Sunday, March 21, 2010

I-VAWA: Why it would open Pandora’s box

This article presents an analysis of the proposed US law, the International Violence Against Women Act.

General Critique:

The proposed International Violence Against Women Act represents a naked power grab to impose a radical gender perspective on U.S. foreign policy, export an anti-family agenda, and satisfy a favored political constituency – at a $1 billion expense to U.S. taxpayers.

Research shows persons who are in a stable, married relationship are at far lower risk of experiencing domestic violence. But I-VAWA provides a $1 billion blueprint to destabilize the family, the most important social and economic institution to women, men, and children around the world. This is particularly true in low-income countries that have weak social service programs, no retirement system, and no state-funded unemployment insurance.

I-VAWA would promote social disintegration by defining “violence” in the broadest possible terms, advancing the shibboleth that only men are abusive in partner relationships, providing incentives to women to make accusations of abuse, breaking up the family, and eventually forcing persons to become dependent on the welfare state.

In addition, I-VAWA would serve to trample on internationally-recognized civil liberties, including those enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by undermining due process for the accused, discriminating against male victims, and providing a pretext for heavy-handed state intervention into family matters.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Makes the breath-taking assumption that violence against men is unworthy of concern. (According to the World Health Organization, 1.1 million men and 500,000 women die of violence-related causes each year. )

2. Stereotypes and vilifies men as abusers. (Research shows men and women are equally likely to engage in partner violence, and at least half of all partner violence is mutual. )

3. Ignores the fact that female-initiated violence (e.g, a slap or punch) has been found to be the leading cause of female domestic violence injury.

4. Presents a series of Findings that are one-sided, unverifiable, false, or flatly Orwellian.

5. Presents a Statement of Policy using vague language that is easily susceptible to ideological interpretation, e.g., “female empowerment” and “gender integration”

6. Expansively defines domestic violence to include “psychological harm,” which in practice encompasses any marital tiff or lover’s quarrel.

7. Defines violence to encompass “violence perpetrated or condoned by the government” – a phrase that opens the door to require governments to fund abortion on demand (feminists often claim that lack of access to abortion services represents “violence against women”).

8. Provides sweeping powers to the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, powers that are likely to be used to usurp normal foreign policy-making procedures.

9. Advocates that programs “shall consider the safety of women and girls as a primary concern in deciding how to design, implement, monitor, and evaluate programs.” (Section 112). In practice, this serves as a pretext to diminish due process protections for persons falsely accused.

10. Promotes law enforcement approaches such as restraining orders, which are known to be ineffective in stopping violence and routinely violate the civil liberties of the accused.

11. Funds training efforts to change “social norms” and “community attitudes.” Experience proves such programs are highly biased in their content and ideological in their purpose.


World Health Organization. World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva: 2001. Table A.2.

Straus MA. Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations. Presented May 23, 2006 at New York University. Table 3.


BrusselsLout said...

If they are so confident they can pull this one off (and they might just) it shows the contempt they have for the intelligence of Mr and Mrs Average.

The research findings against the ideology behind the proposed Act are plain. And you don't need mind-straining logic to understand the incidious nature of their anti-male propaganda.

Yes, this is a disturbing development. But it's as disturbing they are even trying in the first place.

What else will they be trying to get away with?

Anonymous said...

These demented feminists want it both ways - they want women to be able to work in the police and the armed forces on an equal basis on equal pay, but they also want domestic violence to be portrayed only as male-on-female, so that it can be used to denigrate men so that women have as little as possible to to with them, which is how it is portrayed in the media now.

I say that if women can't cut as an equal in domestic violence, they obviously also can't cut it as employees of the organisations whose specific task it is to deal with or counter violence.

It beats me how the unbelievable nonsense and lies that the feminists only deal in have not been rejected by society wholesale.

The only reason I can think of why it hasn't been rejected in its entirety is because the people in the media and at the helm don't want it to be.