Ignoring the mountain of evidence that women initiate physical violence nearly as often as men, VAWA has more than 60 passages in its lengthy text that exclude men from its benefits. For starters, the law’s title should be changed to Partner Violence Reduction Act, and the words “and men” should be added to those 60 sections.
The law should be rewritten to deal with the tremendous problem of false accusations so that its priority can be to help real victims. A Centers for Disease Control survey found that half of all partner violence was mutual, and 282 scholarly studies reported that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men.
Currently used definitions of domestic violence that are unacceptably trivial include calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress,” or just not doing what your partner wants. The law’s revision should use an accurate definition of domestic violence that includes violence, such as: “any act or threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention of an individual, which results or threatens to result in physical injury.”
Women who make domestic violence accusations are not required to produce evidence and are never prosecuted for perjury if they lie. Accused men are not accorded fundamental protections of due process, not considered innocent until proven guilty, and in many cases, are not afforded the right to confront their accusers.
Legal assistance is customarily provided to women but not to men. Men ought to be entitled to equal protection of the law because many charges are felonies and could result in prison and loss of money, job, and reputation.
Feminist recipients of VAWA handouts lobby legislators, judges and prosecutors on the taxpayers’ dime (which is contrary toSection 1913 of Title 18, U.S. Code), and the results are generally harmful to all concerned. This lobbying has resulted in laws calling for mandatory arrest (i.e., the police must arrest someone; guess who), of the predominant aggressor (i.e., ignore the facts and assume the man is the aggressor), and no-drop prosecution (i.e., prosecute the man even if the woman has withdrawn her accusation or refuses to testify).
I think this is something that most people never even think about. But we could agree that violence against women is terrible, but still not endorse the feminist-inspired VAWA law as the solution to the problem.
Here’s a fine article on the long-term consequences of feminism, written by Carolyn Moynihan at MercatorNet. (H/T Mary)
Excerpt:
Despite decades of feminism and gender role revision, we are still more shocked when mothers neglect, abuse and especially kill their children. But one does not have to look far into the lives of most of these women to find that the other side of the sexual revolution — what’s politely known as the “evolution” of the family — has played a significant role.
Casey Anthony is a single mother, living with her own parents, the father of her child nowhere to be seen, although there have been rumours of incest. Macsyna King was cohabiting with her twins’ father, Chris Kahui.
The stresses of single parenthood, with or without boyfriends, are well known. And the dangers of cohabitation for children are becoming clearer all the time. A recent US federal government study of child abuse and neglect shows the dramatically increased risks for children living in a home where there is an unrelated boyfriend — and even with their own parents if they are cohabiting. Sociologist Brad Wilcox comments:
This new federal study indicates that these cases are simply the tip of the abuse iceberg in American life. According to the report, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents. Likewise, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are six times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. In other words, one of the most dangerous places for a child in America to find himself in is a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend—especially when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself.
But children living with their own father and mother do not fare much better if their parents are only cohabiting. The federal study of child abuse found that children living with their cohabiting parents are more than four times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than their peers living in a home headed by their married parents. And they are three times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. In other words, a child is not much safer when she is living in a home with her parents if her parents’ relationship does not enjoy the legal, social, and moral status and guidance that marriage confers on relationships.
So how does it work?
Well, Mrs. Moynihan is right to talk about the sexual revolution as a cause of the problems that children face. The whole point of third-wave feminism is for women to have recreational sex “like men” and to pursue their careers “like men” – at the expense of marriage and parenting. The kinds of men that women will choose today for this recreational sex are completely different from the kinds of men that women used to choose when they wanted protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders. And that’s why women end up having sex with men who are not qualified to be husbands and fathers. Today, men who want to get married and to have a mother for their children are to be avoided. All of their demands on women to be wives and mothers are just “too strict”.
If a woman’s goal is recreational sex and a career, then she won’t choose a man who has demonstrated his ability to perform traditional husband/father roles. She will choose a man who is physically attractive, entertaining, non-judgmental and who won’t expect her to be a wife and mother. That’s why courting has been replaced with binge-drinking, hooking up and co-habitating. Religion, chastity and economics are out, and drinking, hook-ups and abortions are in. The problem is that when women choose to drift into relationships that start with selfish recreational sex, instead of with chastity and courting, then any children who happen along are more likely to be abused, neglected and impoverished.
The most important thing to many women who have been influenced by feminism is that they are happy all the time. And they think that they can extend their selfish pursuit of happiness into a lasting relationship – that men and children will somehow celebrate their selfishness. For some women, if the demands of children and men don’t make them happy, then they can just abort the children and divorce the men for any reason. What abortion really amounts to in practice is the refusal by women to be selective about who they have sex with, followed by the willingness to kill in order to avoid having their own happiness diminished by having to care for babies. And abortion is supported by many women today. (Men are slightly more pro-life than women)
Roommates of Casey Anthony’s former boyfriend described on Wednesday how the Florida mother partied at nightclubs and remained outgoing after her 2-year-old daughter’s death on June 16, 2008.
“She seemed normal. Happy. Like everything was fine,” said Nathan Lezniewicz on the second day of testimony in Casey Anthony’s first-degree murder trial in Orlando.
The case has gained national attention and drawn TV personalities including Nancy Grace and Geraldo Rivera to the courtroom. Casey Anthony, 25, faces the death penalty if convicted.
Prosecutors contend that she suffocated daughter Caylee Marie Anthony by wrapping duct tape around her head, nose and mouth. During opening statements Tuesday, the defense said the toddler drowned in the Anthony family’s backyard pool and no one alerted police about the accident.
Caylee wasn’t reported missing until July 15, 2008, by her grandmother, Cindy Anthony, who called 911 and told the dispatcher she had not seen the little girl for a month.
Lezniewicz roomed at the time with Casey’s then-boyfriend Tony Lazzaro and two other young college men at an Orlando apartment.
Lezniewicz said he was at a local nightclub when Casey entered a “hot body” contest. Jurors saw a photograph of her and Lezniewicz grinning at the club.
“She was partying, having a good time,” testified Roy “Clint” House, another roommate.
Today, many women don’t want men who tell her what’s right and what’s true – especially about religion and morality. Those men are “too strict” and “too demanding” – they tell her about the moral obligations that women have to husbands and children, and she doesn’t want to hear or have to do anything about it. As I argued before, it’s important to understand that encouraging women to make better decisions about men and sexual activity as part of the effort to protect children, born and unborn.
This debate wasn’t just enlightening, it was entertaining. I am a software engineer and I work all day with software engineers. It makes me feel funny when I am the only one at work who follows the research on marriage and parenting and about no-fault divorce and cohabitation and same-sex marriage. I am so passionate about this, because I believe that children have legitimate needs and we need to care about those needs. I really don’t care as much about the needs of adults and their stupid careers as much as I care about children growing up with attentive, available mothers and fathers.
On April 21, 2011 at 7:30pm at UCF’s Health and Public Affairs Building (Room 119), Rollins College professor, Dr. Eric Smaw and author and seminary professor Dr. Michael L. Brown will debate the question “Should same sex marriage be legalized in America?” The event will be held at 4000 Central Florida Blvd and is open to the public. After the formal portion of the debate, Brown and Smaw will field questions from the audience.
About the speakers:
Dr. Smaw will be responding in the affirmative. He earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Law from the University of Kentucky in 2005. His areas of expertise are philosophy of law, international law, human rights, ethics, and modern philosophy. He has published articles on human rights, terrorism, and cosmopolitanism. His most recent publication is “Swaying in the Balance: Civil Liberties, National Security, and Justice in Times of Emergency”.
Dr. Brown will be responding in the negative. He earned his Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is a nationally known evangelical lecturer and radio host. He is the author of numerous scholarly articles and twenty books, including the recently published study “A Queer Thing Happened to America”, which is quickly being recognized as the definitive work on the history and effects of gay activism on American culture.
There is no compelling reasons by the state should change the definition of marriage
The reason the state conveys benefits for marriage is because marriage is beneficial for the state
Traditional marriage is recognized by the state for several reasons:
– it domesticates men
– it protects women
– it provides a stable, nurturing environment for children
Marriage has three public purposes:
– to bind men and women together for RESPONSIBLE procreation
– to get the benefit
– to provide children with two parents who are bonded to them biologically
– to create the next generation of people to keep the society going
Normally, opposite sex couples create children
Homosexual couples can NEVER create children together
Men and women are differences that are complementary
Monogamy is the norm for opposite sex couples.
For gay men, open relationships / cheating is the norm.
This is because women have a tempering effect on sexuality.
There is no evidence that recognizing same-sex civil unions and marriages have changed this trend.
Same-sex marriage guarantees that children will either not have a father or a mother
So which of the sexes is dispensable when raising children?
For example, consider Dawn Stefanowicz, who grew up with a gay father and no mother
She never got a chance to see a man model love and protect a women within a marriage
That makes an enormous difference in a woman’s life – in the way she relates to men
Even with scientific advancements, every baby has a mother and a father
If we change the definition of marriage so that it is based on consent, then why limit it to just two people
If marriage is not the union of male and female, then why have only TWO people
In Canada, you have civil liberties lawyers arguing for for polygamy
In the United States, Professor David Epstein was in a consensual relationship with his daughter
Should incestuous relationships also be celebrated as marriage? Why not?
Should polyamorous relationships also be celebrated as marriage? Why not?
Sexual orientation is not the same as race
Men are women are different in significant ways, but different races are not
You need separate bathrooms for men and women, but not for people of different races
Summary of Dr. Smaw’s opening speech: (He ended his speech after only 10 minutes)
You can redefine marriage so that it no longer based on the public purposes he mentioned (controlling procreation, fusing complementary male and female natures, providing children with mothers and fathers who are biologically linked to them, providing children with a comparatively stable development environment that offers comparatively less instability, promiscuity and domestic violence rates compared to cohabitation, etc.), but is instead based on consent and feelings, and that redefinition of marriage won’t open marriage up to polygamy, polyamory, etc.
If you like feminism, then you should allow same-sex marriage
If you like abortion rights, then you should allow same-sex marriage
Homosexuals participate in society by working at various jobs, so they are participating in society
Homosexuals should be given the same tax breaks as married people because they work at various jobs for money
Working at a job for money achieves the same public purpose as procreating and staying together to raise children in a stable environment
You can listen to the rest for the rebuttals, and cross-examination. Oh yes – there was cross-examination! It starts two thirds of the way through Part 5, if you want to jump to it. And sparks were flying! There is also Q&A from the audience of students.
This is such a great debate – I love to hear two passionate guys disagreeing about something. I love to hear both sides of the issues. There is always something to learn by listening to the other side. It makes me more effective and more tolerant when I stand up to defend my side of the argument.
WINTERY KNIGHT 