he
Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA) will expire this
September if it is not reauthorized
by Congress. 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.
Although a significant
number of domestic violence
victims are male, VAWA defines
victims as female. As one
result, tax-funded domestic
violence shelters and services
assist women and routinely
turn away men, often including
older male children.
Estimates vary on the prevalence
of male victims. Professor
Martin Fiebert of California
State University at Long
Beach offers
a
bibliography
that "summarizes 170
scholarly investigations,
134 empirical studies and
36 reviews."
It indicates that men and
women are victimized at
much the same rate. A lower-bound
figure is provided by a
recent DOJ study: Men constituted
27 percent of the victims
of family violence between
1998 and 2002.
Accordingly, men's rights
activists not only accuse
the VAWA of not merely being
unconstitutional for excluding
men but also of dismissing
the existence of one-quarter
to one-half of domestic
violence victims.
The criticism should go
deeper. In many ways, VAWA
typifies the legislative
approach to social problems,
which arose over the past
few decades and peaked during
the Clinton years.
The legislative approach
follows a pattern: public
furor stirs over a social
problem; Congress is pressured
to "do something";
remedial bureaucracy arises,
often with scant planning;
the problem remains; more
money and bureaucracy is
demanded; those who object
are called hostile to "victims."
VAWA arose largely from
the concern stirred by feminists
in the '80s. They quite
properly focused on domestic
violence as a neglected
and misunderstood social
problem. But their analysis
went to extremes and seemed
tailor-made to create public
furor.
As an example, consider
a widely circulated claim:
"a woman is
beaten every 15 seconds."
The statistic is sometimes
attributed to
the FBI, other
times to a 1983 report by
the Department of Justice's
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
But neither the
FBI
nor the
DOJ
sites seems to include that
statement or a similar one.
Men's rights activists
contend that
the elusive statistic derives
from the book
"Behind Closed Doors:
Violence in the American
Family"
(1980) by Murray Straus,
Richard J. Gelles and Suzanne
K. Steinmetz. The book was
based on the first
National Family Violence
Survey (1975),
from which the FBI and other
federal agencies drew.
The survey does support
the claim that a woman is
battered every 15 seconds
but also indicates men are
also victims. By omitting
male victims from their
efforts, however, domestic
violence activists create
the impression of a national
epidemic that uniquely victimizes
women who require unique
protection.
In response to public outcry,
Congress was pressured to
"do something."
It passed VAWA 1994, granting
$1.6 billion to create a
bureaucracy of researchers,
advocates, experts, and
victim assistants, which
some collectively call "the
domestic violence industry."
Reauthorized in 2000, VAWA's
funding rose to
$3.33
billion to be
expended over five years.
Now, VAWA 2005 seeks
more money.
Voices like the
National Organization for
Women insist
that "the problem"
remains. To argue for the
"growing problem of
gender-based violence,"
however, NOW reaches beyond
traditionally defined violence
against women and seeks
to protect high school girls
from abusive dating experiences.
NOW states, "Nearly
one in three high-school-age
women experience some type
of abuse — whether physical,
sexual or psychological
— in their dating relationships."
Without expanding the definition
in such a manner, it would
be difficult to argue for
more funding.
Data indicates that
traditionally defined violence
against women has declined
sharply. The rate of family
violence reportedly "fell
from about 5.4 victims per
1,000 to 2.1 victims per
1,000 people 12 and older,"
according to DOJ statistics.
VAWA 2005 faces much more
opposition than its earlier
incarnations. One reason
is that
men's rights activists
have been presenting counter-data
and arguments for over 10
years.
Advocates of VAWA 2005
have responded
with
pre-emptive accusations
that paint opponents as
anti-victim: for example,
"If Congress does not
act quickly to reauthorize
the legislation, they are
putting women's and children's
lives at risk."
But most of the anti-VAWA
arguments are not anti-victim.
Many are anti-bureaucracy
and could apply to any of
the so-called "industries"
created by the legislative
approach to social problems.
(The Child Protective Services
is another example.)
Some anti-bureaucracy objections
focus on the billions of
dollars transferred into
programs, often with little
oversight or accountability
attached.
Other objections point
to those dollars being used
for political purposes rather
than clear and immediate
assistance to victims. The
misuse of tax dollars is
most often alleged on the
grassroots level, where
men's rights activists often
face VAWA-funded opposition
to political measures, especially
on father's rights issues.
One incident in New Hampshire
illustrates the point. Earlier
this year,
The Presumption of Shared
Parental Rights and Responsibilities
Act was defeated
by vehement opposition from
the New Hampshire Coalition
Against Domestic and Sexual
Violence. The coalition
both
wrote to and spoke before
the Legislature. Accordingly,
father's rights advocates
in New Hampshire are seeking
language in VAWA 2005 to
prohibit any VAWA-funded
agency from "legislative
lobbying, advertising, or
otherwise supporting the
endorsement of, or opposition
to, any state proposed legislation"
which is not explicitly
related to the prevention
of domestic violence.
I think they should seek
to kill the act entirely.
I believe VAWA is not only
ideologically inspired and
discriminatory, it is also
an example of why bureaucracy-driven
solutions to human problems
do not work.
I hope VAWA becomes the
Titanic of the legislative
approach to social problems.
I hope it sinks spectacularly.
Wendy McElroy is the editor
of
ifeminists.com and a
research fellow for The
Independent Institute in
Oakland, Calif. She is the
author and editor of many
books and articles, including
the new book, "Liberty
for Women: Freedom and Feminism
in the 21st Century"
(Ivan R. Dee/Independent
Institute, 2002). She lives
with her husband in Canada.