I-VAWA: Set-Back for Women?
The International Violence Against Women Act – I-VAWA for short — has recently been introduced in Congress. Certainly we all wish to see an end to domestic violence around the world.
But scratch below its innocent-sounding name and you’ll find a bill brimming with ideological buzz-words, dubious assumptions, and unproven remedies. Worse, if passed, the International Violence Against Women Act could actually harm women around the globe. Here’s how:
1. Defines minor marital discord as “violence.” I-VAWA defines domestic violence broadly to include “coercion.” Do we really want to prosecute a woman on charges of pestering her better half? Is it wise to turn husband-nagging into a crime?
2. Will weaken the family structure. Families are the most important economic and social institution, especially in developing countries. Encouraging persons to scream “abuse!” for every lover’s quarrel and marital tiff will rend asunder family ties.
3. Will place women at greater risk of partner violence. By breaking up the family unit, women will face higher odds of abuse. Research shows persons in stable, married relationships have the lowest rates of partner violence, while the highest rates are found among separating and unmarried couples.
4. Will force women into poverty. Removed from their primary breadwinner, women will be forced to depend on social welfare programs that are spotty or non-existent in Third World countries. (In the 1970s, Great Society programs required low-income women to leave their income-producing husbands in order to qualify for aid. Social scientists termed the ensuing pauperization the “feminization of poverty.”)
5. Will result in the widespread incarceration of women. I-VAWA would institute heavy-handed criminal justice measures. In India, misguided mandatory arrest policies resulted in the arrest of 123,000 women accused of abuse during the period 2004-2007. Now, women’s groups are at the forefront of efforts to roll back the country’s domestic violence laws: http://uchalla.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/international-womens-day-2010/
6. Ignores the leading cause of domestic violence injury to women. According to Centers for Disease Control researcher Daniel Whitaker, “a woman’s perpetration of violence was the strongest predictor of her being a victim of partner violence.” But I-VAWA is silent about helping violence-prone women to curb their abuse.
7. Closes it eyes to other common causes of domestic violence. Partner violence is often linked to alcohol or drug abuse, poor conflict resolution skills, and childhood emotional trauma. Again, I-VAWA implies these are non-issues.
8. Stereotypes men as abusers. Most women care for men — their husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers, co-workers, and sons. Women certainly don’t want men to be vilified, or have their civil rights removed in the name of curbing abuse.
9. Silences partner abuse in the lesbian community. Lesbian (and gay) couples experience domestic violence as often as heterosexual couples. Stereotypically depicting domestic violence as men striking women does a grave disservice to persons in same-sex relationships.
10. Diverts resources away from the true victims. The true victims of domestic violence need our help. These persons shouldn’t have to compete with trivial or bogus cases to get the protection and help they need.
The International Violence Against Women Act is so far removed from the realities that women around the world face – and from the science of effective abuse-reduction methods – that one wonders if I-VAWA should be renamed the International Act Against Women.
Possibly related posts...
This entry was posted
on Thursday, March 11th, 2010 at 5:00 pm and is filed under Vox Populi.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 552 views |
Trackback | 
Print This Post
|
| More from Carey Roberts
Stumble It!
This is victory of Feminists.
”marriage constitutes slavery for women, and that freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage” – Sheila Cronan
“Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women.”— Is Marriage the Answer?
by Barbara Findlen, Ms magazine, May-June, 1995
“[The nuclear family is] a cornerstone of woman’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation.”— Alison Jagger, Feminist Politics and Human Nature
“The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.”
— Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State
(New York, International Publishers,1942) p.58]
irlandes – makes sense to me… Thanks for the detailed data.
Prassoon, measuring marriages as “per 1,000 population” can be very misleading. I also relied on those numbers for years, and they are valid when society is somewhat stable. But, when things start changing fast, “per 1,000 population” becomes misleading.
I was misled because the 1,000 general population does not tell the marriage status of those 1,000 people. Slowly over the several decades I also relied on the “per 1,000 population” numbers, the number of unmarried women increased dramatically. But the number of marriages only dropped slowly. Even when I saw the “per 1,000 unmarried women” it took me a while to grasp the math behind my mistake.
The most valid measure of marriage rate is per 1,000 unmarried women. See these figures:
Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:
1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
A dramatic reduction in marriages.
Yet, “Per 1,000 population” was 8.5 in 1960, raised to a peak around 10.6 in 1980, and taking your figures as correct, now down to 7.1. As I said, the per 1,000 population figures tend to understate the true change in marriage probabilities of an unmarried woman, which actually dropped nearly 50%.
Very well said, this is to cut the main root of the institution of family. May be senators are excited and motivated with the huge success of VAWA; now marriage rate in USA is just 7.1 per thousand people!!!
Carey Roberts,
Because your expose of Amirault alleged witch hunt prevented Massachusetts hunter from going to U.S. Senate peharps you could take a look at murder-for-hire defense.
Wife who recruited relatives and friends to kill her husband is reportedly planning to use “abuse” defense. Since the case does not involve INTERSTATE activity do you know if VAWA could be used in this case? Lin, The Baltimore Sun.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-county/bal-md.co.porter12mar12,0,1038596.story
“Towson murder suspect says husband abused her
Defense contends family knew wife of gas station owner suffered for decades
Karla Porter (Handout photo / March 11, 2010)
Related
Matthew Philip Brown
Susan Mowers Datta
Seamus Anthony Coyle
Photos
Calvin Lee Mowers
Walter Paul Bishop Jr.
Preston Birckner
See more photos »
X William Porter
Karla Porter Video
Police: Woman enlists 5 to help kill husband
Stories
Six denied bail in murder scheme
Wife, 5 others charged in Balto. Co. murder-for-hire plot
Topics
Wetlands
Natural Resources
Psychiatry
See more topics »
XRentals
Condos and Houses
Family
Prosecution
White Marsh
Murder
Lawyers
Trials
Assault
Employers
Downstream Oil and Gas Activities By Nick Madigan | nick.madigan@baltsun.com
March 12, 2010
E-mail Print Share Text Size bal-md.co.porter12mar12
Karla Porter, the White Marsh woman accused of enlisting three family members to help kill her husband, is considering a psychiatric defense and will argue that she suffered from decades of physical and emotional abuse, her attorney said Thursday”
This is bs. Domestic violence cannot be stopped by a violence against woman act. It leaves 50 % of the victims unmentioned. For them it will only get harder.
Think about it just beyond the mainstream talking. Imagine you are a 5 year old boy beaten by his mother. Now imagine there is a law which states domestic violence is commited only by man. Who could you talk to ? Who would not give you an answer like “but this cannot be, women do not abuse. She had to have a good reason.”
But I came to the conclusion, that most woman just cannot relate to males. They do not understand the way we think. They feel intimidated by our lust for independence. And they do not like the idea, that everyone is responsible for their own actions. So I can see how the typical progressive, leftist woman or mangina would think this is a good idea.
Also woman just love the idea to tell everybody how to live, as if they were her children.
The domestic violence can be stopped only by mutual understanding and love. I’m not sure how an international law be enforced in all the countries. Any way, it sounds a good idea.