New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | January 10, 2006

Cathy Young is glad to see principles of gender equality creeping into the Violence Against Women Act.

Comments

|1.10.06 @ 11:00AM|#

This isn't the first time Cathy's made these arguments for equality, and she's right.

So when will police (if ever) actually enforce laws on the books that demand arrest of BOTH parties if both are injured? They are extremely reluctant to arrest females for domestic violence. There still is an assumption that men "can take care of themselves" that's totally unfair. If a man allows a woman to beat him up, he loses; if he fights back, he loses. (If he wins the fight, he REALLY loses.)

Sucks for you guys. Sorry!
-----

The above does not diminish another aspect of this that concerns me. While I'm sure men and women both are physically abusive, it is overwhelmingly men who perform the ultimate abusive act: murder of a partner. Equality is great, but I hope that in the case of shelters they make this "separate but equal". One only needs to follow the local headlines to find out how far some insane people will go to track down and kill a woman who has left an abusive situation.

|1.10.06 @ 11:34AM|#

Linguist-I would be hesitant to use "local headlines" as a basis for statistical research. Headlines are specifically designed to get one to buy papers, and obviously a story reading from a psycho horror movie causes sales. Anytime I see someone refer to "Headlines", being a believer in 2nd amendment rights, this causes my screens to go up.

Women do stalk, they just stalk differently, on the whole. They stalk for the purpose of gaining intimacy as opposed to males who tend to stalk to preserve intimacy (not that it's the type of intimacy sane people want anything to do with, admittedly, but that's in their minds). A reference for this is not the headlines, one book called "How to Stop a Stalker" is a pretty good read on stalkers in general, of which domestic violence stalkers are a subset. When you refer to people who "track down and kill" you're talking about stalking behavior as a subset of domestic violence. (Just so you don't think I'm too nuts using this as recreational reading, I did do some personal security work at one time, and have a bookshelf full of such books as a result)

The point is, due to the different nature of male and female stalkers (generalization, there are exceptions), the ones that would "track down and kill a _______ who has left..." would have a higher proportion of males. Similiarly, there would be a higher proportion of females in the group that "track down and kill the ____ who didn't take well to the proposed situation".

I don't know of any particular data which applies to homosexual as opposed to heterosexual stalkers, but I'd be inclined to believe they would follow the same patterns in terms of male/female bias with perhaps some more falling into the 'exception' category. It would be interesting to see if anyone has done any studies on this.

Again, be suspicious of headlines as a data source.

Personal disclosure-I have a brother that chose to take the weapon out of her hand, and spent four years sorting out the ramifications. The police showed up, he had a gash on his face with arterial blood spurting out. She had a bruise on her wrist from the disarming. Being in Pierce Co, WA, and him actually having a functional penis which was not in some stage of surgical alteration for a sex change operation to remove the offense of being born male, he was judged to be wrong at the outset. He was screwed, as the first comment referred to, but at the moment that seemed the preferable option to being beaten to death (her diaries spoke to how she planned to do this, beat him to death...inadmissable in court...go figure). I've seen close up the way the "establishment" treats this stuff, great idea in concept to stop DV, but like just about everything that the government sets out to do, the application isn't pretty.

Wild Pegasus|1.10.06 @ 11:38AM|#

Congress should have directed each state to create a domestic violence board to oversee the implementation of Violence Against Women Act programs, with no more than a quarter or a third of the seats going to members of battered women's groups and the rest to scholars, mental health professionals, and community activists.

This is idiot drivel even from a constitutional standpoint, let alone a libertarian standpoint.

- Josh

|1.10.06 @ 12:06PM|#

I am a little vague on the details, but unless I am standing at Four Corners Monument and Tribal Park pummeling my family, how exactly is this a federal issue?

|1.10.06 @ 12:07PM|#

Men are victims of violence several times more frequently than are women...so Congress passes a discriminatory "Violence Against Women Act."

Since blacks are victims of violence far more often than are whites, it'd make as much sense to pass a "Violence Against White People Act."

I wonder how that'd fly?

In 1976 "intimate" men and women were murdering each other at about the same rate, but since then:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm#intgrel
Intimates are defined to include spouses, ex-spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.
The number of men murdered by intimates dropped by 71% since 1976.

The number of women killed by intimates was stable for two decades. After 1993, the number declined reaching the lowest level recorded in 2001 and remained there in 2002.

KipEsquire|1.10.06 @ 12:30PM|#

"Congress should have directed each state to create a domestic violence board to oversee the implementation of Violence Against Women Act programs, with no more than a quarter or a third of the seats going to members of battered women's groups and the rest to scholars, mental health professionals, and community activists."

Unfunded mandates with federally-dictated compositions? I'm reading this in a libertarian magazine?

|1.10.06 @ 12:53PM|#

Men are victims of violence several times more frequently than are women...so Congress passes a discriminatory "Violence Against Women Act."

How utterly disingenuous.

I think it should be obvious that the law -- whether you agree with its passage or not -- is meant to address cross-gender violence, of which male-on-female violence is a disproportionately greater problem than female-on-male violence. We already have laws to address male-on-male violence; they're called "laws."

|1.10.06 @ 12:55PM|#

Well, as a slight tangent, this is also the piece of legislation which has made it illegal to 'annoy' people on the internet.

One step forward 8497 back.

Jake
(who thinks the whole 'domestic violence' issue is a smokescreen)

MP|1.10.06 @ 1:00PM|#

Jake,

I believe that is a separate piece of legislation. Also, the "illegal to 'annoy'" angle was debunked on Volokh.

|1.10.06 @ 1:10PM|#

We already have laws to address male-on-male violence; they're called "laws."

So are you saying that these laws are gender specific? Without the completely superfluous Violence Against Women Act there are not already state laws in place making it a crime to commit an act of violence against a woman?

|1.10.06 @ 1:16PM|#

"I think it should be obvious that the law -- whether you agree with its passage or not -- is meant to address *cross-gender* violence, of which male-on-female violence is a disproportionately greater problem than female-on-male violence. We already *have* laws to address male-on-male violence; they're called 'laws.'"

These pre-existing laws penalize "cross-gender violence," too, if you're referring to the laws against murder and assault.

What need, then, does the VAWA fill? It fills the need of feminist groups (and now maybe men's-rights groups) to get federal aid in promoting their own visions of how the government should deal with these pre-existing crimes.

|1.10.06 @ 1:20PM|#

While I'm perhaps slightly pleased at the move toward equality intended by the changes to the VAWA, I'm of the contention that the firearms provisions of this law arbitrarily and capriciously cast gun owning citizens as felons without due process.

I find it ridiculous that the creators of a federal law can presume to know how and when it's appropriate for people in conflict to defend themselves in all circumstances. Although I'd probably direct a hairy, circumspect eyeball at people under restraining orders, they too have a right to self-defense. Automatically making them criminals because a gun is stored in their home is at best haphazard.

About the only comfort I can take from what appears to be a heavy-handed, ill-designed piece of legislation is the fact that law enforcement personnel with poor impulse control are not exempt from VAWA's prohibition on the possession of firearms and ammunition by people under a restraining order.

If I had to hazard a guess (and based on some reading I've done), police are probably far more likely to become subject to these provisions than most citizens.

|1.10.06 @ 1:40PM|#

Strat says: "About the only comfort I can take from what appears to be a heavy-handed, ill-designed piece of legislation is the fact that law enforcement personnel with poor impulse control are not exempt from VAWA's prohibition on the possession of firearms and ammunition by people under a restraining order. "

This point of view causes me much discomfort. If the laws were applied without the "having the penis" bias, then I would have some minor increase in my measure of comfort, but the fact is they're not. Therefore, you have people who are either unjustly accused, or simply defending themselves (brother, for instance, noted in my first post is a military officer, a business partner is a prior police, both falsely accused, both dismissed as ridiculous in the end by courts, both had severe impacts to their careers for doing NOTHING ILLEGAL). In the case of the brother, this also further affected his security clearance, which is a defacto requirement for his job (he couldn't attend the briefing he prepared, but he was allowed to prepare it, this is how ridiculous it's getting). In the case of the business partner, he's now got three wrongful firing suits against the county officials which are working their way through the system. To say you "take comfort" in causing such chaos such as this is at best an ill thought out conclusion. The number of people who's lives are put through chaos and uproar, simply due to overzealous enforcement due to them having external as opposed to internal plumbing, far outweighs any percieved benefit.

The simple fact is that if a stalker is of a mind to kill someone, a court order telling them not to have weapons won't cause any further pause than the law classifying the capital offense they're planning to commit to begin with.

Warren|1.10.06 @ 1:44PM|#

Can someone point me to where in the Constitution congress is authorized to legislate on domestic violence?

|1.10.06 @ 1:56PM|#

Warren,
It's the part on the back of the original - those founding fathers (what jokers!) wrote it in lemon juice, and circa 1910 congress found it.

Warren|1.10.06 @ 2:16PM|#

I don't hold much hope for the AARP seeing reason on this. The membership consists overwhelmingly of folks who swallowed the cool-aid on the evils of drugs. Those that do suffer from chronic pain will not be very effective advocates. What it will take is large number of people who have to watch their loved ones suffer, and also realize that they are suffering needlessly for the sake of WOD dogma.

Warren|1.10.06 @ 2:18PM|#

oops wrong thread, sorry

|1.10.06 @ 2:41PM|#

Randolph, wasn't that part of the plot of "National Treasure"?

;-)

|1.10.06 @ 2:42PM|#

Didn't the Supreme Court Strike down the original as having exceeded Congress's jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Excuse?

Its not a bad law, but it does expand government, something which I abhor.

|1.10.06 @ 2:50PM|#

I can't generate a lot of sympathy for a "man" who can't handle a physical confrontation with a female. A guy can take a few smacks, not return them, and certainly not cry to the cops like a total wuss.

If a broad is going to push beyond a few love-taps, then she is obviously a psycho. They're usually pretty easy to spot. What the hell are you doing messing around with her?

|1.10.06 @ 2:55PM|#

MNG - Damn! You beat me to it. And I'm sorry for the insensitivity, but really...aren't men supposed to be able to protect thier family (read: not get the shit kicked out of them BY thier family)? What kind of bullshit is this anyhow? I mean, I realize the point is not to be biased and ignore that there are men who are assaulted by thier women, but beyond a certain point this equality crap is unreasonable and sad.

|1.10.06 @ 3:23PM|#

MNG and Cap'n Obvious

The both of you need to read a LOT more about the dynamics of violence (domestic or otherwise). You might find the facts considerably more enlightening than your dated stereotypes.

however, here's ONE tiny example:

Couple meet, fall in love, get married, picture perfect. Six months or a year later, she becomes a psycho hosebeast and starts hitting him (incidentally, women hitting men is the most laughed at form of violence on tv ). He defends himself- carefully, as gently as he can, but not without marking her.

She phones the police. The police come, take him away in handcuffs and THEN start asking questions. The nature of the law in most states and pretty much all provinces in Canada include an automatic presumption of male guilt and it takes a very very good lawyer to prove otherwise.

Or another one:

I know personally of a man who's wife stated in front of many witnesses that she was going to deliberately provoke him to hit her so that she could have him arrested, divorce him for all his money and then sell their children back to him one at a time though the courts. In spite of testimony to that fact, she STILL won in court and her plan was aided and abetted flawlessly by the government.

In the same way that leaving her husband was once financially crippling for a woman, the same is now true for a man (and a cash cow for a woman with even entry level guile).

Under the circumstances I'm not surprised to see a man 'tough it out' and stay rather than take his chances with the police and the courts. (to say nothing of being laughed at by other men who might perhaps just consider being a little more mature).

Jake
(who is not a figure in any of the above stories, but has his share of run-ins with psycho hosebeasts).

|1.10.06 @ 3:24PM|#

I used to work in family law, and I saw quite a few cases where the husband was repeatedly abusive but when the woman would dare to fight back or resist, then the husband would call the police on HER so that she would be arrested. I remember one case where a woman was raped and assaulted by her husband. She never reported him, but as soon as the custody battle started, they got in an argument and she slapped him in the face and he, of course, immediately called the police on her.

|1.10.06 @ 3:35PM|#

The ultimate truth of 'family law' is that no one is served well by it.

A friend who used to be a family lawyer (he now does only contract law because he couldn't take the injustice) used to say to me:

"if you're thinking about getting married, go downtown, find a random woman and give her your house keys, car keys and bank card then leave town and never return. It's the same effect and saves you a lot of grief"

I'm sure that knife cuts both ways, but that doesn't make it better.

Jake
(who hates familylaw too)

|1.10.06 @ 3:37PM|#

IHFL-True, the phenomena exists on both sides. My beef is that 1) males are typically viewed as guilty regardless of the situation, based on the same stereotype stated by MNG. 2) given the number of false accusations, from either side, it would be prudent to reign in the ferver of the govt/battered women types, who cause more damage in their haste than is prevented by their caution

That said, according to your story, and given the fact that your email address references a law office, I'm sure you can see that he was completely legally valid, though morally questionable, as they only got in an arguement and she hit him. Had she hit him in the course of taking abuse, there would be self defense as a defense. Apparantly he was more legally savvy then her, which brings me to agreeing with your posting name "I hate family law" ;>

|1.10.06 @ 3:41PM|#

Jake - Regarding ONE tiny example number one: I can't help but imagine that there might be more to that story. So let's see if I understand your correctly...Couple is twiterpated, married, and happy. Then she just goes psychohosebeast and starts hitting him. A piece of the puzzle is missing here. I'm not convinced. Regarding On Another Note: people manipulate, conive, lie, cheat and steal all the time. And in each case it's wrong. This doesn't necessitate an extra law defending "men" against women who spontaneously combust into psychohosebeasts.

People of all genders need to be more thoughtful when picking thier mates...otherwise they tend to get what ther hastiness deserves.

|1.10.06 @ 3:45PM|#

MNG-

You're missing that the "few smacks" may not be with a body part (at least one attached still to a body...Lorena Bobbit may still be lurking, or even Kim Tran... http://www.adn.com/front/story/6196470p-6070768c.html).

People giving up a lot of size tend to go after you "armed" with either blunt force trauma instruments or very sharp pointy objects. If you want to have a "prove your manliness" party by taking, oh, five or six whacks about the head and body with an ASP Baton weilded by one of Jake's "psycho hosebeasts".....you first. ;)

|1.10.06 @ 3:57PM|#

"We already have laws to address male-on-male violence; they're called "laws.""

Take out "male-on-male," and this is my argument against so-called "hate crimes." As far as I'm concerned, every crime is a hate crime.

Every time we add categories to a crime, we necessitate further categorization. If violence against another individual is a crime, then there ya go. Anyone who is a victim of violence is covered under such a law. When we start making some assaults weigh more than others, or some intentional murders weigh more than others, we are corrupting, not improving, the law.

|1.10.06 @ 4:01PM|#

Capt' Obvious,

well, you're certainly living up to your name. ;) Yes, people are nasty to each other. The problem as I see it is that the game is currently rigged (in whose favour is a subject of debate, but I'd vote for 'the state' on general principle)

My first example is an 'article of faith' among feminists. I just reversed the genders. Gottcha.

(though, as it happens I know of a couple actual cases of that happening).

The second example, is surprisingly uncomplicated. He treated her like gold. She used him FOR gold. I expect that to happen (in both directions). What I expect NOT to happen is for the courts to say 'well, we have adequate testimony to demonstrate that this was a deliberate, premeditated scheme on her part, but he hit her therefore the law says he loses. ' I'm not looking for anything special, just the Rule of Law applied on the merits and facts of the case rather than political agendas.

Bluntly, the entire system, aproach, methodology, underlying philosophy, etc, is rotten. Pretty much for everyone.

At no point did I ask for a 'new law to protect men' so I'm not sure what you're on about. I'm probably the last person who's reaction to a problem is a demand for MORE (inevitably bad) law. We have too many laws as it is and that is a big part of the problem.

If I was 'king for a day' the most I might do is eliminate the entire concept of civil marriage and suggest people consider contract law as a replacement. whatever sort of religious union you want is between you, your pelvic affiliate(s) and your prefered local provider of fairy stories.

But I wouldn't do that because even 'for a day' it's rash and illconsidered and we have enough laws like THAT too.


Jake
(who thinks that people in intimate relationships are essentially crazy and should be taken with a grain of salt on all legal matters)

|1.10.06 @ 4:23PM|#

Jake - Gotchme, eh? Well done. I sort of suspected as much and my response to a woman who insisted that unexpectedly, without cause, for no apparent reason, out of the fucking blue, her hubby began beating her would be the same...something is missing. Either dude had a history and pattern of acting such and she ignored it or there was cause. But one-sided, cry-baby stories like that which play on the pity-my-sad-station-in-life crap bother me as must be apparent by now.

And I agree with your point about civil marriages. What business has the state to do with my Johnson? None that I can see. Co-habitation has its own rewards (namely easiER access to tail and economies of scale) without the gov'mnt granting other "rights," which are then demanded by other co-habitors. Marriage is a religious business and has no place in the laws of our country.

And also, growing up my sister constantly pulled that "he hit me" crap and I was guilty upon accusation every time, so I have some sympathy for the bias treating a womans accusation as proof of guilt. Its BS, but so too is the idea (brought up by Cathy, not you) that yet another complication of law is what's needed to make things "better."

|1.10.06 @ 4:30PM|#

Cap'n,
"So let's see if I understand your correctly...Couple is twiterpated, married, and happy. Then she just goes psychohosebeast and starts hitting him. A piece of the puzzle is missing here. I'm not convinced."

The missing piece in my parent's case is the alcohol. After 10 years, ma started drinking and basically lost it. It's pretty much gone to this day. Having lived through it, I'm convinced.

|1.10.06 @ 4:57PM|#

wsdave - The problem in your family is analagous to the problem with our government. The problem of "the heap" was pointed out to me on a thread here and illustrates both situations nicely as they both deal with slow, creeping, negative change. As one drink isn't a problem for most, neither is one small law enacted by our government, nor is one grain of sand a heap. Nor are two. But eventually, when piled on one by one a heap evidences itself, be it a heap of alcohol or laws or sand, the issue is the same.

When your pop, or your fellow citizens fail to vigilently observe and be watchful for the slow, creeping death, they will soon find themselves in the midst of it. Alternately, if they do notice what's going on and fail to appropriately remedy the situation, they will also reap what they sew. Blame for your parents predicament lies with your dad just as blame for our national government creating laws benefiting no one but the Fed likes on each of our heads. I know that stings a bit, but sugar-coating it doesn't help anyone.

So I don't know what you're "convinced" of exactly, but unless and until our fellow citizens begin to see how slowly our freedoms are being eroded and act to remedy the situation, we will all suffer the same fate as your folks. Our country has already "lost it" and will be "gone" until it's brought back.

|1.10.06 @ 5:07PM|#

As far as family law goes, there's yet another nasty aspect of all of this, which I alluded to in my first post:

Woman goes "psycho" and attacks sleeping husband of 30+ years with a chair to the head. Husband wakes, restrains, and the confrontation ends with her bruised on the arms. Next day, for unrelated health reasons, woman calls ambulance. In the ambulance, the representatives of the state insist the woman say where she got the bruises. She explains, emphasizing that she was drunk and had attacked. 20 minutes later, husband is in jail (bleeding from the head). The point here is that not only did the woman attack, she told the officials as much, and expressed her desire to NOT have husband jailed. Makes no difference. The nanny state decides.

The only purpose I see in "domestic violence" funding is for shelters. I disagree with the laws.

And Matt: I wasn't using headlines as statistics. It just happens that, as a woman, I already KNOW the statistics. The headlines are just reminders of how OFTEN women are killed. When was the last time you heard of a man murdered by his wife? Phil Hartman was the last one I heard of.

"On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner." Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003

|1.10.06 @ 5:19PM|#

Cap'n,

What I'm convinced of is that people change. I've seen it. Mom didn't hit dad over time; there was no slow motion wind up. One moment she hadn't hit him, the next she had. Any amount of change before that point wasn't violence (just as playing a violent video game once or smoking a joint won't make someone flip out and kill someone else).

Should dad have "seen it coming"? At what point, before the fist is flying, is it obvious that it will?

I agree that our country is in bad shape. My comment to you was regarding you not being convinced that people change quickly, And me seeing otherwise.

Should my dad have left at the first sign of changed behavior? You seem to be arguing that. Perhaps you're right, but based on that, every relationship would fail. And considering where our country is headed, why haven't you left?

|1.10.06 @ 5:32PM|#

wsdave - Of course people change...but in my experience (especially in hindsight) change is not spontaneous, even if it appears that way to those not observing closely enough. Is the solution to a person (or country) changing to up and git? I hope not...cause there really isn't any habitable place left on earth to escape the power of stupid people in large numbers (gub'mint). Rather my suggestion is that the vast majority of people ignore the "warning signs" the vast majority of the time. Whether its burying thier head in the sand becuase they don't know what to do about it or procrastinating the remedy out of apathy or plain ignorance and lack of concern isn't the issue. But show me an effect without a cause and I'll show you a religious zealot. It's those causes that are to be guarded against in one's personal life as well as one's political life.

Let me apologize if I've been lacking in tact. I saw in your post an analogy I couldn't pass up. Thanks for bringing it up.

|1.10.06 @ 5:43PM|#

What is the male equivalent of a psychohosebeast? Just askin'. Thanks in advance.

|1.10.06 @ 5:47PM|#

Cap'n,

Your welcome, any time. And so we're clear, I'm taking no offense at your comments, I just think that the solutions appropriate in dealing with the country completely differ than those in dealing with a relationship.

I could leave the country, but doing so would cost me too much (in friends, relationships, opportunities, etc.). My father could have left my mother, but doing so would have cost him too much (he loved her in spite of how he was treated, he had 2 young children, etc.). Eventually he did leave her, just as I may one day leave the US. But things need to reach a certain point (such as my government, or my wife, actually hitting me).

I appreciate your analogy, but I'm not sure it holds true for inter-personals.

|1.10.06 @ 7:07PM|#

What is the male equivalent of a psychohosebeast?

I would say "berserker." Or possibly "apeshit."