Why the Violence Against Women Act is a money grab for activists not interested in "solving" the problem

Here I am, sidetracked again by that faithless acquaintance Hypocrisy. I encountered it again after glancing on the front page of the morning newspaper. Republicans ain’t budgin’ on the budget issue, but at least some of them are backtracking on their ossified position on some social issues (obviously for political viability reasons). In this spirit, while sequestration went into effect a few days ago,enough Republicans in the House crossed over to pass the Violence Against Women Act, which other than being political theater is supposed to provide monetary assistance to victims and shelters. As I’ve mentioned before, the primary demographic this is aimed at is the very small percentage of highly politicized white women of the Harriet Christian stripe, who didn’t want to vote for the black guy but were paranoid about what Republicans might do on abortion rights (which they did nothing to harm during the six years the right was in control of all three branches of government). The media keeps talking about how Democrats hold the “women’s vote,” but this is just white female journalists on a power trip; the fact of the matter is that white women are just a few percentage points as likely as white men to view the Republican as “their”—meaning the “white people’s”—party, as evidence by the fact that exit polls showed that 58 percent of them voted for Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election. Given the nature of exit polls and minority candidates, this percentage may even have been higher.

But back to the point about hypocrisy. I occasionally have “breakfast” at a Jack in the Box near the airport before I show up for work, and those wee-hours of the morning are often frequented by some “characters.” Recently I observed what appeared for once to be a “normal” couple—normal for trailer park types—come inside and sit in a nearby cubicle, where they seemed to be engaged in casual conversation, although I wasn’t exactly paying attention to what they were saying. Then suddenly the woman swept the Jumbo Jack she had been nursing off the table onto the floor. She raised her voice, starting to curse the man and started kicking his legs with such force as to practically knock the table over. With a few more derogatory comments she got up and left. The man watched her leave, got up and picked-up the sandwich off the floor. In a voice drained of emotion he asked someone if he could borrow a cellphone, and shortly afterwards left. 

I observed several things from this encounter. One was that this female had no reservations about using physical violence. Another was that she gave it no thought that he would actually retaliate; perhaps she thought that because they were in public establishment, he wouldn’t dare do so (but people would “understand” her behavior). This wasn’t your “passive” victim; she was the aggressor. I also came away with the thought that just being in the same room with her for five minutes would amount to being subjected to “domestic violence.” It’s remarkable how it is politically incorrect to talk about domestic violence by women. I recall a former columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer mentioning an email he received from a police officer, who said that even when police responded to a domestic incident where it appeared that the female was the aggressor, if she claimed domestic violence it didn’t matter what the truth of the situation was; the man would be the one arrested and charged.

There was a time when people were not so “shy” about talking about domestic violence by women. That’s how Rip Van Winkle came to take his extended nap, and in Henry Fielding’s 18^th century literary classic Tom Jones, you will find this passage, which describes what happened when the mild-mannered school teacher Mr. Partridge is confronted by his homely wife, who harbored intense suspicions in regard to Jenny Jones, a servant girl and one of his pupils:

As fair Grimalkin, who, though the youngest of the feline family, degenerates not in ferocity from the elder branches of her house, and though inferior in strength, is equal in fierceness to the noble tiger himself, when a little mouse, whom it hath long tormented in sport, escapes from her clutches for a while, frets, scolds, growls, swears; but if the trunk, or box, behind which the mouse lay hid be again removed, she flies like lightning on her prey, and, with envenomed wrath, bites, scratches, mumbles, and tears the little animal. Not with less fury did Mrs Partridge fly on the poor pedagogue. Her tongue, teeth, and hands, fell all upon him at once. His wig was in an instant torn from his head, his shirt from his back, and from his face descended five streams of blood, denoting the number of claws with which nature had unhappily armed the enemy.

Mr Partridge acted for some time on the defensive only; indeed he attempted only to guard his face with his hands; but as he found that his antagonist abated nothing of her rage, he thought he might, at least, endeavour to disarm her, or rather to confine her arms; in doing which her cap fell off in the struggle, and her hair being too short to reach her shoulders, erected itself on her head; her stays likewise, which were laced through one single hole at the bottom, burst open; and her breasts, which were much more redundant than her hair, hung down below her middle; her face was likewise marked with the blood of her husband: her teeth gnashed with rage; and fire, such as sparkles from a smith's forge, darted from her eyes. So that, altogether, this Amazonian heroine might have been an object of terror to a much bolder man than Mr Partridge. He had, at length, the good fortune, by getting possession of her arms, to render those weapons which she wore at the ends of her fingers useless; which she no sooner perceived, than the softness of her sex prevailed over her rage, and she presently dissolved in tears, which soon after concluded in a fit.

Something tells me that nothing has changed in the translation since then; the movement from woman as aggressor to passive “victim” is perhaps the typical sequence of events in a domestic violence incident. 

Now once again I have to refer to “The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey” released in 2011 by the Center for Disease Control, which save for the “sexual” part was entirely ignored by the media, despite the fact that it is the most thorough and detailed study of the problem. I’m not going minimize what the survey reports concerning domestic violence against women, especially since I know that there are some men out there who seem to feel that “respect” is something to be attained at the point of a fist, rather than the mind; some also seem to have the bully mentality, devolving into cowardice when confronted by someone who isn’t half their size.  Still others think that physical means is the only way to “change” or stop a disagreeable situation. As for the nature of women who engage in "aggressive" behavior, I’m not going to speculate, but something tells me they’ll find ways to rationalize it--with the help of the media and various biased "studies."

In regard to the survey, the numbers aren’t always clear as to their meaning, as there seems to be a great deal of overlap. According to table 4.1, 32.9 percent of women claim to be the victim of some form of  non-rape physical violence—from a simple slap to a beating—in their lifetimes. In another table, 30.3 percent report to being “slapped, pushed or shoved.” This could be multiple times, by different men; but this only has to occur once to a person to make the list. 17 percent of women reported to be “slammed against something” by their partner, 14 percent reported to be hit by a fist or hard object, and 11 percent reported being beaten. Since these numbers are not supported by actual crime statistics, assumptions have to be made in regard to their veracity. For those who insist, the survey indicates that 9.4 percent of women report to being forcibly raped in their lifetimes—a far lower incident rate that usually quoted, but the percentage is inflated by the media and activists to include anything that was not forced, but  “unwanted” or not explicitly consented to. 

But things become “interesting” in Table 4.2, which shows that 28.2 percent of men reported to be the victim of non-rape physical violence by their intimate partners—which amounts to a negligible difference in victimization rates between genders. Only half as many men reported to be the victim of “any severe physical violence” as women in their lifetimes; but the fact that the survey numbers are far from “negligible” for men indicates where the “silent” victimization really lies. Although the survey reports that “only” 2.6 percent of men reported to have been “beaten” by their intimate partner in their lifetimes, the fact that there are nearly 3 million men in this country who are victims of “beatings” by their intimate partners is not a “little” number. 

Under the heading “Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner,” the number of men and women who reported to be a victim of such is nearly split 50-50.  But if there is anything that is most “surprising” about the survey, it is that it seems to show that domestic violence perpetrated by men is decreasing—while that committed by women has either not changed or is increasing. The study asked respondents their level of victimization in the previous 12-month period; 4.5 percent of men reported to be the victim of physical violence by their partner, compared to 3.6 percent of women. In regard to “severe” physical violence, 43 percent of the victims are indicated as men, up from 32 percent overall. In regard to psychological “violence”—which admittedly is subject to sometimes quizzical definitions, but is something that women’s activists have used to prime the pump of “victimization”—the percentage went up to 55 percent of victims being men. Nearly 60 percent of victims of “coercive” control—as opposed to the nebulous “expressive aggression,” which is essentially name-calling—are male.

I’m afraid that I’m one of those “guys” whose mind goes blank at yet another of a parade of gender politics story, especially if it involves an element of mendacity like the issue of domestic violence does. The media deals with the issue of domestic violence as if only men are guilty of it, and when it is so narrowly focused it can’t help but be one of those issues (like gun violence) that causes a great fire, but is quickly extinguished from the public consciousness. The only people who are fooled are activists and activist journalists. I’m sure some women are not as sanguine about the issue, contrary to assumptions by the media. I remember reading  something somewhere in which a women’s shelter volunteer admitted that she was afraid of—not for—many of the alleged victims. 

So why would the media ignore a report that is probably the most thorough and detailed of its kind? Because it had the audacity to do something that other “studies” on domestic violence refuse to do: Include males in the survey. The fact is that domestic violence is one of those problems that can’t be “solved” by focusing only on men. And perhaps that is the “point,” isn’t it? As long as women are not held accountable for their own actions, they can be the perpetual “victims.” And as mentioned concerning the inflated numbers in the human trafficking game, the worse the activists can make it sound, the more money from donations and government payouts—as the Violence Against Women Act will do. This legislation  isn't meant to "solve" the problem because it is a political gambit; it deliberately refuses to address the behavior of women who contribute at least as much as men to the vicious cycle.