The Intellectual Perversion of the VAWA Mafia
When professor Suzanne Steinmetz published the results of her survey on domestic violence, no one had prepared her for the firestorm that would ensue. You see, feminists take it as an article of faith that only husbands abuse their wives.
So when Steinmetz revealed that women are often as violent as their husbands, the fem-fascists started a whispering campaign designed to block her promotion at the University of Delaware. When that didn’t work, they phoned in a bomb threat at her daughter’s wedding. Cowed by the threats, Steinmetz soon suspended her pioneering research.
Erin Pizzey of England had impeccable credentials – she was the founder of the first abuse shelter for women. So a few years later she published Prone to Violence, a book that revealed these women are often as physically aggressive as their mates.
That provoked threats of violence by the women who said women can never be violent. Pizzey was forced to seek police protection as she traveled around to promote her book. She was met by jeering protesters with placards that read, “All men are bastards.â€
Dr. Lynette Feder planned to do a study to find out whether batterer intervention programs work. But then the Broward County, Florida district attorney tried to block the study since, he claimed, everyone “already knew†such programs work. Interestingly, other researchers later found such programs are often ineffective.
Claudia Ann Dias is an attorney who has been featured on 20/20 and Oprah for her work on family violence. She was awarded a 10-year contract by the Sacramento County Jail to counsel men arrested for partner violence. Since partner abuse is often mutual, Dias found herself discussing the problem of female aggressors. Six months later, her contract was abruptly cancelled.
Men also have been besieged by the VAWA Mafia, a loosely-organized cabal that takes its name from the federal Violence Against Women Act.
Dr. Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire is the pre-eminent American researcher in the area of family violence. His work points to the politically incorrect conclusion that wives are equally likely to abuse.
The VAWA Mafia has accused Dr. Straus of being a wife-beater and sexually exploiting his students. The unfounded claim was so outrageous that his accuser later apologized. And one of his students was recently warned she would never be able to find a job if she did her graduate work with him.
Dr. Donald Dutton of the University of British Columbia has been branded as “dangerous†for his research debunking the feminist propaganda on partner abuse. Despite prolific publications and an impressive resumé, government officials refuse to confer with him.
When intimidation tactics have failed, the VAWA Mafia has tried to hijack the research itself.
Writing in the American Psychological Association book Prevention of Partner Violence, professor Straus outlines the information-control tactics used by feminist researchers. These include suppressing statistics on female-initiated abuse, reaching conclusions not supported by the data, or simply not asking questions on female perpetration.
For example, Dr. Jennifer Rohling of the University of South Alabama wanted to do a survey of women in abuse shelters. That would be fine, the shelter director said, just so long as Rohling didn’t ask whether any of the women themselves had been violent. “Don’t ask, don’t tell,†as they like to say.
Straus has documented how even government agencies have hobbled the open pursuit of the truth. In one case the U.S. Department of Justice forbade research funds from being used to investigate the victimization of men.
And in February the U.S. Centers for Disease Control released the results of a survey of partner abuse. But the CDC had rigged the questions to inflate the occurrence of abuse against women. [www.mediaradar.org/alert20080211.php]
Last year Dr. Richard Gelles, dean of the School of Social Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote an article in Family Court Review detailing the myths conjured up by the VAWA Mafia.
Remember the claim that men turn beastly on Super Bowl Sunday? Amusing perhaps, but entirely false.
Or the March of Dimes study that battering of pregnant women is the leading cause of birth defects? In truth, the March of Dimes has never heard of the research.
Gelles terms these myths “woozles†– in honor of the famous Winnie the Pooh story.
And exactly who is the VAWA Mafia? It’s a group of Gender Guerillas who bear the name like a perverse badge of honor. And once we break their stranglehold on the truth and question their odious ideology, we’ll finally be able to curb the abuse.
Possibly related posts...
| More from Carey Roberts
Stumble It!
” It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong. -Voltaire [François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778) .”
When one goes up against the establishment, one risks their careers, etc.
amfortas,
My apologies. Credit goes to Carey Robers. I was too interested in the comments and made a misstake.
Jim, ref #11, ‘Gender Guerillas’ is the term that Prof. Roberts used in his last paragraph, which was quoted.
Defense lawyer’s optimism turns once FBI informs of VAWA charges
In a four-page complaint, federal prosecutors charged her under the 1994 Domestic Violence Statute, a law popularly known as the Violence Against Women Act. It was a daring maneuver. The law, which allows the federal government to get involved when a person crosses state lines to commit an act of domestic violence, had been used only a few times before, and never against a woman.
But it provided the authorities with the clout they needed to prosecute Rita Gluzman. Specifically, it gave authorities the right to use Zelenin’s testimony freely. They had already worked out a deal with the 40-year-old Russian immigrant in exchange for a lenient sentence and a pledge that his two teenage sons, both Russian-born, would be allowed to remain in the country while he was in jail.
It also provided a sentence that local and federal prosecutors could live with. Instead of facing a maximum of 15 years in prison, the best state prosecutors could have hoped for if they had been able to build a case, the federal domestic violence statute sets a penalty of life without parole when domestic violence turns deadly.
CHAPTERS
1. Down by the River
2. The Refusenik
3. Broken Promise
4. Like a Refugee
5. Running Down the Clock
6. “Make a U-Turn”
7. The Irony of Life
8. Photo Gallery
9. Bibliography
10. The Author
Jim Peterson,
I saw for first time the term “Gender Guerrillas” used by amfortas.It’s an apt term for feminist and their allies.
Gruesome detailsof the crime
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/rita_gluzman/index.html
Yakov, a taciturn and generally modest man with tastes to match, was beginning to suspect that his wife was infected with that uniquely American virus: rampant consumerism. She spent thousands each month, he would later say, on cosmetics and to groom her small dog, and according to Gluzman, she wanted to spend even more.
Within a few months after they moved into the Upper Saddle River house, Rita Gluzman began to make it clear that she was not satisfied. Because he “refused to spend more lavishly,” Gluzman would later say, Rita became condescending and abusive. She referred to their hilltop dream house on Peachtree Drive as a “shack.”
If you look at homicides by gender from 1976, when it was close to 1500 males and females (check out detroit where at one time more husbands died) and then look how the homicide rates of men have dropped to 500 while female rates spike, drop, but haven’t changed much.
Would the reason be that when couples are mutually combative, or it’s only her, she gets the cops and courts on her side, women hugging her, she gets the restraining order against him STAMP! and he is kicked out of the home with no sympathy, no therapy, no social support, with everyone assuming he was the perp… standing there angry, abused, wondering to two things to himself… How did it come to this and were did I put my gun?
Feminist have spread more propganda since 1976 about “bad men” to the point that their words are a hate crime based on “gender profiling” and they really believe that they are doing good, saving women’s lives, while apparently they are just breaking up families and saving men’s lives.
Why would a woman who might have picked up a gun years ago to add injury or death to insult, need to get a gun if the cops and courts will kick the man’s ass for her. Even if she just punched a man in the face, even if combat was mutual, and independently of who started it, – she wins, she She kicked his ass … he loses, she is happy, and she is seen as the victim while receiving all the perks.
It sounds horrifying that a woman could be found guilty by the federal courts for having killed her husband.
She should have gotten away with murder if the state courts did not convict her.
Acts of violence that are not military are NOT the business of the federal government.
It sounds like the feminists pulled a fast one and got their law quasi upheld while making some men feel their rights were being upheld because of the minor anecdotal “justice” in that one case.
Overall, upholding VAWA for any reason only cements our enslavement and the overreaching powers of the US federal gov.
I am glad I am living in the Middle East now, where we have a semblance of pro-male society.
Amicus Curiae brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the VAWA case
http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/gluzman.pdf
When a woman killed her husband with her cousin, prosecutors charged her only under Criminal Act of VAWA, If the District Court or 2nd Court of Appeals had ruled VAWA unconstituional, she would had gotten away with a murder. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/rita_gluzman/index.html
Civil Action part of VAWA ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison
“And exactly who is the VAWA Mafia? It’s a group of Gender Guerillas who bear the name like a perverse badge of honor. And once we break their stranglehold on the truth and question their odious ideology, we’ll finally be able to curb the abuse.”
I would dearly like to agree. I really appreciate the work of Prof. Roberts, a man of my own profession.
But I can’t agree.
The Gender Guerillas are not few and have a vast Army of supporters who generally have put more investment into the lies than the radical harridans themselves have. And they have taken the dividends derived from that investment. The Politicians, the bureaucrats, the Judges, the lawyers, the Court appointed shrinks and psychologista, the zozhial verkers and the host of rent-seeking scum hangers-on. We have these to contend with, not just the strangling harridans. These are the footsoldiers and Colonels upon whose pikes men’s heads have been stuck.
And Prof. Carey will know all about Cognitive Dissonance. What these people have DONE has reinforced their attutudes and so entrenched them that they will never admit intellectual failure. They will swear black is white and hell will freeze over before they will allow truth to be shown.
The harridans could all die out and the Religion of Feminist Privilege would live on. The lying bitches who have raised Hell to slide, slimily over our civilisation would take their place as Church Mothers, the ancients, prophets of their day, their words and exhortations learned by heart by legions of privilege takers.
They have set their rules in the concrete of the Law and who is going to repeal them?
Who?
The very people who have been taking the benefit of the Privilege enforcement? The Politicians? The Supreme Court Toadies? The Mandarins? Go on, pull the other leg. These people will NEVER allow themselves to be shown wrong. NEVER.
As with many other social movements over the past few hundred years, it will take action of Revolutionary proportion to clear the decks of these liars and thieves.
Curbing the abuse is getting more difficult and further from realization by the day. The abusers need the curbing. That needs the action they admire and profess – secret courts, accusation sufficient, presumption of guilt, suppression of evidence on technicality, bye-bye habeus corpus and the rest. They deserve no better.
I would like to be wrong.
Violence Against Women Act – has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? like something everybody should just love to contribute money toward.
but like all government handouts, it got out of control. now no one knows what happens to all of those BILLIONS of $$. we have a congress so buffaloed by feminists that not one of them has never had the backbone to ever vote against it, much less wonder where the $$ goes. thought they were, as cilil servants, to be good stewards of America’s tax dollars. sound like rubber stamp stewards to me.
as a kid growing up i was always amazed how congress fought about everything. there could be manna falling from Heaven and they would fight about what it was and who sent it. never had i ever seen a bill that someone didn’t object to something about, until now.
so i ask honest Americans, why is there no serious oversight of so much $$. and not one of these “honorable” elected officials has ever voted against it year after year after year after year? sounds like corruption 101.
it all may be perfectly legit. but it smells like something stanky.
A perfect article. We really need to get someone to put together a brouchure about the myths and lies of feminism followed by websites and links to articles that disprove the myths.
We tie the liars to those who threaten those who tell the truth.
I have a friend who has taught 40 years that was threatened with creating a hostile work place for simply standing up to feminist propaganda.
Because of his seniority and with the support of a friend who was an attorney who stood beside him the bitches backed off (What, I can’t say bitches of those who say my gender is responsible for 99% of the violence – that my gender beats pregant women… oppresses women … while ignoring our deaths at work and war?) but if he had been a younger man or woman with no seniority, no attorney, he would have been fired.
While civil action portion of VAWA was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in US v. Morrison prosecutors decided to charge a woman for killing her husband only with VAWA offense, if the District Court or 2nd Court of Appeals had ruled criminal part of VAWA unconstitutional, she would had gotten away with a murder. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E1DB153CF935A1575BC0A96E958260
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison
It’s Orwellian. Women are equal to men except when they’re not. Violence is not wrong on principle, it’s wrong when it happens to you. Got it.
For those new to MRM articles, mangina defines a male like the Florida District Attorney, who will defend anything the most radical feminists might say, even when they contradict themselves. Lately, I have seen such males also described as “eunuchs singing in the Castrati choir”.
All of the above could be used in a VAWA/IMBRA challenge. The person to convince, in the end, would be SC Justice Anthony Kennedy who is the 5th vote in most split decisions. To get Kennedy convinced, comprehensiveness helps. He combs over everything.
Woozle has not really caught on yet as meaning anything. Someone might make an entry in the Urban Dictionary. If we start using it to signify a feminist lie, it might catch on. Mangina has made some progress.
A good measure of progress of the MRM is whether any MRM terms have broken out into common usage by the population as a whole.