VAWA: Information for Our Federal Public Policymakers - Richard L. Davis

July 16, 2005

by Richard L. Davis

VAWA: Information for Our Federal Public Policymakers

The powerful play goes on – and you may contribute a verse. What will your verse be? - Source Unknown

Public hearings concerning the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) – 2055 are tentatively scheduled for July 19. This is an opportunity for you to play a role in helping our public policy makers understand that there is a block of voters who are concerned about the minimization, marginalization and exclusion of male victimization in that legislation.

The data below is not from some men’s rights or anti women’s rights group. In fact, the following data is on page 28 & 29 of the U.S. Department of Justice sponsored research report, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women.

The authors of this report inform our public policy makers that violence is more widespread and injurious to women’s and men’s health than previously thought – an important finding for legislators, policymakers, and interventions planers.

However, our public policy makers apparently have decided to ignore that advice and the only legislation we have is a Violence Against Women [italics added] Act (VAWA). Worse still, while minimizing, marginalizing and ignoring male victimization our public policymakers, apparently with straight faces, tell us that VAWA also assists men.

Perhaps Senators Specter, Hatch and Biden and in fact any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee or any members of their staff might read this data before they vote.

Rape

On page 28 the authors note that a study of 930 San Francisco women found that 8 percent were survivors of martial rape, while another study of 323 married/cohabited women in Boston found that 10 percent were survivors of spousal or partner rape. It is interesting to note that neither study asked men about their rape victimization. Perhaps this is another version of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” about male victimization.

The authors note that prior to the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAW) information concerning women’s and men’s lifetime experiences with intimate partner rape was minimal. On page 28 the authors decide to ignore data they are aware of on page 13. On 28 they write that the NVAW Survey found that 7.7 percent of U.S. women had been raped by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime.

On page 13 the authors noted that the NVAW data document that approximately 302,091 women and 92,748 men are forcibly raped each year in the United States. Yet on page 28 they ignore presenting any percentage for male rape victimization. Perhaps the authors want to continue keeping the information about male rape victimization at a minimum.

Physical Assaults

The authors write that surveys estimate male victimization vary from 9 to 30 percent for women and from 13 to 16 percent for men. In a 1997 Gallup Poll found that 22 percent of women and 8 percent of men reported they had been physically abused by their spouse of companion.

The 1975 and the 1985 National Family Violence Survey found that 11 to 12 percent of married/cohabiting women and 12 percent of married/cohabiting men were physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually.

The 1992 National Alcohol and Family Violence Survey found that approximately 1.9 percent of married/cohabiting women were severely assaulted by a male partner annually and approximately 4.5 percent of married/cohabiting men were severely assaulted by a female partner annually.

The 1995 National Alcohol Survey found that 5.2 to 13.6 percent of married/cohabiting couples experienced male-to-female partner violence annually and 6.1 to 18.2 percent of married/cohabiting couples experienced female-to-male intimate partner violence annually.

The NVAW documents that; 1.3 percent of all women and 0.9 percent of all men were physically assaulted by any type of intimate partner annually.

Just How Dumb Do They Think We Are

Our public policy makers, while claiming they do not underestimate the intelligence of the voters, want voters to believe that the Violence Against Women Act is gender neutral. This alone is a five star “HUH!?”

Do our public policy makers really believe that men will be treated with the same respect and dignity as women when male victims call domestic violence programs that have been specifically and exclusively designed for women being abused by men?

The truth is that the Violence Against Women Act is as gender neutral as the Chinese Exclusion Act is racially neutral. It is obvious that VAWA is designed specifically and exclusively for women not men. A cursory examination of the language of the act document is it biased and gender specific. It is impossible for any reasonable and prudent person to reach any other conclusion.

It is beyond the pale for the vast majority of domestic violence advocates to consider having a male answering their phone lines or becoming a counselor in their program. The only males involved in the vast majority of domestic violence programs are those who counsel men about the reasons they should stop oppressing women.

The vast majority of domestic violence advocates make it crystal clear they believe domestic violence occurs because of the sexism and oppression of women by men. They think that men who are domestic violence victims are either gay men or one of the “rare” cases where a woman who has been abused herself or because of psychological issues, abuses a man. Most programs train their personnel to expect that male callers are “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

It is either arrogance or complete ignorance for our public policy makers to believe that the programs that are funded by VAWA are gender neutral. The following is from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence website:

NCADV believes violence against women and children results from the use of force or threat to achieve and maintain control over others in intimate relationships, and from the societal abuse of power and domination in the form of sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, anti-Semitism, able-bodyism, ageism and other oppressions.

The NCADV website documents that NCADV, similar to most other domestic violence organizations funded by VAWA, believe domestic violence is caused by the male patriarchy.

The federal government is not as overtly biased. Federal programs use gender neutral language. However, the message here is also quite clear that men are the abusers and women and children their victims. The introduction to a U.S. Department of Justice research report, “A Coordinated Approach to Reducing Family Violence,” notes:

The statistics documenting this epidemic of family violence in the United States reveals an annual incidence of abuse by family members that is conservatively estimated at 2-4 million for children, nearly 4 million for women, and 1-2 million for older adults.

The report clearly avoids presenting any data concerning the issue of adult male victimization. On pages 4 & 5, the story of “The Case of Linda and Gary,” not very subtly informs the reader who it thinks the victims are and who it thinks the abusers are.

And ironically on page 6, a program “Safety Assessment For Everyone” (SAFE). SAFE notes, “Every hospital or clinic should have someone on staff who can help the patient plan for her [italics added] safety and explain the patient’s rights and available legal options.”

A Little Assistance Please

Despite the reality of male victimization our public policy makers submit only the Violence Against Women Act that demonstrates little to no concern about the victimization of men. Perhaps they just lack the facts. This is your opportunity to help them. Please FAX this to:

Arlen Specter FAX 1-202-228-1229

Orrin G. Hatch FAX 1-202-224-6331

Joseph R. Biden, Jr FAX 1-202-224-0139

It is not necessary that half of the victims be men in order for them to have access to equitable services and funding. Further, it is not necessary to minimize, marginalize or ignore male victimization in order to protect female victims from abuse.