[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Progress in the Senate, Now Time for a Pause
posted by Matt on 09:08 PM September 12th, 2005
RADAR Project This past week our elected officials were deluged with telephone calls and faxes demanding that VAWA be made male-inclusive. Rest assured that every call and every fax you made helped our lobbyists who are working every day on our behalf. Thank you to everyone who pitched in.

As a result, on Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee approved new language that states, Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence...from receiving benefits and services under this title.

Click "Read more..." for more.


Progress in the Senate, Now Time for a Pause

The Senate language is not as strong as the House language. But that is not a complete surprise since key VAWA advocates (Kim Gandy of NOW and Eleanor Smeal of the Feminist Majority), worried that our efforts might actually succeed, went to Capital Hill at the last minute to do some serious arm-twisting.

S. 1197 has now been sent to the floor where it awaits a full vote by the Senate. It will likely pass by unanimous consent.

The next step is for the House of Representatives to approve HR 3402. This bill is the budget appropriation bill for the Department of Justice, to which VAWA was added at the last minute. Because appropriations bills are often controversial, House approval may take awhile.

Once the House approves its bill, then VAWA will go to Conference Committee. The Conference Committee will iron out the differences between the Senate and House versions of VAWA. We do not know when this will happen, but it may take several weeks.

But in the meantime, RADAR wants to make a request: We would like to ask each person who reads this Alert to get the name of a man in your state or town who was a DV victim. You may know a male victim personally, or you may have read about him in your local newspaper.

Or go the Equal Justice Foundation website at http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-41.htm#DVmen, scroll down to Listings by State, and find a man’s name there.

We don’t want to reveal exactly how we will use this information (we assume our opponents are monitoring our Alerts), but when Shock and Awe shifts back into high gear, you will be using the information about this person.

And remember, we will not rest until VAWA assures that every male victim of domestic violence receives the services to which he is entitled.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date of RADAR Release: September 11, 2005

To track the current status of VAWA, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and enter the bill number: Senate bill S. 1197; House of Representatives bill H.R. 3402.

To receive RADAR Alerts, press releases, and other special announcements, sign up for the RADAR E-lert. You can sign up for the E-lert on the RADAR home page at http://www.mediaradar.org/. Your e-mail address will be kept confidential, and will not be shared with any outside organization. It's fast, easy, and keeps you in the loop.

Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR) is a coalition of men and women working to assure media balance and accuracy in coverage of the domestic violence issue.

Prostate surgery claims misleading | Man gets stripped publicly at airport security point  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Apologies for Premature Post... (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 10:57 AM September 13th, 2005 EST (#1)
Sorry to say I did not read this RADAR post (or maybe it hadn't quite shown up here) when I posted the "How Many VAWA Bills?" question above.

RADAR's newest alert clarifies that S. 1197 was reported with amended language for a full Senate vote, and that H.R. 3402 the appropriations bill includes VAWA 2005 with its "gender-neutral" reform language.

I have no idea why the other two H.R. bills are still listed as active in committees on the thomas.gov site.

What has become apparent is that the language in neither bill does anything at all to MANDATE services for men, or in any way interrupts the total control of program (grant) funding decisions by the feminist Office for Violence Against Women.

To say something is "not prevented" (i.e. funding for men's programs and services) in no way legally REQUIRES that any changes occur, or that services shall be funded.

It's a bit like saying - "Nothing in the design of this rifle shall be construed to preclude the loading of bullets." (It means nothing, but sounds good on first blush.)

The VAWA machine fomenting anti-men, anti-women, anti-family destruction will continue and grow, undisturbed by any meaningful threats to rad-fem hegemony; and the clever politicians who will unanimously approve VAWA will be able to (honestly) state that they "supported gender-neutrality" in the bills.

Gives a whole new meaning to the term "neutralized," eh?

MRAs need to re-read Orwell and Huxley. For we now truly inhabit a world where progress means repression, freedom means slavery, and integrity means successful deception.

(roy)

 
Might Even Be Better (Score:1)
by Boy Genteel on 03:10 PM September 13th, 2005 EST (#2)
I'd even state that this "Nothing should be construed" language is better than the House language, because this doesn't leave any wiggle room, no loophole that the government can use over and over again to deny funding to male-victim shelters.


Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
Re:Might Even Be Better... Or Just Camouflage... (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 06:32 PM September 13th, 2005 EST (#3)
Boy Genteel -- That's a good point, because the Senate bill's language does not use the weasle-word phrase "unless the context unequivocally requires" otherwise.

But I'm still viewing this as a non-victory for MRAs, and here's why.

Assuming that VAWA 2005 contains some kind of language about gender-inclusiveness; and assuming that the Office for Violence Against Women will continue to control all funding for DV services – what happens next?

First of all, OVAW sets the terms for all individual grant applications and can disqualify men's services with impunity. There's no mandated funding or oversight of grants in VAWA 2005 that matters for spit.

The bill itself will have little or no impact on current court and law enforcement practices, which extensively discriminate against men and prosecute the feminist's gender war by proxy.

Just for example, how will a gender-inclusive VAWA change police practices based on "must arrest the primary aggressor" policies?

Once the primary aggressor (usually the man) has been arrested, how will a reformed VAWA change the "no-drop" prosecution of DV crimes? How will it change the current "guilty until proven innocent" court climate?

Assuming by some miracle that the accused man is found innocent, what men-focused services will be available?

There is at present absolutely no service infrastructure in place to deal with male victims of DV, other than the feminist one.

It’s possible some of the more progressive DV " batterer's treatment" services will submit grants to expand their programs to address male victims. But because most state’s guidelines require that treatment programs adhere to feminist Duluth Model ideology and practices, these services for men could not be certified unless the guidelines are changed. That means the courts might not recognize men’s DV programs as legitimate or even refer men to them.

Changing the language of VAWA 2005 may be a first step towards reforming the Domestic Violence Industry.

But without comprehensive changes in how our society understands family conflict, how the police respond, and how the courts deal with it,
the tyrannies of radical feminism will continue to command and control the field.
 
A "kinder and gentler VAWA," may be possible to imagine, but I wouldn’t want to be the first man to call 911 after it’s announced.

(roy)


Re:Might Even Be Better... Or Just Camouflage... (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 12:39 PM September 14th, 2005 EST (#4)
It’s possible some of the more progressive DV " batterer's treatment" services will submit grants to expand their programs to address male victims. But because most state’s guidelines require that treatment programs adhere to feminist Duluth Model ideology and practices, these services for men could not be certified unless the guidelines are changed. That means the courts might not recognize men’s DV programs as legitimate or even refer men to them."

I believe the lawsuit by Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men was successful. DAHM runs a shelter that accepts men.

Court Decides Abused Men and There Children Will Not Be Bullied

Ray
[an error occurred while processing this directive]