: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-A-Culture-of-False-Allegations.pdf.
So this week, we call on you to read the report, "Has VAWA Delivered on its Promises to Women?", then forward this Alert to all your friends, media contacts, and elected officials, so they know "It's Time to Fix VAWA."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date of RADAR Release: February 5, 2007
Want to improve the chance that they'll pay attention to your
letter? Click here.
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to assure that the problem of domestic violence is treated in a balanced and effective manner. http://www.mediaradar.org/.
- Log in to post comments
Comments
I'm sorry, but the report may be rejected almost out-of-hand
After reading the RADAR report a few times, it is not hard to foresee a few reasons why, say, a panel of pro-VAWA analysts of some sort might even find the report laughable. Let's see why.
In section 1, "No Proof That VAWA Has Reduced Intimate Partner Abuse", it is claimed that intimate partner homicides went down by 29% over the 18-year period prior to enactment of the VAWA, "So fatal partner crime began to fall long before VAWA had been passed". Okay, so? What conclusion(s) can be drawn from this? Let's hold off on answering that and read what is next:
"An examination of non-fatal victimization points to a similar conclusion. Since VAWA
targets aggression by intimate partners, one would expect victimization rates for that type
of abuse to drop more than violence perpetrated by a stranger or friend/acquaintance. But
Department of Justice statistics for the period 1995 to 2004 show that victimization of
women fell across the board, regardless of who perpetrated the crime:" (followed by supporting chart).
Well, let's see..the author(s) do not write down any conclusion based on the drop in homicides itself..unless the conclusion is "obvious", that is the author is assuming the reader will conclude that any drop in homicide rate from 1994 to present, would not have been affected if VAWA had never existed. But there is no way that that conclusion can be proven from the information given..there are probably myriad factors which affect intimate partner homicide, one or more of which is bound to change over time. It would have helped if the reader was given the change, if any, in number of homicides from 1994 to present. In fact, the apparent omission of this information might be viewed with suspicion by one or more pro-VAWA "experts". Besides, the stated information is not in itself a reason to end VAWA, unless, for example, it can be shown that VAWA incurs a financial burden on society.
In the next part of the report (as given above), the reader is then asked to reach a "similar conclusion" (about non-fatal victimization), when no conclusion was ever made in the first place (see above). The conclusion we are given about non-fatal victimization is "there is no evidence that VAWA-funded programs have accelerated the drop in
intimate partner homicides or non-fatal crimes." (supporting chart given)." But even if the drop was not "accelerated" by VAWA, that does not prove that part of the drop itself was not due to VAWA. Again, myriad factors are involved. The fact that non-fatal incidents by all types of perpetrator, dropped at approximately the same rate since initiation of VAWA, doesn't really give us enough to go on..it might have helped if we were also given the rates due to the three types of perpetrators prior to 1994.
I think it is possible that some experts will read maybe only this far into the report, then put it in the circular file and forget about it. It may be their opinion that the report is written solely for purposesof achieving gender neutrality in reporting, etc, and that claims that VAWA is not helping women are merely given as some sort preparation ,for us to then be more sympathetic to arguments concerning gender neutrality.
Maybe I am being a pessimist, who knows..
-axo
No
Maybe I am being a pessimist, who knows..
I disagree. If you want to debate properly, you have to anticipate what the opposition will think.
I think you are right Axo.
I think you are right Axo. Leading the article in the manner they did reminds me of starting a prize fight with a sign on your chin that says "hit me here" and coming out of your corner with your gloves to your side. You have got to lead with your best shot or at least a shot that will make the opposition think a bit or stun them. Claiming that VAWA did not do this or that is simply not a good beginning and seems tactically inert.
Just want to add something
I hope no-one gets angry when they read my comments below. It is not my intenet to "prove the report is wrong", but instead to predict that these VAWA people are going to look for any reasons they can to reject the report. Maybe I'm totally wrong and am just reading too much into it..but no, I'm not a troll :)
-axo
Report Needs Peer Reviewed
Any report needs to be reviewed by a cast of people familiar with the arguments, both for and against.
This would allow someone like axolotl and several others to provide feedback to the author(s) prior to publication, and to challenge any of the underlying assumptions. Generally reports that are reviewed like this have more balance and the arguments contained within have been more thoroughly tested.
Nothing like going of half cocked.
oregon dad