and if so what should be done about it?
For example the way it is being used in underhanded ways to win custody of children in divorce by removing father from the house and granting mom full custody. There in dragging the divorce process out for long periods of time costing dad, who usually ends up paying for moms attorney expences, thousands of dollars and in the end loosing custody of his kids. All of which could be stemmed back to the initial granting of a restraining order.
Don't try to tell me this is not so because this is my own experience. However I continue to fight because I have the money to do so and I will not bow down to a system that is stacked against me.
I am simply asking if you will recognize that VAWA is being abused by some and if you think that in order to protect women we should let this abuse continue, or you think something should be done about it. If so what should be done? Professor: I would accept your conclusion that nothing should be done with the act if there were some kind of provision or law that said shared parenting must be the way to go. This would off set the balance of this discriminating law. Or perhaps a woman would, dare I say it, face some sort of legal consequence if she makes up lies in a court of law. uhhh...nope.
thank you wikipedia is about as valuable as what in my cats litter box- the other things you post are just rants. All you are showing with your posts are presenting yourself as a victim. Report It
Maybe in some cases it is being abused- but in far more cases it is a necessary act. Men who dominated in the relationship expected to use intimidation in the divorce (some used threats etc). Should something be done about the act - NO.
I would say that a good GAL should be able to ferret out any abuses. Protection orders are a good thing.
EDIT:
But shared parenting when there is PROOF of abuse is wrong because the abusers have been shown to attempt intimidation again. (I acknowledge women can be the abusers as well). As I stated before the GAL, Guardian At Litem (an attorney appointed to represent the CHILDRENS issues) should be able to ferret out the fallacies. And a legitimate childrens issue is access to both parents, after a divorce / dissolution.
But the answer below leaves much to be desired because its a one sided view- The WSJ, Fox, and Schalfy aren't exactly unbiased sources.
Again:
That would be a criminal matter then - and the standard of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' as opposed to the "preponderance of the evidence" or the higher "clear and convincing" standard. You can't impose a civil remedy for a criminal offense. *Edit to Prof above. No they aren't unbiased sources, if you actually READ my short comment, which isn't tough as it's only about 100 words long, this is CLEARLY STATED. The material quoted is sourced from the ACLU "cons" side of VAWA and REFERENCED in source. If you bother to check the source rather than blindly commenting, you will see for yourself that it presents both sides of the debate in a considered way.
What annoys a lot of people off is when Feminist posters blindly steamroller over mens rights because they don't give a rats behind that a few men are getting walked all over because legal practitioners are not properly interpreting the law, and a sanctimonious dismissal to the effect that its just fine that men's human rights are being violated puts you in the misandrist camp. *end edit*
The act addresses serious issues, but is very much subject to abuse, and certainly is being abused.
ACLU has some interesting takes on VAWA, I am listing here only those which support your points, and in my personal opinion I think the problem is not VAWA itself but the manner in which the courts are implementing it and the near presumption of male guilt in many cases.
Instructions to courts and lawyers should be made much clearer in terms of how this law is interpretted. That would go a long way to fixing the trouble.
If you don't like long quotes now is the time to skip to the next answer.
"Cathy Young, writes in her 05/19/00 article for the Wall Street Journal entitled "High Court Ruling is Not a 'Setback' for Women":
"Under VAWA, nearly all rapes and spousal assaults are presumed, by definition, to be 'gender-motivated.' One reason orthodox feminists saw VAWA as a major achievement was that it endorsed a key tenet of their creed: that male violence against women is a form of collective political terrorism, both an expression of woman-hating and a deliberate strategy to perpetuate patriarchal dominance...
Most VAWA supporters frankly admit that the real purpose of the law is to send a message about violence against women. That message, however, is not a message of equality. It's a message that combines the traditional paternalistic belief that women deserve special protection from harm with the feminist fictions of a male 'war against women,' pitting the sexes against each other instead of treating offenders and victims as individuals."
----
Wendy McElroy, writes in her 06/30/05 article for FoxNews.com entitled "Congress Should Kill Discriminatory Domestic Violence Act":
"Largely viewed as an anti-domestic violence measure, VAWA has become a flashpoint for the men's rights advocates who see it instead as the living symbol of anti-male bias in law.
Although a significant number of domestic violence victims are male, VAWA defines victims as female. As one result, tax-funded domestic violence shelters and services assist women and routinely turn away men, often including older male children.... A lower-bound figure is provided by a recent DOJ study: Men constituted 27 percent of the victims of family violence between 1998 and 2002....
By omitting male victims from their efforts, however, domestic violence activists create the impression of a national epidemic that uniquely victimizes women who require unique protection.
I believe VAWA is not only ideologically inspired and discriminatory, it is also an example of why bureaucracy-driven solutions to human problems do not work."
----
Phyllis Schlafly, Esq., in her 07/20/05 column for EagleForum.org, entitled "Time to Defund Feminist Pork," writes
"Let's have a reality check. VAWA's gender-specific title is pejorative: it's based on the false, unscientific, unjust, and blatantly offensive premise that men are innately violent and abusive toward women, making all women victims of men....
VAWA encourages women to make false allegations, and then petition for full child custody and a denial of all fathers' rights to see their own children.... A woman seeking help from a VAWA-funded center is not offered any options except to leave her husband, divorce him, accuse him of being a criminal, and have her sons targeted as suspects in future crimes...
VAWA uses a definition of domestic violence that blurs the difference between violent action and run-of-the-mill marital tiffs and arguments. Definitions of abuse can even include minor insults and refusing to help with child care or housework...
It's time to stop VAWA from spending any more taxpayers' money to promote family dissolution and fatherless children." I can't answer your question because you have provided no evidence for anything; not even a link to this "Violence Against Women" act. Your post is confused rant. Maybe you would like to try again; that is 'what should be done'. You have not made a case either for or against anything at all. You have not made a case, period. |
