Why VAWA Matters
This web video from the Obama campaign highlights the importance of the Violence Against Women Act (and, of course, Joe Biden's role in its passage):
(Trigger warning.)
Related:
Quick Hit: Biden and VAWA
Meet Joe Biden
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why VAWA Matters.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9993
@Fash: I'm not sure what the statistics are like in the area the article refers to, but in the domestic violence organization I work for, something like 89% of our clients are women.
(For the record: we treat everyone who is being abused, regardless of gender. However, since the women in our shelters often find it triggering to live with men, we find alternative housing for male victims. They have the same access to our supportive services as women do, and I'm confused and saddened that the Sacramento DV agency didn't offer any alternative solutions.)
You can read the Sacramento decision here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C056072.PDF
Appeals court decision supports battered men
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, October 16, 2008
(10-15) 18:36 PDT SACRAMENTO -- California domestic violence laws violate men's rights because they provide state funding only for women and their children who use shelters and other programs, a state appeals court has ruled.
The decision by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento requires the programs to be available to male as well as female victims of domestic violence. The court said the services don't have to be equal - an agency could maintain a battered-women's shelter while giving men vouchers to stay at hotels, for example - but both sexes must have access to the programs.
The ruling overturned a Sacramento County judge's decision to uphold the laws on the ground that women are more likely than men to be victims of domestic violence and to suffer more serious injuries.
Good video... But am I the only one who bristled a little at the part where she talks about how we need them to protect us? "If they don't do it, who will?" All I could think was, honey, we have to do it for ourselves.
My browser isn't working properly now so I can't see the video...
Thanks Rona for the link from the California ruling.
Transcript:
Woman (I don't think it ever gives her name):
I have this little scar, I don't know if you can see it, but it's right here, and that's where the bullet entered. And it came out right here above my eye.
Bonnie Campbell: Every human being has certain fundamental rights. The most fundamental is the right to just be secure in our person. Period.
W: About 5 years ago I met this guy, his name was Derek Morris and we went to high school together, we were HS sweethearts, we lived the HS dream.
BC: Somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 women will experience violence in their lifetime.
W: Right after HS I became pregnant, we moved in together and he started becoming abusive verbally, after a while it became physical.
BC: Even today, people will say to me, you know, I just hate that battery happens but why don't those women leave?
W: I didn't know how to leave, I was scared for my life, for my son's life.
BC: Can we guarantee their safety when they leave? Until recently, I'd say go where?
W: Eventually I did leave him. But he was coming to my work, he was harassing me. He has broken out three windows of my car, my mom's back window in her car. Then he came to my work and poured gasoline inside me car.
BC: It used to be if you were a battered woman and somehow were able to call the police or someone else called the police, they might very well say "What did you do to provoke him this time?"
W: I made various claims with the county sheriff dept, and various other county PDs. It was ridiculous. The chief of police knew my name, it was that ridiculous.
August 19th '06 was the day my life changed. All of a sudden I heard this noise, my body was vibrating, it was weird. And I realised, he had shot me.
I woke four days later in ICU. They had covered all the mirrors in my room, even the paper towel cannister because it could show my reflection. I remember going to get a CT scan and I saw a mirror and I looked. I didn't know who it was in the mirror.
Obama: Change means having a vice president who spent his career working to improve women's lives.
BC: I met Joe Biden a long time ago because he was working on these issues. He wrote the Violence Against Women Act years before it passed. Every year he tried to get hearings and get it passed, and everybody said they were for it, but the truth was, they weren't. The votes weren't there, until Clinton got elected in 92. It was really the first time the federal government had ever spoken to issues of domestic violence.
W: My ex was sentenced through that act and he was punished through that act and he got 25 years. For 25 years I'm care free, I can watch my son grow into a man, I can ensure my safety and his.
BC: Senator Biden more passionately than anybody I know personally, with the power of his person, changed the narrative on violence against women.
W: If it wasnt for Biden my ex might still be out there, calling my phone, breaking my windows, taking my son for weeks without me seeing him. Now I realise my son won't have a father, but he has his mother, he has me.
Obama: Joe Biden wrote the VAWA, so we finally treat DV as the hate crime it is. And incase you're wondering, John McCain voted against that legislation.
W: I was always for Obama, but when he added Biden it sweetened the deal because there was an advocate for women. He was trying to protect us the whole time. If it werent for him, no telling if my ex would have got as much time as he did, if the judge would have even cared.
BC: I just trust Barack Obama and Joe Biden to do it right, and the consequences of not doing it right for women are breathtaking.
W: I'm so glad that Joe Biden and Barack Obama speak up for us, because without them who would do it? Who would be our voice? Who would try for us?
I came home and I just looked a wreck, but my son didn't make me feel like one, he made me feel like I was still a princess. Nothing mattered as long as his mommy was there. That was the moment I was really thankful I was still alive.
@ SadieWest: Totally bristled as well at the "protect" bit! Like, yes we need someone with access to that sort of power to do that, but why characterise it in such a paternalist way? Apart from that, it's a very well put together video, and I'm glad they mentioned that McCain voted against it, cos I was curious. I'd heard that before, but never really realised the full magnitude of that vote.
People say "Why doesn't she just leave?"
I say, "Why doesn't he just stop abusing her?"
Wow.
I already voted Obama-Biden, but if I hadn't yet, this would have definitely convinced me. Very powerful.
wow, that was an extremely powerful video.
and no, I didn't bristle at the part about protection. Considering she was referring to legal protection, which can only occur if the government puts the necessary laws into place, I don't think it's demeaning to say victims of violence need government protection.
I agree with more.joy.less.shame. I didn't see it as being paternalistic, I saw it as a nod that Biden (and I suppose the Clinton administration) was on her side, was the voice for battered women in Congress. None of Biden's work has seemed paternalistic, he's not trying to protect women because he thinks they are weak/helpless. He is doing so because he has the power and knows it's important. Because he listened to women and took their lives seriously. She did what she could and Biden did what he could and together they achieved a better outcome for her son than either could have done alone.
hello
Why'd he only get 25 years for attempted murder? Because it was "a domestic" (as law enforcement casually refer to gender-based violence on the radio) rather than "attempted murder"? Men choosing to commit violence is a men's issue. This video did NOT address that. This video perpetuates the deflection of responsibility of men's choices. What is so domestic about violence? Scrap the extraneous title and call it what it is: assault. Scrap all the incompetent misogynistic cops who don't get it, either. Prevention is stopping the perpetration, not teaching people how to be weary. This video is not paternalistic. It is condescending.
It is interesting that you are somehow able to find misogyny in a sea of misandry. It doesn't matter if cops are, as you say, misogynists or not. The destructive, sexist policies put in place by the VAWA which have neither the ability, desire, or intent to prevent FAMILY VIOLENCE, do not allow any officer any real discretion but to arrest the man, whether there is any actual violence or not. If you do not believe this you are simply naive. Often the woman who called is victimized by this unstoppable process because she was naive enough to think the police or the legal system allegedly looking out for her would actually help calm down a situation before it possibly got out of control instead of arresting her spouse as a violent dangerous criminal when that was the last thing she wanted. But Joe Biden knows her life better than her and he knows it is best to disregard all logic and reason and continue to prosecute him against her will as if he were the devil himself. This way, the state can divvy up the federal funds they get for each "successful arrest and prosecution" and after breaking the family financially psychologically and emotionally, the community is a safer place.
aideenjohnston,
thanks for the transcript.
I really like the idea of anti-domestic violence laws. However, I am very uncomfortable with VAWA as it's written and implemented. First of all, as a strong and independent woman, I really resent VAWA's creeping paternalism - as in, "there, there, we can protect you, you're not responsible, you're just a weak woman". Joe Biden is not my father or my older brother. I don't need their fucking protection! It's the attitude that women are weak and powerless that leads Republicans to try to pass laws to control my body. It's the cult of victimization. As a woman and a second wave feminist (I'm well over 40) I truly bristle at the notion that all women are victims or potential victims.
McCain and others voted against the VAWA because it was (and is) blatantly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed in US v. Morrison, and struck down the major remedial item of the VAWA.
I bristle at the reality that all women are potential victims of male violence.
Could someone explain to me why it was only the existence of VAWA that made the guy get 25 years? Wouldn't he have been sentenced for attempted murder anyway? Maybe attempted murder only results in a few years, I don't know. I'd really appreciate someone explaining why in this particular case, VAWA mattered so much. Cheers.
I was on YouTube yesterday and I came across a comment that said Biden was sexist against men because of VAWA. Wait, he doesn't think men should be allowed to batter their wives or girlfriends so that means he hates men? Is battering women part of being male because if it is I completely missed something here.
You clearly missed alot but then that is not in any way surprising to me. VAWA is sexist simply by it's name, for starters. Who could possibly commit such a heinous act?? Only a man. Do we have credible science based statistics to prove with unbiased empirical evidence showing that men are predisposed to violence against women?? No we don't, what we do have are reams of manufactured and patently false devisive feminist propaganda upon which laws that protect no one and daily not only infringe upon the rights of hard working non-violent men, but are an absolute affront to our constitution. It also has been shown in a HARVARD study to increase violence or actually create violence where none existed before. But don't let logic or reason get in the way of your uninformed opinions. Check out the l;iterally hundreds of science based studies and surveys including the national crime victims survey; the largest and most comprehensive unbiased survey/study available and you may be surprised to find who is violent to who and who is being hurt by who as well. But try as you might, you will be unable to refute these facts, instead, you will resort to ignorant emotion based arguments that dance around the truth with fingers in ears going "la la la la, I can't hear you!!!!!"
You missed the literally hundreds of science based uinbiased studies and surveys showing who instigates and perpetrates violence on who and the results of said violence. But then, you weren't looking for them, you were looking for a way to bash men. The name alone is sexist as it infers that only men can hurt women and we need new special laws that bypass due process to protect the ones more likely to instigate violence in the first place. You miss the fact that while partner violence is proven time and again to be split down the middle, that 80% to 90% of people arrested are men. This is sexist, unconstitutional, and an absolute affront to the democratic process and common sense. But rather thatn being able to refute any of the hundreds of studies including a recent study showing mandatory arrest and no drop prosecution increases partner homicide and creates violence where none existed before, you will undoubtedly resort to ignorant emotion based arguments and stick your fingers in your ears saying"lalalala I can't hear the truth." You assume every man arrested for domestic assault actually assaulted his spouse. There are so many things you seem to have missed that there is not room to list them here.
You missed the literally hundreds of science based uinbiased studies and surveys showing who instigates and perpetrates violence on who and the results of said violence. But then, you weren't looking for them, you were looking for a way to bash men. The name alone is sexist as it infers that only men can hurt women and we need new special laws that bypass due process to protect the ones more likely to instigate violence in the first place. You miss the fact that while partner violence is proven time and again to be split down the middle, that 80% to 90% of people arrested are men. This is sexist, unconstitutional, and an absolute affront to the democratic process and common sense. But rather thatn being able to refute any of the hundreds of studies including a recent study showing mandatory arrest and no drop prosecution increases partner homicide and creates violence where none existed before, you will undoubtedly resort to ignorant emotion based arguments and stick your fingers in your ears saying"lalalala I can't hear the truth." You assume every man arrested for domestic assault actually assaulted his spouse. There are so many things you seem to have missed that there is not room to list them here.
You missed the literally hundreds of science based uinbiased studies and surveys showing who instigates and perpetrates violence on who and the results of said violence. But then, you weren't looking for them, you were looking for a way to bash men. The name alone is sexist as it infers that only men can hurt women and we need new special laws that bypass due process to protect the ones more likely to instigate violence in the first place. You miss the fact that while partner violence is proven time and again to be split down the middle, that 80% to 90% of people arrested are men. This is sexist, unconstitutional, and an absolute affront to the democratic process and common sense. But rather thatn being able to refute any of the hundreds of studies including a recent study showing mandatory arrest and no drop prosecution increases partner homicide and creates violence where none existed before, you will undoubtedly resort to ignorant emotion based arguments and stick your fingers in your ears saying"lalalala I can't hear the truth." You assume every man arrested for domestic assault actually assaulted his spouse. There are so many things you seem to have missed that there is not room to list them here.
You missed the literally hundreds of science based uinbiased studies and surveys showing who instigates and perpetrates violence on who and the results of said violence. But then, you weren't looking for them, you were looking for a way to bash men. The name alone is sexist as it infers that only men can hurt women and we need new special laws that bypass due process to protect the ones more likely to instigate violence in the first place. You miss the fact that while partner violence is proven time and again to be split down the middle, that 80% to 90% of people arrested are men. This is sexist, unconstitutional, and an absolute affront to the democratic process and common sense. But rather thatn being able to refute any of the hundreds of studies including a recent study showing mandatory arrest and no drop prosecution increases partner homicide and creates violence where none existed before, you will undoubtedly resort to ignorant emotion based arguments and stick your fingers in your ears saying"lalalala I can't hear the truth." You assume every man arrested for domestic assault actually assaulted his spouse. There are so many things you seem to have missed that there is not room to list them here.
You missed the literally hundreds of science based uinbiased studies and surveys showing who instigates and perpetrates violence on who and the results of said violence. But then, you weren't looking for them, you were looking for a way to bash men. The name alone is sexist as it infers that only men can hurt women and we need new special laws that bypass due process to protect the ones more likely to instigate violence in the first place. You miss the fact that while partner violence is proven time and again to be split down the middle, that 80% to 90% of people arrested are men. This is sexist, unconstitutional, and an absolute affront to the democratic process and common sense. But rather thatn being able to refute any of the hundreds of studies including a recent study showing mandatory arrest and no drop prosecution increases partner homicide and creates violence where none existed before, you will undoubtedly resort to ignorant emotion based arguments and stick your fingers in your ears saying"lalalala I can't hear the truth." You assume every man arrested for domestic assault actually assaulted his spouse. There are so many things you seem to have missed that there is not room to list them here.
I am a 'victim' of a false protective order and the only way I can make a positive is to tell my story and educate especially women and more importantly feminists.
Men can be abused too. Yes they are stronger and their abuse can be more serious but both genders can be abusive and psychotic. Both genders can be smart and manipulative. Both genders can remain calm in a courtroom telling lies and making the other party look crazy.
I got a false order because a man I saw only twice in 4 years decided to put a stalking order on me. These orders are ex-parte meaning the defendent doesn't need to be present. Then in 2 weeks we both go a second hearing. Already the defendant is guilty till proven innocent. The defendant is given a choice to sign with no admission of abuse or continue with the trial without jury. The first time I signed it because I was scared never having gone through one in my life and there were strangers in the court. The 2nd time he did it, 4 years later, I was still scared but stronger. I lost but proud I fought it. I've tried to dismiss and the judges will never allow you to see them. You can only talk through an intercom. I was able to show evidence of fraud from his part and accused of harassing him through the court.
I have gone to women's support groups. Only one woman looked like she really had been abused. One woman is single with no kids and doesn't want to leave the state, let alone the city, let alone the county. A few are in their 3 or 4th abusive relationships. C'mon, men aren't that bad.
In the courtroom, I can understand someone trying to look like the saint but in the support group everyone still wants to look like the saint.
I admit the first time I had the order over me. Both the plaintiff and I verbally argued, commited character defamation but I stopped after a few weeks. It's not nice to character defame and defame one's family members and friends. The plaintiff til the second false order continued to character defame me and my family but I didn't do the same to him so you can tell how pissed I am having this false order.
Yet I'm getting educated. Women's laws are just a tool to make money and for people to keep jobs. Let innocent people go mentally crazy. let crazy people cause more havoc, meaning more job work. Lawyers make money, judges keep busy, advocates get work, counselors and mental health professionals make money, the police are kept busy, clerks and other administrative people keep a job.
In the end, don't people value freedom? Freedom comes with risks. If we want extreme safety than we can't have freedom. Safety is where we are monitored and live in fear then there would be no crime whatsoever. Communist countries were some of the safest in the world.
Some of the best ways to end violence is not be violent yourself especially verbally, say "I'm sorry," have the strength to not give up your principles. people in relationships compromise more than they really want to so they give up a piece of their soul which the partner can see. Then the partner wants more of your soul. I've typed too much and want to say more but I need to take a shower now.