McCain-Palin's Extreme Position On Violence Against Women

Where is the old John McCain?

He's right here: McCain's never been much of a maverick, and his extreme right-wing leanings extend farther back than even his critics think.

We all know that John McCain voted with George W. Bush almost 90 percent of the time. Most of us don't know, however, that one of his points of opposition with the president was when McCain rejected federal funds for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. While Bush reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, McCain voted against funding for VAWA as recently as 2007. It was McCain's second vote against VAWA, as he opposed the first version of this landmark legislation in 1994.

Byzantine laws flourished on the state level before VAWA. The act provided federal funds to programs focused on preventing domestic violence and sexual assault through local, state and federal agencies, along with compliance rules for accepting federal funds. Marital rape and date rape, for example, carried lesser penalties for assailants than stranger rape, a gross implication that certain kinds of assault were more acceptable. Moreover, because most women are assaulted by acquaintances, the most common form of rape was the least policed and punished. As recent examples from election coverage suggest, the rules guiding VAWA funding are still necessary to protect rape victims from being treated as second-class citizens under the law. Sarah Palin broke these rules as mayor of Wasilla when she charged sexual assault victims for rape kits.

McCain and Palin's objection to protecting women from violence is exceptional. VAWA is distinctive in enjoying broad bipartisan support, easily passing the House and Senate to be signed into law by President Clinton, and reauthorized by a Republican congress and a Republican President in subsequent years. Though measuring the precise impact of VAWA is difficult, between 1994 and 2000, incidences of domestic violence dropped 25 percent. Joe Biden, the author of VAWA, recalls rape victims "walking up to him on the street" to express gratitude for the Act.

Extreme right-wingers, however, loathe VAWA, portraying federal funds to rape and domestic violence programs as "feminist pork." Both Fox News and the Washington Times claimed that VAWA is unnecessary and discriminates against men, a charge that "men's rights" groups happily endorse. Critics of VAWA belittle the idea that women have been subject to specific forms of interpersonal violence, like rape and battering, because they are women.

Right-wing websites like Men's News Daily and Townhall greeted Joe Biden's selection as Obama's running mates with a chorus of misogynistic jeers. Referring to the democratic ticket as "GynObama" and "VAWA Joe," one Men's News Daily article asks men to "do a quick testicular self-exam. That space you feel between your legs means that Barack Obama and Joe Biden -- both on record as ballbusting misandrists -- will easily convince you to send them to the White House." The Democrat's emasculating flaw? According to one Townhall writer, "Tragically -- but true to the radical feminist agenda -- the Obama/Biden Democratic ticket portends an escalating war on boys, men, fathers, and families." The right-wing objection, in a nutshell, is that specific treatment for women under the law is a violation of equal protection, and therefore unfair to men.

Such anger puzzles advocates for victims of violence. "Of course we want to ensure that services are available to all victims of violence," Cheryl O'Donnell of the National Network to End Domestic Violence told Mother Jones in 2005, noting that VAWA funded providers never denied services to men. "At the same time," she added, "the reason it's called the Violence Against Women Act is that it's recognizing that women are overwhelmingly the victims of violence."

Part of the constituency that McCain/Palin do purport to protect in their slim crime bill is child victims of sexual abuse. Yet they focus on forms of sexual assault perpetrated by strangers in two key provisions of their plan. This neglects problems that laws like VAWA attack: 93 percent of victims know their abuser, and 34 percent live with their abuser. Some child sexual abuse cases involve siblings in the home, an added complication that neither of McCain's suggestions solves. Victims of sexual abuse and their parents need the help that programs funded by VAWA can provide.

Instead of joining the chorus of voices supporting VAWA, the Republican party is putting forward two candidates profoundly to the right of most Americans and the vast majority of legislators. Sexual assault prevention and the treatment of victims is not a divisive partisan issue. Yet McCain rejects VAWA, and Palin broke VAWA's rules when she refused to provide rape exams. Feminist for Life, the anti-choice group to which Palin belongs, charges that emergency contraceptives are a form of abortion, and some critics in turn have charged that Palin declined to pay for rape kits because of this idea. Palin's already stated that she's not above using the state to impose her feelings about abortion on rape survivors.

The McCain/Palin ticket's position on violence against women is archaic, and VAWA is up for reauthorization again in 2010. Don't give these two mavericks a chance to return us to a time when women were blamed and charged for being raped and beaten.

Comments

[Jennifer1234]

If the VAWA didn't discriminate against men, then why is it called the violence against women's act and not the victims of violence act or something non-gender biased. I don't want to support McCain/Palin, but I have trouble supporting a ticket who supports demonizing men and not providing equal help for all victims of violence.

[JohnDias]

In the above comments, the Huffington Post defended mandatory arrest policies as protective measures. Studies (some listed below) show that mandatory arrest can have a reverse effect on the safety of victims. For certain demographic groups, mandatory arrest has been measured to increase the incidence of retaliatory homicide (see 3 studies listed below). For victims that may only have needed a little peace-keeping and space, their decision to seek help may set into motion a series of mandatory actions that result in the victim's death.

1. "Exposure Reduction or Backlash? The Effects of Domestic Violence Resources on Intimate Partner Homicide"
Authors: Laura Dugan ; Daniel Nagin ; Richard Rosenfeld
Study sponsored by the US Dept of Justice, National Institute of Justice
http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/Publications/Abstract.aspx?ID=186194

2. "Does the Certainty of Arrest Reduce Domestic Violence? Evidence from Mandatory and Recommended Arrest laws"
Author: Radha Iyengar
National Bureau of Economic Research
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13186

3. Temporary ROs increase the likelihood of violence; permanent ROs reduce it:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/288/5/589

[JohnDias]

People often assume that VAWA does not fund women exclusively. But it does fund grant recipients who are allowed under the legislation to discriminate. Even state governments are allowed to discriminate against male victims (California Health and Safety code 124250 for example), and yet are still eligible for VAWA block grants.

Despite California's explicit discrimination against male victims (written directly into statute), it is still eligible to receive block grants under the Violence Against Women Act. In the last reauthorization of VAWA, Congress added an amendment that states that it doesn't intend for VAWA funds to be denied to males. But that's not the same thing as REQUIRING non-gender-specific grants to be spent in a gender-inclusive way. It doesn't prohibit gender discrimination as a precondition of accepting a VAWA grant. That's the problem.

[JohnDias]

Wow... Some coincidence. On the same day that I wrote the above comment about how California's Health and Safety code 124250 denies funding to male victims of domestic violence, a court was striking down that provision. No joke:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C056072.PDF

It looks like we need to file lawsuits state-by-state to provide assistance to male victims of domestic violence (and their children). Far be it from Congress to require gender-neutrality in the VAWA itself! So that's one state down, many more to go.

We wouldn't have to fight it out in the courts if Congress were to simply require that grant recipients of the Violence Against Women Act had to use the funds for both sexes as a condition of receiving the money.

[JohnDias]

This article contends that Violence Against Women Act is so named because the "overwhelming majority" of victims of domestic violence are women. That is simply not true. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledges that over one third of DV injuries are suffered by men. That is not an overwhelming majority in my book; perhaps a majority, but not overwhelming, and certainly not enough of a disparity to justify block grants to states that deny assistance to male victims. The Web site DVStats.org (http://www.dvstats.org/) aggregates research that has measured domestic violence against males over three decades, with peer-reviewed and published articles by neutral researchers (often with samples that include public surveys). There is ample evidence that men constitute a significant amount of DV victims; it simply takes courage to put aside one's ideology, and instead look at the evidence dispassionately.

California is one example of a state which specifically singles out men and denies them assistance if they are victimized by domestic violence. This is actually written into the state's Health and Safety Code. Health and Safety Code section 124250, to be exact. Check it out on the state's Web site, if you doubt this:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

[Bluestwater]

Where is VBWA? The Violence By Women Act, I am looking for equality and fairness for all people of all colors and various genders.

The effects of VAWA killed my spirit when I was falsely accused of Domestic Violence and it has had the same negative effect on hundreds of thousands of men and, not to forget, on their children.

How is it fair to falsely accuse and charge a man based on nothing but the words of another, just try for a moment to put yourself in this situation. You have done nothing wrong, you happen to be in the beginning or middle of separation or divorce and Cops come and either arrest you or haul you out of your own house.

You and your children are flabbergasted, stunned at what was able to take place in the US of A where freedom and justice for all is supposed to be the rule.

10 days later a Judge rubber stamps the order of protection to someone who falsely accused you solely for the purpose of gamesmanship in getting the upper hand, often on advice of her well meaning, ethical attorney.

You are out on the streets with your clothes and if lucky, your toothbrush.

This is not America, this is a living hell and nightmare.

[fuzzywuzzy6]

Possible justifications for tough language in legislation, continued:

(6) Some police officers and prosecuting attorneys are unwilling to take the time and effort to pursue these cases or they believe that the victims must have done something to incite the violence against them; these public servants may also feel hostility towards the victims or not regard them as full human beings deserving the full protection of the law;

(7) the perpetrator may be a police officer, a wealthy person, a minister or someone else prominent in the community who could not possibly, in the eyes of the justice system, ever commit such heinous acts.

8) the victims may have grown up in a household where they were either abused themselves or observed a family member to have been frequently abused and so consider such treatment normal; sometimes religious mores or local mores play a part in their submissive attitudes.

Not all domestic violence victims are subjected to repeat occurrences. If they were brought up by parents who wished them to become strong and independent, they were warned about predatory spouses or partners when they were young and advised well ahead of time to leave such relationships as soon as they possibly could. Also, they were advised to sock money away in case such a situation should arise..

[fuzzywuzzy6]

Possible justifications for tough language in legislation:

There are several reasons why legislation would require what would at first glance appear to be unreasonable standards for arrest of a violent offender. Those who are uninformed about or unconcerned with the plight of abuse/sexual violence victims would tend to see these standards as unreasonable:

(1) The perpetrators of domestic violence are quite often charming and well-liked in the community. those who know the perpetrator find it difficult to believe that this person could be capable of such heinous acts;

(2) The perpetrators employ methods of injury which would not be readily apparent to the casual observer;

(3) The victims often are reluctant to press charges because they believe the promises to reform and the apologies of the perpetrators;

(4) The victims often are reluctant to press charges because they have developed a condition called learned helplessness, which renders them unable to assert themselves to seek help; they regard themselves as deserving the horrid treatment they receive at the hands of their perpetrators;

(5) The victims may have filed charges before, but returned to the perpetrators either under pressure or because they succumbed to the perpetrators' blandishments and promises to reform;

[mtross152]

It is true that few would suspect many perpetrators of domestic violence and that many victims are too fearful to report it.

We know that women are victims of violence, but many perpetrators are women too. It is not just undereducated women who react violently against their male partners and even their children, but also educated women--even attorneys, and holders of Masters, PhD, and other doctoral degrees.

The Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA) obscures that a large percentage of victims are men and boys and that women overall dominate violence against children. Few suspect women of violence. Their victims rarely expose them. When men and children do speak up , no one wants to believe.

Our society provides great cover for institutional female violence. Is not abortion, nearly 50 million lives destroyed since Roe Vs. Wade, a manifestion of domestic violence? Women call this choice, but these numbers show that it is violence legalized for women.

VAWA is one of the most destructive policies our nation has ever implemented. Senator Joe Biden is its author.

Our nation must comeclean with the truth. VAWA needs a major overhaul so that it serves all human beings at risk of violent abuse. VAWA must be founded on institutional safeguards for justice, not gender bias.

[shatteredmen]

The victims help organizations are not barred to men and children

As the founder and director of Shattered Men, I have talked to many men who have been abused who tried to get help but were refused. They were called liars. and told that they were actually the abusers.

Several have told me that they took their children out of harms way when mommy was abusing them only to be reported as kidnappers. One man was stabbed in the back and was bleeding from the wound as he took his then two year old son because his wife was hitting him in the face, causing a bloody nose and she kept on hitting him. When he left, she told the police a stranger kidnapped him. Personally, I believe this was a possible attempted "murder by cop" which I have written about and have a link to on the front page of our website. I think this happens often. In this last case, the police took this two year old and gave him back to his abuser.

This makes it more dangerous for women because women do get hurt when the man has taken more then he can and hits back. All it takes from a woman to have been abused is her statement that she was.

Yes many women are indeed abused through no fault of their own. Shattered Men helps many of these women too. We need to check each side of the story

http://mediaradar.org/

[shatteredmen]

Who do you think made this statement?

It may surprise you when you find out.

"In my house, being raised with a sister and three brothers, there
was an absolute – it was a nuclear sanction, if under any
circumstances, for any reason, no matter how justified, even self-
defense – if you ever touched your sister, not figuratively,
literally. My sister, who is my best friend, my campaign manager, my
confidante, grew up with absolute impunity in our household. And I
have the bruises to prove it. I mean that sincerely. I am not
exaggerating when I say that."
"And I have the bruises to prove it."



The author? None other then Senator Joe Biden...the originator of
the Violence Against Women Act. Umm wouldn't ya think he would
know better then most that women can be violent too???

[fuzzywuzzy6]

Thank you Ms. Tirado Gilligan and Ms. Jones for an excellent piece.

I am not a radical feminist. I did however live in Houston, Texas for many years. I attended some meetings for an organization which was setting up the first domestic violence shelter. Women of many different political backgrounds, religious backgrounds, etc. took part. Most of these women were not radicals. Most were married and had children. The Catholic church in Houston started to take a more active part in protecting domestic violence victims and their children as a result.

I did find, however, that many people to the far religious right (this did not include the moderate party of the Southern Baptists, who are socially conservative but despise domestic violence) regarded women and children as the property of the father of the family. From some posts here today, I see that there are those who wish to revert to this legal nightmare. Women and children have constitutional rights, too.

I would also add that because there has been a movement to protect women and children against violence that violence against men, whether perpetrated by men in the form of rape or other sexual abuse, or by their female significant others, has been better publicized and researched. Rather than ban protection for the 99% plus of women who are genuine domestic violence or sexual victims, we should work to protect all victims of sexual and domestic violence. Let us not return to the middle ages. Or the pre 1970's.

[TalkingFrog]

And oh, BTW- Gov. Palin recommended that women only pay for their rape kits if they failed to file charges. This would reduce the propensity for the next Gemma Gregory (not the actress, the one that falsely accused 8 men of rape) from stockpiling “rape” kits on men she’d slept with, and then pulling them out later, as needed.

[TalkingFrog]

martinogk , where do you live? Of the several hundreds of DV centers in California, I am only aware of ONE that accepts men fleeing domestic violence. My my local, publicly funded DV shelter does not accept men, and will tell a man fleeing from an abusive wife to go to a homeless shelter. This does work for fathers with small children, and places children at risk from violent mothers.

Our local shelter burns through $75,000.00 per month. Last year they provided services for 195 women and children (NO men). That’s $4,615 per client. It’s a local joke that the DV shelter is a good place for otherwise homeless drug addicts and hookers to go clean up, although I’m sure they do occasionally receive a true victim of DV. Our $900,000.00/year shelter could be replaced with a few motel vouchers.

VAWA is a $1.5 billion boondoggle. It has NOT been effective in reducing violence against women, and is definitely not gender neutral. VAWA facilitates DV because the best predictor of whether someone commits DV is whether she or he witnessed DV while growing up. By ignoring the half of DV committed by women, VAWA is spawning a generation of children witnessing their mothers committing DV with impunity.

[nhplanner]

Your claim that half of domestic violence perpetrators are women is ludicrous. Many years ago I worked at a center that provided counseling for both victims and perpetrators. I can't remember there being one male victim. Anecdotally, most male victims are gay. I'm sure there certainly have been heterosexual male victims of domestic violence, but they are very rare.

[TalkingFrog]

See what I mean, egal? nhplanner, did you happen to look at the CDC data or Fiebert's bibliography that HumanRightsActivist provided links to below. Shall we believe your anecdotal impressions over hundreds of peer-reviewed studies?

[HumanRightsActivist]

New Jersey's domestic violence statute has recently been found unconstitutional. The case is headed to the state's Supreme Court.

The NJ Law Journal reports that Judge Richard Russell said the following on tape during a judicial training session.

source: http://www.fathersandhusbands.org/NJ_Rights_1.pdf

“If I had one message to give you today, it is that your job is not to weigh the parties’ rights as you might be inclined to do as having been private practitioners. Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’ “

A judge attending the training session stated “The statute says we should apply just cause in issuing the order.” “You seem to be saying to grant every order.” Russell quickly replied, “Yeah, that’s what I seem to be saying.”

The article is full of similar comments from judges.

Russell now serves on the New Jersey Supreme Court's State Domestic Violence Working Group, the Executive Committee of the State Bar's Family Law Section, and the Supreme Court's Family Practice Committee.

Given a recent ruling declaring New Jersey’s domestic violence statute unconstitutional and the imminent Supreme Court challenge, the truth regarding the real practices that are being used to separate men from their children and their homes must be heard.

[HumanRightsActivist]

As a result of Biden's Violence against Women Act, the federal government pays states to create laws effectively requiring that men be removed from their homes and families without even an allegation of violence, with no legitimate standards of evidence, when a woman makes a claim that she is afraid. Bar associations all over the country have acknowledged publicly that false allegations of abuse are used routinely to gain an advantage in divorce and custody litigation. The consequences of this are real and profound.

[HumanRightsActivist]

Cathy Young reports on the Elaine Epstein quote and the broader issue at Salon.com here:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/

and provides in depth analysis here:

http://www.iwf.org/files/50c58dda09f16c86b2c652aa047944f6.pdf