Someone posted this image in the comments at A Voice for Men. As far as I can figure it, it depicts brave MRAs pulling down the allegedly evil Violence Against Women Act, which for some reason is represented by the Venus of Willendorf. Because women are fat? Or is just feminists who are fat? Or battered women?
Is every supposed MRA cause really just an excuse to talk shit about women?
Ack, sorry for the double post! The Murakami book has at least one female-on-male rape in it. It’s used as a post-modern mystical literary device, which only makes it worse.
I distain the men in my life all the time. I walk around with a can of green paint and a brush.
For some reason, I don’t have as many male friends as I used to…
@magelyn:
Any examples?
Found this on a site called aclu.procon.org (source), a list of pros and cons for VAWA. Just some selections from each side:
Pro:
– “VAWA is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking…”
– “… we’ve seen an almost 50% drop in domestic violence.”
– “VAWA impacts so many women because it allocates vital funding to a variety of programs—everything from research grants and legal assistance to community initiatives and assistance for immigrant families…”
– “According to almost everyone associated with victim services or prevention of violence against women, the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994 made an enormous, positive difference.”
Con:
– “A woman seeking help from a VAWA-funded center is not offered any options except to leave her husband, divorce him, accuse him of being a criminal, and have her sons targeted as suspects in future crimes…”
– “One reason orthodox feminists saw VAWA as a major achievement was that it endorsed a key tenet of their creed: that male violence against women is a form of collective political terrorism, both an expression of woman-hating and a deliberate strategy to perpetuate patriarchal dominance…”
– “Largely viewed as an anti-domestic violence measure, VAWA has become a flashpoint for the men’s rights advocates who see it instead as the living symbol of anti-male bias in law.”
The source is really worth reading, to see who’s saying what and how they’re saying it. If this is a accurate sampling for pros and cons, then you’ve got one side showing what a positive impact the law has made, and the other saying that the ideology behind the law is bad. (Of course, the language has now been changed for the new reauthorization, which includes male and non-heterosexual victims)
@Mags
Where are these feminist ideologues people keep talking about? I have yet to meet one, other than Dworkin and other radicals who are so often misunderstood. Every sheep bleats “Feminism is an ideology.” Well then, what are its ideals?
Do people actually think when they say things like this or do they just inherit mainstream opinions and just go with them?
@BoggiDWurms:
Saw this on a t-shirt once. “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.”
And now, in my research, I’m coming across conflicting information. Anti-VAWA peeps say that the language is only supporting women and demonizing men, whilst supporters are saying that the language is gender neutral and even includes same-sex couples.
Sooooo many links from things like falserapesociety and fathersandfamilies and similar sites…
Alright, this is pissing me off a little bit.
“For that matter, S.A.V.E. has lobbied members of Congress about all those things. It’s also tried to get the language of VAWA to be made gender-neutral”
Is the language gender-neutral or not? I’m seeing completely opposite things here…
A quote from Congressman Poe (TX), found on AVFM:
“Poe told the Washington Times, “Certainly, I think that’s something that we could consider, because the law applies equally between men and women under the act already even though the name says only women. So I’m open to changing the name. Domestic Violence Act. I like that phrase.””
*starts pulling hair out”
Well, it is Violence Against Women Act. So it’s apparently not neutral. But it may be gender-neutral beneath the surface.
@Boggi:
That’s the point I’m trying to figure out. Anti-VAWA people say that the law only talks about women, supporters say that the language is gender neuteral. A post on AVFM from 2011 says that a group is campaigning for the language to become neutral.
Then others say that the language is gender-neutral and is applied that way, even though the bill’s title says “women.”
Of course, nearly every source that is anti-VAWA also talks about evil feminists and man-haters… which makes me seriously skeptical about their claims…
I don’t know. On the one hand I think changing the name will help male victims gain a little more recognition. On the other hand, I think changing the name will create the illusion of a gender parity that isn’t there. I think having a VAWA keeps the fact that there are a horrendously disproportionate amount of female victims of DV in society’s mind.
Kristin – It’s not Kafka on the Shore is it? It’s been a while since I’ve read it, but I remember disliking pretty intensely for its rapey elements. Among other things.
“…The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that is up for renewal epitomizes a ruinous trend. Tax-funded ideologues produce highly biased studies and conclusions; bills based on skewed data become law; then the lies are forced into the framework of society and into people’s lives…” (http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.4544)
The notion that VAMA is gender neutral is laughable. VAMA is basically a funding vehicle. The vast majority of funding goes to women oriented projects. Hell, it created an Office on Violence Against Women (http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/overview.htm)
Those that argue it is gender neutral are either woefully ignorant about the bill, or purposefully misleading.
@Shadow:
Unfortunately, in my google searching I’ve seen a vast majority of the hits go towards sites criticizing VAWA for saying “women” instead of “people” or something… The effect of the title is apparently that women are favored above others by the law, rather than women are the main victims.
But GAH I haven’t yet seen an anti-VAWA person talk about the actual statistics, apart from one or two places saying that “men and women initiate violence equally,” a statement I recall from a study which also went on to say “but women suffer much more from violence.” Basically the study equated a slap with a black eye…
@Magdelyn:
The Office on Violence Against Women was founded in 1995, back when the law was indeed written solely for women. But since then, the wording of VAWA has been rewritten and clarified.
Because of that, the department would also provide gender-neutral services, despite its name (which was probably based off of the bill’s name).
And the source link didn’t work… here it is again.
@Mags:
This is kinda funny, in retrospect… Seeing as we aren’t just talking about random folks on the internet now.
@kirbywarp
Yeah, I know there was a study that was being used to claim gender parity that had the problems in methodology that were basically what you said so I think I know what you’re talking about. TBH, it seems to me that it’s mainly the manosphere, and manosphere leaning types that play the “women are favored above others by the law” card about the title, so I don’t think it’s all that much of an obstacle. As far as helping male victims goes, I think that we can find better ways to get society to realise that, in any given hetero-couple, it is very possible for the female partner to be stronger, better trained or just more willing to inflict violence on her partner. I think one of the problems is that we, as a society, are so hung up on the way we socialize people of both genders that we forget that not everyone will receive the same socialization, or interpret it the same way, because society’s made up of a bunch of individuals.
@Shadow:
Agreed on nearly everything you said (though the manosphere is certainly loud on the internet); my thing on the name is that these days, with gender-neutral language in the bill, the name should be gender-neutral as well. There are better ways to remind people that women are still disproportionate sufferers of DV.
I’m finding an issue similar to racisim, though, in that a lot of people seem to believe that everyone is already equal; that while VAWA may have been needed in the past (I don’t see these words explicitly), it certainly isn’t needed now…
In fact, I see this on a ton of issues; Worker’s Unions aren’t needed because the problems have already been solved, and now the Unions are hurting businesses rather than helping workers. Feminism has solved all the problems women face, and now they’re just harming men rather than helping women. Programs like Affirmative Action have solved problems with racism, and now they’re hurting white people more than helping minorities.
I think it’s all just an erasing tactic, where issues with sexism, racism, etc. are less prominent now that the associated civil rights movements have made big strides. But no, there’s still a strong undercurrent that makes things like the manosphere appealing to the casual observer…
hmm… I suppose my wording could have been better… I wrote in in pieces. -_-
“Agreed on everything you said…”
“I’m finding an issue similar to racism in that…”
@ Kirbywarp
Seriously, its like you have to try and assume the mindset of a fucking right-wing bogeyman to understand what bizzaro everything-is-reversed world these people exist in.
Anti-male bias in law? The same law that didn’t give women the right to VOTE until 1920 in America is now actually riddled with anti male bias? Because something that tries to reduce domestic violence uses “Woman” in the title? How ’bout that.
@debbaasseerr:
Apparently Feminism was REALLY successful O_O
The law was always written as gender neutral, the guidelines were always written as gender neutral and there was one single exception-services for American Indians which were specified to be for women in certain categories.
One of the trolls from a long time ago brought this up so I found the original text, read the hearings on it, and read the guidelines created. It was gender neutral from the start in the statutory language although I do think the original intent was to lower violence against women since there really was not a lot of knowledge or acceptance of male victims at the time. Certainly did not include LGBT individuals even though it should have.
Here is the thread talking about it.
Now I have to go back to marveling that any woman who has taken birth control is a prostitute by Rush Limbaugh’s “logic.”
And Mags thinks there is no misogyny anywhere at all.
sigh. Speaking of the title of this blog.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8i7FNwgyK8&w=560&h=315%5D