tyranny lynching concentration camp750

Why the challenge to “Violence Against Women” programs is essential

For over a year now I have been researching the US federal government’s programs under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). I have made a number of significant findings, which I introduce below, but the first thing I discovered going in was the sense of taboo and political terror guarding these programs from any critical examination.

Anyone following the “debate” in the US Congress last winter will remember the steady din of “War on Women!” that arose, overwhelming any vocal critic and castigating any serious questioner of the performance, legality and effect of the actual programs.

One might point out that this lack of reasoned dialogue, and a resorting to taunts and threats in its place, can be found surrounding any feminist initiative, such as calls for “gender quotas” in various (non-lethal) professions, or a traditional female monopoly on reproductive freedoms irrespective of everyday realities for both sexes. And, I would agree. In the case of VAWA and its passage through the 113th US Congress in 2013, to point out (just as one example) that the Act poses certain jurisdictional issues under the 10th Amendment, would be shouted down as no more than “mansplaining,” as if the concerns of a select group of people and their political objectives based on pandering to feminist dogma, somehow simply overrides the rule of law or the unforgiving logic of calm reasoning.

Seeing, on first glance, this degree of prejudice and the fear of backlash it produces, my immediate decision in doing research on VAWA was to have a hard look not at the law itself or its history as a federal statute so much as at the programs authorized by the Act, with a view toward their (once again) performance, legality and effect.

On the actual day-to-day performance of grantee functions, little evidence is available that might corroborate any claim that VAWA programs are smoothly functioning, professionally managed, financially accountable, fair-minded, law-abiding operations that properly serve the entirely supportable cause of protecting women and preventing violence against them.

What hard facts can be found tend to suggest the opposite: that VAWA grantees, even when found in violation of financial rules and other operating guidelines, are met only with “recommendations” from the federal government, that these issues are hardly (if at all) covered in the media, and that grantees are generally given carte blanche to run their everyday operations, budgets, allocations, purchases, contract procedures, etc as they see fit, and with an assurance of impunity.

As for the basis of the Act in any foundation of legality, I have argued throughout this effort (and continue to find more evidence in support of an argument) that VAWA is and has been a Constitutional outrage: that from VAWA’s early implementation, the law of the land has essentially been set aside to allow the programs to continue functioning at all. And these functions can be shown to include enough instances of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation and more, to an extent at least warranting further analysis.

VAWA grantees’ out-of-court influence on both civil and criminal cases poses hazards to multiple civil liberties as codified in the Bill of Rights (to name a few): due process, right to be confronted by an accuser, presumption of innocence, admissibility of evidence, not even to mention that the very title of the law as in favor of “women” flagrantly discriminates against men and boys in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the large body of discrimination statutes supported by the Equal Protection doctrine. (The insertion of language on “inclusiveness” has been intended to relieve this, though no evidence seems to exist that any man has actually been “included” for services designed for and run by the women’s programs and organizations that make up the bulk of the over 5000 grantees nationwide.)

Several things are obvious at the outset, in terms of effect, but an alarming lack of substantive argument defending VAWA effectiveness continues to suggest that no one really knows whether the dozens of grants programs, or their thousands of grantees under VAWA do any good or not.

During the 113th Congress we saw claims and counterclaims: some saying that VAWA needed to be re-enacted because domestic violence and sexual assaults on women were worse than ever, raising the “1 in 3” banner that few can substantiate in hardcore research, and repeating the ongoing (and demonstrably false) myth that “the vast majority of victims are women”; while others would point to various isolated statistics mostly dealing with conditions years before the initial launch of VAWA, and claim that indeed the programs are effective, that women are safer now than in 1994 when the Act was passed.

Great leaps of logic, and astonishing feats of intellectual sleight-of-hand, somehow combined these contradictory arguments into a “femsplanation”: that anyone opposing VAWA as a poor performer of services, or examining its legitimacy on legality grounds, or seeking to explore its effectiveness in empirical terms of known results, was obviously and dismissibly part of this alleged “War on Women.” (One may readily consult the volumes of research on the power of this and other false accusations).

No one essay such as this, or a more-annotated research brief than this claims to be, or even a lengthy scholarly analysis which this piece comes nowhere close to being, can explain everything there is to know about VAWA, or about the doctrinal influence it has had over other laws and programs coming into existence around the world. But in presenting this commentary I am making this argument:

We, as guardians of the male future, must look further and deeper, and see what VAWA as a law, as a vast complex of programs, and as a political philosophy, really is and really does.

There is no shortage of scholarly critique, largely authored by female academics (a sad reflection of the political terror on men for speaking up at all to oppose or criticize VAWA) saying again and again, and going back twenty years, that at best VAWA is well-intentioned but not particularly effective, and at worst, that it amounts to an insertion of political feminism into the legal and criminal justice systems.

My own view is that VAWA programs represent a kind of power plant for political feminism:

As long as the threat exists over men, of our livelihoods, families and achievements being dismantled by the legal system on the strength of uncorroborated accusations against us, no opposition to any other encroachments by feminist dogma on our lives as men will be effective.

To continue chipping away at “cultural misandry” without taking the hard, necessary look at just how this form of INSTITUTIONAL MISANDRY does its work every day (and has been for twenty years), is to hope that somehow political feminism will collapse under this current onslaught of improvised and poorly-coordinated argumentation, and it also is to choose against finding and presenting the hard evidence showing that:

In any decent, civil society, the politics of radicalizing one sex against the other has no right to stand at all.

Further reading and resource material on Antimisandry forums:

The VAWA Reading Room (ongoing)
The global reason to oppose VAWA
The VAWA10Q Inquiries: a national campaign
USA: Where does VAWA grant money GO?
The case against VAWA: a project of activism
VAWA research: the basics
USA: WOMEN opposing VAWA (LONG list)
VAWA and PAS: making the connections
US v Ciavarella: MAJOR ruling on judicial immunity


Editor’s note: like the linked and referenced items, this article in its original form first appeared on Anti-Misandry. –DE

About Ron Collins

Ron Collins has been an observer of sexual politics for some years, and is a regular at the Anti-Misandry forums as "Rof L Mao Esq."

View All Posts
  • Mr. J

    A real eye-opener for me was when I lived near an “abuse shelter” and watched as one of the “residents” bought drugs and prostituted up and down the street every day and night getting in and out of cars.(a white girl)
    Of course, all this is in place because feminists got down to business over the last 40 years while most men pissed away their time with pastimes, ignoring the fact that their rights were steadily eroding..

    • Duke

      Sure, Ive also noticed the domestic violence shelter for women down the street is a “Crack house”.
      Im sure If American law enforcement were sued under a subpoena to tell us the truth…this would in fact be ubiquitous.

  • markis1

    i know a woman who was arrested for DV ,her husband bailed her out of jail and she went strait to a DV shelter.

    • The Real Peterman

      I hope that means she will stop attacking him.

    • Duke

      Its almost as if these domestic violence shelters for women, are like Federally funding the spread of the violent matriarchy.
      We do know many other “Over-bloated” American bureaucracies “”…..create a problem ,and sell us a cure that doesn’t work.””””…..Why not American law enforcement Also????
      There distinct to America, they are called “entrepreneurial bureaucracies.”

  • East1956

    It occurs to me on this side of the pond that VAWA, even from the feminists perspective, has little do with actually addressing the issues that female victims of IPV face. Rather it reinforces the concept of women as being the primary and effectively exclusive victims of IPV, and assures a flow of public funding for initiatives & programmes that provide employment for the exponents of this particular paradigm. In effect one might say that it is public funding for a political movement. The same exists across the English speaking world and elsewhere.
    Even though decades of statistics and evidence demonstrates quite clearly that males & females are equally likely to be victims & perpetrators of all kinds of abuse in relationships, the feminist movement has been extraordinarily successful in persuading societies at large of their assertions.
    It is this I believe that feminists inadvertently display a core characteristic of feminism that being a reliance on highly entrenched “patriarchal” values that posits women as being weak and men strong. Despite feminism’s claims of social reform and advancement, it is as though feminists are seeking a reversion to the early 19th century condition wherein a man was held culpable in law for his wife’s actions. Were feminists really interested in women assuming the positions of authority and responsibility that were formerly the exclusive preserve of men, then they should be promoting the concept that women are equally capable as subjecting their partners to abuse as men and demanding that women take responsibility for their actions equally with men. (if we look at Zionism as an emancipatory nationalist movement, there is pride in escaping the confines of social presumption.) I would interpret the feminist demand that women are understood as past, present and future victims perpetually denied agency by an amorphous entity that encompasses all non-female humans as the perpetually oppressive and abusive “Patriarchy”. Thus women’s actions that may contribute to the final violent act by the man can be discounted.
    What is fascinating is how feminists have formed immensely powerful networks to influence public policy, that in the commercial world anti-trust legislation seeks to prevent. VAWA is simply an element of this. If we look at Law & Order, Health, Education and Welfare, the same absence of gender balance exists. In the USA males are required to register themselves for what is in reality enslavement by the state under the guise of “national service” – enslavement because service personnel cease to own their own bodies and may be compelled to perform acts they would otherwise decline to carry out. Were this registration regarded universally as a core component of citizenship (i.e. membership of the community) then women too would be obliged to participate under the same terms as equals before the law.
    The USA is an open democracy with a free press, and yet a political faction without direct participation in the electoral process is able to exert influence in such a way that the consequences are counter to the interests of the majority. It is possibly akin to a McCarthyite nightmare of fifth columnists, subversives and fellow travelers infiltrating government to surrender the nation to the enemy.
    The challenge in combating insidious feminist influence upon public policy in the first place is to understand exactly how feminism acquired such a position of power. This now extraordinarily powerful faction is at present impervious to the presentation of facts and evidence. I think what has to be shown is how VAWA and other similar public policies are in fact inimical to the interests of women. So long as the feminist elites can rely on the unquestioning support of the political communities then it is difficult to see how VAWA etc can be reversed. Whatever happens it will be a very unpleasant struggle because while feminism may have achieved its position of power with little or no blood-letting, it will not relinquish it peacefully. Not only does feminism want what it has now, it’s clear that it wants more & more power and control over resources, regardless of the consequences for women or men.

    • The Real Peterman

      “yet a political faction without direct participation in the electoral process is able to exert influence in such a way that the consequences are counter to the interests of the majority”

      It’s like the old joke about the two campers who wake up to find a hungry tiger sniffing around their tent, and one of them begins to put on his running shoes the other says “Oh yeah, like you can outrun a tiger!” to which his companion replies “I don’t have to outrun the tiger, I just have to outrun you!” Feminists are a small minority of the population, but until an equivalent or greater number of people stand up to them they will have their way.

      • East1956

        Feminists, if understood as the entirety that participates actively & passively in its activities, is far from being small minority. In many respects in my experience feminism is like an iceberg – you readily see the 12.5% above the water that are seemingly very vocal, aggressive and active. It’s the other 7/8ths beneath the surface that daily interpret and implement strategies and policies in accordance with the feminist ideals. Whether that is a triage nurse in an A&E / ER ward who records injuries to a woman as evidence of IPV; the Primary / Elementary school principal who refuses to hire male teachers; the classroom teacher who discriminates against boys; the local administration official who applies feminist criteria to youth activity funding grants to discriminate against traditional boys activities; or the doctors receptionist who acts differently toward men and present an unwelcoming atmosphere to them: each one these is implementing feminist ideals even if they are unaware of it. They certainly are not a small minority.
        Partly from inspired by Leninist ~ Maoist teachings that were widely read in the 50’s & 60’s, feminists understood that power could be obtained better by subversion than direct assault, and an understanding that government is actually largely directed by its administrations rather than its elected officials: feminism set out to secure critical positions in developing & implementing public policy. Whereas women formed powerful networked relationships in their teens, feminists recognised that men did not; and as consequence feminists used these coalitions to advance the group being willing to compromise immediate individual interest to obtain overall long term advantage.
        In addition society popularly held that girls were inherently morally superior to boys, and that boys required conditioning to accept certain social values. So we beat boys who failed to accord to those behavioural standards and regarded girl’s transgressions as mere momentary aberrations. The consequence of this was that boys took publicly accepted standards into work life and largely conformed to them. In my observation as women progressed into positions of power and influence it was evident that they did not share in those values. The means justified the ends, and they did not expect to be held accountable. Even if challenged they found justification in the alleged millennia of male oppression. Through the 1980’s they absorbed values that permitted selfish and often destructive behaviour that popularly was associated with the film “Wall Street”, but was in fact the Anglo-saxon political & social values of Reaganism / Thatcherism.
        From 1992 to around 2007/8 I was involved in various public sector reform activities in UK. Repeatedly I and my colleagues encountered evidence of corruption and conspiracy involving women public servants. This was not directly financial, but in perverting the system to ensure that one of the network members progressed to a higher position and often a non-network member (male / female) was driven out.
        If you doubt the power of these feminists in the public sector; in UK every officer has access to the Office for National Statistics data to inform policy. This is where the data for UK that is quoted here comes from. Yet despite this wealth of information officers repeatedly present and recommend to politicians policies that are skewed in favour of women, and no one within the system challenges it.

    • Duke

      “In effect one might say that it is public funding for a political movement. “,………….. for sure… American gender-feminism is now indirectly federally funded!!..

  • http://blog.StudioBrule.com Steve Brulé

    It’s just so depressing to watch feminism grow like a cancer, spreading hatred, anger, lies and mistrust, right around the globe. It’s like watching all the machinery of a totalitarian regime being built to enslave their target, and the few who recognize the dangers cannot be heard over the screams for blood.

    • MGTOW-man

      We have a lot of men to change! When we do, bull like this wil be stopped.

      Change men, change the world!

      • Duke

        Challenge the US gender-feminist stronghold…which is the manufactured statistics Alliances that have poisoned American law enforcement.

    • East1956

      While I too find it frustrating & depressing that feminism obtains so much power so easily, we as men basically facilitate it by failing to act in unison. It seems to me that we have no sense of fraternity as the equivalent of the feminist sisterhood. Instead our primary self-definition is determined by a succession of obligations to dependent women & children and then society at large. It is how we are conditioned from birth. In this hierarchy we place our immediate self-interest at almost the lowest level.
      Consequently feminists simply exploit our immediate instinct to provide them space and resources, as we do for our partners & dependents.
      We have to learn to say “No!”, and deal with the barrage of emotive language, that we currently struggle with, that feminist use repeatedly to “win” the argument.
      We also need to understand that girls & women are not conditioned to set aside their self-interests in the same we are, and so they encounter no inhibition to exploiting situations for their own selfish purposes.

  • MGTOW-man

    Since “inclusiveness”— bogus as it has turned out to be— is now part of the language of this unconstitutional law, isn’t this good grounds to sue? If men would snap out of their lapse of good judgement stupors here and bring suit for not receiving equal treatment in all ways as women are when abused domestically, it will eventually make it to the supreme court (circus). If the supreme court doesn’t rule in favor of the constitution which will end this anit-male law, then such will prove it is a biased agenda…and then other measures will be needed to bring this hate-law to extermination.

    The time is here. If there is a man out there, or if you know some who are abused by women domestically, please encourage them to sue the levels of government all the way to the top. If money is needed to finance this expensive endeavor, then if each one of us gives a single dollar to this cause, we could have untold millions to make fairness and true equality prevail.

    This is an outrage and has been an outrage from the outset. WE all must act to make this thing go away.

    Folks, let’s roll!

    We all know how this thing passed in the first place? No?

    It passed because men are terrorized into submission when even a drunken cat on crack can clearly see that the laws are uncontitutional in several ways.

    Men, it is time you grow the courage to stop being so foolishly over-competitive for women as to allow stupid and senseless things that will and DOES seriously hurt your own futures as well as your boys’.

    What kind of man undermines his own self and his boys…in an atmosphere that lets women hit on him and for his boys to see that violence?

    The domestic cycle of violence is a full circle, not a semi-circle, as feminists want us all to believe. For safety to prevail, both men and women must stop their violence but it is women who continue to fail in their proving of their equality in that they aren’t even equal enough to check their own impulses to punish and control the men who won’t obey them.

    We men and women here are not trying to reduce help for women when they need it against violence. What we want is for men to be treated equally.

    We also want women to quit hitting us too. What the hell is so wrong with that?

    After all it is monkey see, monkey do! Do women really want to be safer or do they want to punish and control?

    MHRA’s!! LET’S ROLL! It is time for change!

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/MrShadowfax42 John Ridgeway

    Ron, great article exposing the corruption and deceit behind this nasty virus of a programme.

    I’ve been editing a video recently and so have had the unpleasant task of going through youtube footage of women beating men. The ferocity of some of the attacks is astounding, as is the meek way that the man just seems to accept it in every case, even when they are being physically prevented from leaving the scene.

    Because of that, I’d like to add the “No man should ever hit a woman” propaganda to the list of considerations.

    The casual way that this mantra is repeated is disgusting. It removes from men – and only men – the right to self-defence against over half of the total population. It seems to me that this is the kind of culture that allows horrific crimes like this to happen: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/woman-gets-life-for-murdering-husband-225599.html

    If you are interested, the finished video I created is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5nw4pX3PsI .
    (it has been updated from the original posted here at AVfM as I thought it could be improved). Bear in mind it contains some pretty disturbing scenes. Disturbing to us, at least. Not sure Obama or David Beckham would care.

  • http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com Robert St. Estephe

    Meet Barbara Hunt: Moron —

    (and one of the major architects of VAWA).

    The central myth of MISANDRY: “the inherent non-violence of women”

    • The Real Peterman

      That link isn’t working for me. Of course, if women are so non-violent, I guess they have no place in the police or the military, right?

  • The Real Peterman

    On a somewhat related note, there’s a petition out to get the White House to do more to protect victims of sexual violence, from the same group that pushed the president to take his sudden interest in that topic:


    “4 out of the 5 goals the president directed to his task force came directly from our demands last summer” they write. Good for them!

    Signing the petition with “Mickey Mouse” or “Garfield T. Cat” might be amusing, but it won’t help them!

    • The Real Peterman

      ” the past two years have brought a deluge of evidence that sexual violence is a staple of U.S. higher education” the petitioneers write, and as evidence they offer a newspaper article about some idiotic behavior by a few frat boys at Yale, and one woman’s story of being raped. Now that’s a deluge.

      • Duke

        Its only a “Deluge” If American gender-feminist journalists are constructing the story.

        • Duke

          Which just happens to be the “American big 5″ media who have a near monopoly on constructing the American opinion.

  • Duke

    The bottom line is here folks, perversions to American law enforcement are turning heter0-relationships into legal liabilities for guys. The results with reverberate around the world.

  • http://blog.StudioBrule.com Steve Brulé

    Duke makes a very good point.

    Feminists coined the term “heteronormativity.” (I don’t know why I should be surprised that heterosexuality is more common than other sexualities, but I digress)

    I propose a new word:

    Heteroliability …

    …. to refer to the spectrum of risks and liabilities that men incur when they enter into a heterosexual relationship.

    Paul, Dean, anyone … interested in adopting and promoting the use of this new word ?

    • Duke

      Steve, i will start using the term “heteroliabilty”

    • ronthebuilder

      I love new words; another one (not exactly new but due for a revival) is “matronizing”, which I have been trying to promote. I like “heteroliability”, that’s a good one.

  • Mickster66

    If you haven’t seen this it’s worth checking out: http://www.examiner.com/article/domestic-violence-may-not-be-what-you-think-it-is

    • East1956

      In a similar vein, this link will take you to one of the leading service providers for IPV in London. It is funded by public money to deliver local services in various boroughs. It differs little from other service providers like Solace. It offers services for men & women, which you should check out and then compare. http://www.dvip.org/services-for-men-women.htm

      But fortunately all is not entirely doom & gloom, Here’s a link to a UK service if you know someone who might benefit http://www.mensadviceline.org.uk/mens_advice.php.html

  • Duke

    The perversions and manufactured statistics Alliances that have consumed American law enforcement are a stain on American law enforcement that will not wash off easily.