Report on Domestic Violence and Re-Authorization of Violence Against Women Act funds.
National Cry for Children
May 30, 2000
Esteemed members of Congress,
Re-authorizing funding for the Violence Against Women Act is not in the best interest of this country's families or national security. That is a very strong statement and I hope to back it up with verifiable and credible references in the next several pages.
There is an overwhelming body of evidence to establish that what we know to be a war on domestic violence is, in reality, a war on American families and America itself. I am the founder and Chairman of National Cry for Children, a group whose sole purpose is the protection of this country by protecting the future... our children. As you read this document I trust that you will consider that thousands of individuals-- hundreds of whom are children-- die needlessly every year in this country because of VAWA. Not because they weren't protected from their spouse, but because there was no one there to protect them from the system. Yes, the Federal government is financing the destruction and death of tens of thousands every year.
Traditionally our families were protected from this by the U.S. Constitution-- the document intended to protect all citizens-- but the Constitution, and its protections of due process of law, requirements that the innocent would be innocent until proven guilty, and even the right to a jury of our peers, have all but been replaced by the destructive force of propaganda wielded by a few for the manipulation of the masses.
I certainly do not believe that domestic violence should be tolerated. In fact I would support tougher penalties for batterers, but first we must determine who is battering whom, and to what degree. We must also act immediately to curb the "witch hunt" mentality that is so deeply ingrained in the mindset of the individuals who, as characterized by Political Science Professor Stephen Baskerville, "profess feminism, and practice Stalinism".
I'd like to share with you some statistical information from my home state of Virginia. Since the Federal government does not maintain certain information it is necessary to research these issues state by state. There is certainly no reason to believe that Virginia is not representative of all fifty states, and generally conforms to the mean in statistical data. Middle of the seaboard, middle of the road, as they say.
The sanctity of life
The first and foremost concern for us as a people must be the preservation of life. Certainly no citizen of this country should fear any sort of harm in their own home, but the deprivation of life rises to a heightened level that surpasses all others. No one wishes to see a women killed by her spouse or boyfriend, but the same desire to see men made safe from harm seems conspicuously absent from discussions of domestic violence.
Perhaps it is due to the fact that VAWA only funds educational programs targeted at stopping violence against women, and ignores the fact that men are abused by their spouses too. In fact the empirical data is overwhelming to support that over 50% of the time the FEMALE is the aggressor, not the male. [2]
Consider this recent article:
A commonly accepted ""truth'' about domestic violence is that 95% of the time, women are the victims and men the perpetrators. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Family Violence Survey--as well as numerous other studies-- have found that men are just as likely to be the victims of domestic violence as women. But aren't these women just defending themselves against their more violent partners? Straus and Gelles found that among couples reporting violence, the man struck the first blow in 27% of cases; the woman in 24%. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analyzed. They were also the same when only the woman's version of the events was considered.
Even more interesting are Straus' findings, released earlier this month, that men's violence against women--even as reported by women--has dropped 43% between 1985 and 1992. Over this same period, in contrast, assaults by women against men increased by about 28%. Straus concludes that "part of the reason may be that there has been no effort to condemn assault by wives parallel to the effort to condemn assaults by husbands.''
So where did the claim that 95% of domestic violence is initiated by men come from? From the U.S. Department of Justice, which collects data on the number of reports of domestic violence. But as women's rights groups rightfully claim, reports are not always an accurate measure of the severity of the problem. Certainly, some female victims of domestic violence fail to call the police, fearing retaliation by their abusers. But other Justice Department studies have shown that men, too, are reluctant to ask for help, reporting all kinds of violent victimization 32% less frequently than women.
Murray A. Straus, head of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, and Richard A. Gelles, a sociologist at the University of Rhode Island, who have been tracking spousal abuse for over 20 years, have come up with what are widely believed to be the most accurate estimates available--the National Family Violence Survey (NFVS).
Their Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, found that 84% of American families are not violent. In the 16% of families that do experience violence, the vast majority of that violence takes the form of slapping, shoving, and grabbing. Only 3-4% of all families (a total of about 1.8 million) engage in ""severe'' violence: kicking, punching, or using a weapon.
As for the perception that women who murder their husbands are treated harshly by the justice system, Dr. Mann found that few female domestic homicide offenders receive prison sentences, and that those who do rarely serve more than four or five years. These findings are confirmed by a recent Los Angeles Times article. The article, which quoted Justice Department sources, reported that women who kill their husbands were acquitted in 12.9% of the cases, while husbands who kill their wives were acquitted only 1.4% of the time. In addition, women convicted of killing their husbands receive an average sentence of only six years, while male spousal killers got 17 years.
I was shocked when I first learned that women are as aggressive, if not more, than men are. My wife abused me, but I thought I was statistically insignificant. I never dreamed that the problem of violent women was so widespread. But then I began to look at the world around me. Tonight while watching a "sitcom" I watched a woman throw an elbow to her boyfriends stomach causing him to double over in pain. The audience laughed rigorously. Imagine if the roles had been reversed and the boyfriend had struck his girlfriend with a crippling blow to the abdomen. The show would have been cancelled immediately if the next scene hadn't shown him being carted off in handcuffs. But there were no handcuffs when she struck him. Moreover had the scene played out with him responding to her blow by hitting her back, as a nation, we would have likewise gasped in horror at this domestic violence played out in our living rooms. "How dare he strike her back!" Consider the writings of Erin Pizzy who was a pioneer in the fight against domestic violence:
I said twenty-five years ago and I still say: Of the first 100 women
coming into the first battered women's refuge in the world in Chiswick,
London 62 were as violent as the partner they left. I expect, once true
figures can be correlated to find that figure reproduced as a true and
accurate figure...
Women are as violent as men, and are more likely to use violence in
personal relationships. The reason why their violence has been hidden is
because it is hidden violence - behind the closed front door of the home.
Women intimidate the family because of their strong central position in
the family and are now able to blackmail men, thanks to the bias against
men that has been prevalent in the last twenty-five years.
Erin Pizzy - founder of the domestic violence shelters - a vision that turned into a nightmare
Twenty five years ago, scientific evidence agreed with Ms. Pizzy also:
The first nationwide study of partner assault in the United States, done
in 1975, found that 4.6% of husbands were victims of severe domestic violence
each year, while only 3.8% of wives were partner assault victims. Since then,
annual assault rates against wives have fallen to 1.9%, while assaults on
husbands remain high - 4.5% in 1992. (Source: Murray Straus and Glenda Kantor.)
I grew up with strong family values and learned that men don't strike women, period. That's still good advice, but we need to insure that the flip side of that coin is included in the funding that comes out of Washington. Lest you believe the propaganda that violence toward men is not as serious as violence against women and therefore should be treated differently, I would point out that ALL statistics and studies on domestic violence show that across the broad spectrum of abuse, men are the victims as often as women. This moves from the pushing and shoving category all the way to murder. Consider this article from a survey of emergency room physicians:
Battered Men [JAMA, August 27, 1997; JAMA. 1997;278:620]
Based solely on ISA scoring, the researchers said 19% of the women patients and 20% of the men had experienced recent physical violence. They pointed out that some experts fear attention to domestic violence against men will de-emphasize the importance of services for women. "Recognition of the global nature of violence may be more realistic than assuming that only women are victims," the researchers wrote in this month's Annals of Emergency Medicine.In Virginia the death rate disclosed by figures from the Virginia Department of Health and the Virginia State Police Uniform Crime Report to the Federal government show that in 1998 the EXACT same number of men were killed by spouses or girlfriends as women were killed by their spouses or boyfriends. In the year 1998, there were 29 men killed by spouses or girlfriends, and 29 women killed by their spouses or boyfriends.
The common discrepancies come from conviction data being used in place of scientific data. When virtually ALL scientific studies show that women are as violent as men, and when murder rates are statistically insignificant between the sexes, but conviction data shows great disparity, then the war on violence should not be focused on men as the abusers, but rather on the nation's police forces, prosecutors, magistrates, and judges for failing to ensure that conviction rates parallel the occurrence of crime. [4]
Consider this excerpt from an Associated Press story on May 17, of this year regarding domestic violence:
``We have made significant increases in providing shelters, hot lines
and restraining orders to protect battered spouses and mandatory arrest
for domestic violence incidents,'' said Professor James Alan Fox of
Northeastern University in Boston. ``And the largest beneficiaries have
been men. The biggest drop is in women killing husbands.
``We've given wives alternatives to feeling like they have to pick up a
loaded gun to kill their loaded husbands,'' Fox said. ``Divorce is
easier.''
The number of intimate partner homicides has declined substantially
since 1976 for every race and gender group except white women, the
bureau said, citing FBI data on homicides. Intimate partners committed
fewer murders each year during 1996, 1997 and 1998 than in any other
year since 1976.
If we now have equal rates of murder for both men and women, then must we not conclude that prior to the "shelters" and "restraining orders" outlined above more women were killing their husbands, than husbands killing their wives? Furthermore Prof. Fox's statements as to why fewer husbands are being killed are based in speculation, and insulting to men. There is certainly no reason to believe that because of protections from the government these men are being saved, it is more likely that violent women who crave control and manipulation can control and manipulate their husband more effectively through the fraudulent use of restraining orders and false convictions of domestic violence. Where once they used their own hands, they now use the hands of judges who have been trained (brainwashed) by programs designed to teach them to be sensitive to the emotional needs of the purported "female victim". This brainwashing has been funded by VAWA grants.
When a woman kills her husband he and his resources are gone, not to mention the possibility that she may face conviction for murder. Prof. Fox is correct in his assertion that now divorce is easier. Thanks to VAWA it is easier for women who truly need protection to receive help, but it is equally easy for the millions of women who are actually abusers to now wield the greatest weapon in the world-- a judge's gavel swung by the long arm of the law. Many of you have studied domestic violence and know that at its heart it stems from a perverse desire to control and manipulate another. It is not based in the actions of the victim, but in the emotional needs of the perpetrator. "I hurt, so you will hurt too." It is a cycle of control. Bring the victim within reach and strike. Cease the attack when the victim appears to have had enough and threatens to leave. Let things cool off, and then bring the victim close enough to strike again.
This cycle is at the heart of all abuse, whether between husband and wife, parents and children, or boyfriend and girlfriend. But this cycle needn't always take the form of hitting and shoving. Genetically men tend to be more imposing physically than women are. But it should be equally noted that women tend to be more emotionally domineering. VAWA has enabled millions of women to literally destroy their spouses through the unequal force of false allegations of abuse. This force is unequal because the emotional abuse inflicted upon the husband is coupled with the PHYSICAL ABUSE of the government. Our government does not drag men out in the street to beat them. Our government throws them out in the street with the clothes on their backs, where society will ridicule them with vile and disgusting labels such as "batter" and "unfit parent". They are not considered "beaten husbands" they are considered "dead-beat dads". But this is only the beginning.
In my opinion, Professor Fox's statement above-- that men are benefiting from the wholesale destruction of our families and futures-- is on the same order as those who would tell a rape victim that if they lay back and enjoy it, it won't do as much emotional damage. His statement asserts that it is good for the government to pay someone so they won't commit murder! Taking justice into your own hands is illegal and UN-Constitutional, no matter the reason. But these sorts of anarchist and vigilante statements are rampant in domestic violence forums. Furthermore there is a widespread belief that if a woman kills her husband she must be acting in self-defense. PRE-EMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE IS MURDER. It has been murder in every society throughout the ages, at least until NOW. We have been led to believe that women only kill their husbands to protect themselves. This is a lie.
When it comes to the murder of intimates, as criminologist Coramae Richey Mann documented in her 1996 study of female killers,
But even when the physical body is left intact, the inner part that gives us our humanity is often destroyed. These false allegations of abuse have become so widespread that on April 11 of this year a University of Miami Law professor said false allegations are "the stock in trade of family lawyers..." in an interview with the Miami Herald.
False or unfounded allegations of abuse are, in and of themselves, abuse. It is an abuse made all the more horrendous because it not only turns the victim away from help and rescue, but also punishes the victim to a point where they have lost their "life" and the day to day existence that is left is really not worth living.
Virginia Department of Health, Division of Child and Adolescent Health, statistics on suicide show that in 1998 there were 416 deaths from homicide and legal intervention in Virginia, and almost twice as many (827) deaths from suicide. All experts agree that as many as 50% and possibly as many as 75% of these suicides stem from divorce and separation episodes. While the root causes can be multi-faceted, there is a direct causal link to the dissolution of a relationship. Many times the emotional scars of alienation from one parent create the catalyst for these suicides, as noted by the fact that 75% of all suicides are committed by children from fatherless homes. Furthermore National statistics show that 75% of suicide victims are male, and that divorce doubles the risk that a man will commit suicide.
Extrapolating from these figures we can glean that in 1998, in the state of Virginia alone, deaths by suicide, induced through divorce, exceeded deaths by all other homicides. And approximately 300 of these were men who were KILLED because of separation or divorce. As many as 45 of these deaths were CHILDREN who could not bear the pain of their parents’ divorce or re-marriage. While exact numbers are difficult to obtain, it is estimated that close to 20,000 Americans commit suicide over divorce each year. Several thousand are children who didn't need to die.
The Virginia Department of Health, Division of Child and Adolescent Health, statistics on suicide show that from 1983- 1997, of the children that committed suicide, almost 70% of the deaths were inflicted by gun shot wounds. When we back out the number of suicides from the number of gunshot deaths, we see that the statistics provided by groups such as the Million Mom March are skewed-- not towards resolving the problems that are causing teenage deaths, but by these special interest group's desire to lessen the symptoms, not heal the disease. This country does not need gun control, we need divorce control. As many as 75% of all suicides and homicides could be avoided by strengthening families, and returning fathers to the lives of their children.
Of course people who commit suicide don't usually get much sympathy from us, but in most of these cases they should, because this is not about heartbreak, this is about the systematic torture of an individual until they can take no more. Yes, some of these suicides are just the loose canon that felt jilted and decided to end it all, but many others were the victims of a hit squad paid for by VAWA grants. The hit men wear black robes instead of black ski masks, but their effect is the same. However most of these "hit men" are well intentioned, well meaning judges and magistrates who believe they are doing the right thing, just like many of you believed you were doing the right thing when you authorized VAWA. The unintended consequence of VAWA has been to unleash a devastating piece of gender biased legislation that can only proceed by first destroying the protections of the Constitution, so it can move on to its next victim.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
It is only fitting that in the war on families, commonly referred to as the war on domestic violence, an epidemic of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) would also sweep the nation. After all PTSD was originally defined on a different battlefield, in a different era. At the time it was called "shell shock". It is caused by any set of circumstances that are beyond your control, threaten your existence, and potentially deny the basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This disorder does not come from "heartbreak" it comes from torture. It comes from an overwhelming, never ending helplessness brought on by an outside force.
It comes from being dragged out of your home when you've done nothing wrong. It comes from being told to shut up by a judge who walked into the courtroom and scowled at you, then smiled at your wife. It comes from believing that as soon as you have your day in court this nightmare will finally be over. It comes from going to court and learning that the nightmare has just begun. It comes from a court appointed attorney telling you that if you just plead guilty to the false charge of domestic violence and take a class you won't get jail time, but if you defend yourself against the false and malicious charge; they'll throw the book at you. It comes from being told that it doesn’t matter what really happened, you are going to be convicted because you are a man.
What the attorney didn't tell you is that you waived your right to your children because you are a convicted batterer and thanks to VAWA batterers can't be around their kids. It comes from realizing that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It comes from realizing that your children are being punished and they're even more innocent than you are.
And it all started thanks to VAWA. If you finally get in touch with one of the over 8000 groups in this country standing up to fight these injustices you soon learn that there's nothing you can do about your own case. You made a bad decision because your attorney told you to, but now nobody wants to hear about it. Frantically you search for somebody to help you. There's no one available, so when you try to fight your way back into court you find out that if you haven't dotted the "i" and crossed the "t" --things that would only matter to a lawyer trying to protect his own turf-- your case gets dismissed. Now you spend every free minute at a law library so you know what to do. After a few months you know more family law than the average attorney, so you head back to court. This time you find out that even though the law is on your side, judges and attorneys don't follow the law. They have "broad discretion" and a VAWA grant taught them how to handle a nuisance like you… less visitation and more child support. The message is clear, "Shut up and stay out of my courtroom or it will be worse next time."
In despair you kiss a picture of your kids goodnight, and say a prayer for them. You remember the nights you used to pray with them by their bedside and wonder if maybe you shouldn't have prayed for something differently back then. A tear comes to your eye as you think about the fact that somehow you must have let them down. Somehow you must have been able to save your family, but you never can figure out what that something was. After all that's what dads do isn't it... protect their family? Your wife, her attorney, the judge, and most of the people you know have already told you you’re expendable as a father. Now you start to tell yourself the same thing.
Now you're entering the PTSD arena. It begins to set in when the smoke starts to clear and your initial shock starts to subside. It's replaced by something far more cruel. PTSD makes you afraid. Afraid of everything. Most importantly you are afraid to think. You get stuck in a place where you know you have to do something to end the nightmare, but even the most modest task causes you to tremble and shut down like a clam out of water. Many people suffering with PTSD suffer the most heinous realization of all. You got this way because of the government shoveling money hand over fist to greedy localities that track domestic violence convictions through their accounting department. Your child was stolen from you for a measly couple hundred bucks. Your life was stolen from you because "boys don't cry" but girls do it quite well.
Consider what a leading expert said in a recent newspaper:
The Booming Domestic Violence Industry, August 2, 1999, John McGuire,
Massachusetts News
"The legislature has loosened the standard. Now the person seeking the
order need only state he or she is "in fear" of the other person. It doesn't
take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may
truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under 209A, if
she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her
children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."
"A man against whom a frivolous 209A has been brought starts to lose any
power in his divorce proceeding. They do start de-compensating, and they
do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing
post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle.
They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends,
unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect.
They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to
see where that person was prior to the restraining order."
Regardless of the BEST intentions in enacting the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA is destroying families and individuals. VAWA is creating violence where there was none, figuratively and literally. There can be no doubt of this fact. The government has adopted a widespread policy of, "Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!"
Shredding the Constitution
The fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o state shall...deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law..." U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, section 1.
Herein lies the protection from abuse of process, and that protection is based in every man and woman having a fair trial before they are deprived of their life, liberty, and property. When a woman can march into a magistrate’s office in any city or town in this country, with no corroborating witnesses or physical evidence, raise her right hand and say, "He shoved me and I'm afraid," and suddenly set in motion the power of the state against the accused, with NO provision for a presumption of innocence, then the Constitution has been discarded. Some scoff and say, "That's not what the 14th Amendment is talking about," and to those I would answer:
"While the Constitution does not specifically mention parental rights,
the Constitution's guarantee of liberty has been repeatedly interpreted
as encompassing such a right:
While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty
thus guaranteed {by the Fourteenth Amendment}...Without doubt, it denotes
not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the
individual to contract, to engage in the common occupations of life, to
acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up
children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience,
and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923).
Similarly, the Supreme Court in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 1982, noted its "historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of
family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment."
I know of several documented cases of fathers coming home to find their bags on the porch and a new man moved into their home with their wife and their kids. When these fathers have made a scene in the front yard they were carted off in handcuffs, and handed a restraining order against them obtained in a hearing they weren't "invited" to. These fathers have been effectively removed from their children, their home, and their belongings with no wrongdoing on their part, and NO chance for protection from the law. The courts make no effort to avoid such scenarios because they are BEING PAID through VAWA grants.
I have in my possession a complaint for criminal contempt filed against a father for violating a protective order. The complaint states plainly that this father's "crime" was that while he was at the hospital visiting his infant daughter, who had been admitted for a serious illness, the father reached over and touched his WIFE'S hand and told her he loved her. This gentleman spent 48 hours in the county jail for this "crime". This gentleman went into the state police databank of dangerous criminals for this "crime". And this gentleman, in this situation, is one of the statistics being brought before you as an example of another case of domestic violence. [5]
I dare say our founding fathers would roll over in their graves. Furthermore I hate to think the REVOLUTION they would fight this very day over the oppression and tyranny that has grown up in this country’s "family" courts.
Consider the implications to the rights guaranteed this father by the Constitution, but denied him by the courts. Certainly he was denied the love and affection of his wife and child. Both this father and this mother each had the right to get married. The Supreme Court decision above makes that clear. They both exercised their right to get married, be married, and raise children. Yet suddenly the mother filed for divorce unilaterally. She decided (and the full power of the state concurred) that she was now capable of denying the father his Constitutionally protected right to be married and raise his family. She had the court order an "injunction" against him exercising his right to be married and raise his children. This common injunction is called a no fault divorce. These injunctions seem appropriate when there is justifiable reason to deprive another of their rights due to their criminal behavior, but when a spouse has committed no crime worthy of such denial of the basic inalienable rights, these injunctions seem well outside the bounds of the law. No fault divorce is no more Constitutional than allowing one person to decide unilaterally that they are going to "marry" someone against their will.
"State interference with a fundamental right must be justified by a
compelling state interest." ROE, 410 U.S. at 155.
In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158,166 (1944), the court
acknowledged a "private realm of family life which the state cannot
enter." See also Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977).
Of course "psychologists" would state that for someone to stay in a marriage when they aren't happy is detrimental to them. They fail to recognize how detrimental divorce is to the rest of the family. We are guaranteed the right to "pursue" happiness, not have it handed to us. We have removed ALL incentive for Americans to uphold their vows to their spouse, their children, their society and, in most cases, their GOD. The escalating divorce rates in this country have all but crippled us as a nation. This great country, that as recently as 50 years ago was pointed to as the fortress of morality for the world, has now become the laughing stock of the world. Most of this stems from the psychological premise of "make yourself happy first". Consider the definition of psychology as defined by World Book Encyclopedia:
"Psychology is the study of why humans and animals behave as they do. Psychologists study how our senses work, and why and how people learn and forget. They are interested in why people differ from each other. They try to discover why some persons lead happy, busy lives while others are unhappy and do not work well. Psychologists investigate why people try to reach some goals and avoid others."
Now consider the definition of religion as defined by World Book Encyclopedia:
"Religion could perhaps best be defined as man's attempt to achieve the highest possible good by adjusting his life to the strongest and best power in the universe. This power is usually called God."
In fact, that same encyclopedia also describes "metaphysics" as the search for meaning and tells about the two major disciplines: Super-naturalism and Naturalism. Super-naturalism seeks meaning through the supernatural, or through belief in a "God force" while Naturalism seeks meaning through natural sciences. I bring this up to make one strong point. Psychology is, by definition, a religion. It has become the "State Religion" of the United States of America, and it masquerades as a science so that it may dominate through control, just as our forefathers warned us of when they prohibited a "State Religion".
I can call a duck a swan all day long, and it won't make it a swan. I can also call psychology a science all day long, and it won't make it a science. It was the religion practiced by Eve in the Garden of Eden when she ate the fruit so she could have her eyes opened to be like God, and it is now stronger than ever. The Greek word "psyche", from which it gets its name, doesn't mean "mind", it means "soul". Psychology is the religion of humanism, which states that all men can be "like God" if we only try hard enough. It's a religion that is State mandated, State funded, and State regulated. And psychology is the State religion that is hiding behind the trappings of VAWA. This State religion has destroyed millions of families, and forced its doctrine on others by creating no fault divorce. This state religion hasn't stopped there either. It has been force-fed down the throats of every other religion in this country through a slow and persistent government mandated push.
This State religion puts loving fathers behind bars for saying, "I love you," because in the dogma of the State religion those three words are evil. This State religion teaches unsuspecting mothers to sacrifice their children on the altar of greed and self-seeking because they bought into the media hysteria about "another woman being killed by her spouse every nano-second".
Most importantly this religion prevents men of other religions from fulfilling their GOD given DUTY to protect, teach, and nurture their own children. This religion has ripped as many children as possible from the care and nurture of their home, and placed them in a State regulated day care center where disciples of "child psychology" can indoctrinate these children into full-fledged, born again believers of the new State religion. When some brave soul tries to break out of this religion and publish a paper that isn't in line with the accepted doctrine they are quickly dismissed. They are labeled heretic and quack for simply stating the truth. Simple truths like children need their parents; or that women can be control freaks too; or that marriage is a good thing.
I'd like to recall for you again the definition quoted before, regarding psychology. However this time as a Bible scholar, ordained minister, and Christian theologian I will make a few adjustments:
"Christianity is the study of why humans and animals behave as they do. Christians study how our senses work, and why and how people learn and forget. They are interested in why people differ from each other. They try to discover why some persons lead happy, busy lives while others are unhappy and do not work well. Christians investigate why people try to reach some goals and avoid others."
I feel rather certain that any of the world's major religions could fit their name into those slots as well. A deceptive religion has infiltrated the structure of this country from the top down and it operates on lies and deceptions. I cannot speak for all the world's religions, but I know that my religion teaches me who is the father of all lies. And when millions of Americans blindly believe the lie that destroying a child's family is somehow "in the child's best interest" I know that this must be coming from the "master of deception".
Child abuse
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report: Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, fully 62.8% of all child fatalities are perpetrated by women, and this trend extends to all forms of abuse studied except for sexual abuse. To wit: Physical Abuse- 51.5%; Neglect- 49.8%; Medical Neglect- 82.0%; Sexual abuse- 25.9%; Psychological Abuse- 51.7%; Other abuse- 55.8%.
The same report, p. 7-2, Table 7-1, shows those women between the ages of 20- 40 years old committed a mean average of approximately 67% of the child abuse reported, while men only accounted for the remaining 33%. Conspicuously absent from this study is the breakdown of violence not only by gender, but also by relation to the child victim. Again it appears as though these statistics may have been intentionally skewed. Nevertheless other studies are available which show biological fathers are THE LEAST likely to fatally abuse their children.
Consider the Heritage Foundation report
"The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family, and the American Community," May 15, 1997 notes that: "[due to] ... the disintegration of family and community ... America's infants and young children, about 2,000 of whom -- 6 per day --, die each year," and provides the following estimate:
Total Children Killed Per Year 2,000
Killed by Mothers 1,100 55.0%
Killed by Stepfathers 250 12.5%
Killed by live-in Boyfriends 513 25.7%
Killed by Biological Fathers 137 6.9%
Clearly the most dangerous place for a child is in a single mother home. Between biological mothers, stepfathers, and live in boyfriends, the total sum of fatalities reaches 92.5%! This is backed up by a report prepared by Donna Shalala, Secretary of DHHS:
In Single Mother Households, 422 children are fatally abused each year.
In Single Father Households, 25 children are fatally abused each year.
In Dual Parent Families, 16 children are fatally abused each year.
(additionally)
Of 430 children killed by firearms, 322 are killed in Single Mother
Households.
Source: Donna Shalala, "National Child Abuse Prevention Month" and "Child
Maltreatment 1994: Reports from the States to the National Center on Child
Abuse and Neglect".
Most frightening is not that roughly 17 times more children are killed in single mother households than in single father households. What is most frightening is that only 16 children die each year in an intact home, and still the government will not work to limit divorce, limit unwed births, and strengthen families. Of all the families that received any sort of "treatment" for violence, neglect, and abuse only 24.2% of the families received Family Preservation Services according to the report Child maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. p. E-7, Table E-5.
I refer you again to the fact that 70% of teen suicides are from gunshot wounds and as many as 75% are because the child's parents are getting divorced. Based in the figures supplied by Ms. Shalala in the table above, if these children had been in a healthy intact family, of the total of 893 children that DIED in that year, 770 CHILDREN MIGHT HAVE LIVED. These are unnecessary deaths that are often triggered by the selfish desires of a thoughtless parent, whose whimsical, bitter, vendetta is funded by a grant from VAWA.
As to the broad discrepancy between the number of children killed by their mothers compared to those killed by their fathers, there is no simple answer. Often this is trumped up as mothers having the greatest opportunity to abuse because they have custody most of the time. If this were the case we should see the figures closer to the order of 300 deaths in single mother homes to 100 deaths in single father homes. The variance is not corrected by adjusting for custodial arrangements. Further a statistical survey, with a credible source of reference, disproves the myth that more children die at the hands of their mothers because more children are in their mothers custody:
"The "opportunity" excuse fades further in a 10-year study of confirmed
parental child abuse/neglect in a state that awards over 40% "visitation"
time to separated noncustodial parents (usually fathers). In that state,
prior to the statewide guideline, 64% of confirmed child abuse was
committed by mothers, 36% by fathers. Following implementation of the
"visitation" guideline, the gap has widened and now stands at 69%-70%
mothers, 30%-31% fathers. [By this study, CHILDREN ARE SAFER WITH THEIR FATHERS when considering the OPPORUNITY EXCUSE!!]"
Supplied through research of the Men's Health Network
Tragically it is often small boys who must suffer the abuse that their mother once inflicted on their father. It has been suggested and is supported by government research, that frequently mothers displace their anger at their husband or boyfriend toward the son of that man. There is little other reasoning for such a dramatic distinction between the victim genders in fatal abuse. Even though young children are typically quite similar in their behaviors, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report: Child maltreatment 1997 p. 6-1, paragraph 6.2, shows that the child fatality victims showed a bias of 56.6% of the children being boys, and only 43.4% of the victims being girls.
Even in the light of these overwhelming studies, men continue to be singled out as the "aggressive sex" with women being "protected" from the maladjusted, dangerous, social deviants called fathers. Federal programs enacted by Congress have worked to destroy families and cause irreparable harm to children. Family ties are destroyed-- based in hearsay, speculation, and fraud-- by the thousands everyday in this country yet very little monies are marked to strengthen families and target legitimate abuse.
Moreover the government Departments entrusted to oversee these problems often create more problems. When it comes to issues of family, it appears that the very government is at the heart of the destruction of American families. The document frequently cited above on child maltreatment is quite a long read. For that reason the Department of Health and Human Services produces "executive summaries" so you, those entrusted with acting on that report, won't have to go to the "trouble" of reading the "whole book".
The corresponding document in this case is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, titled, "A Nation's Shame: Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect in the United States", and it makes 26 recommendations based on their research of child abuse in the U.S.A. There are NO recommendations regarding women perpetrators of child abuse, even though the research is overwhelming that women are killing far more children than men. In spite of powerful and definitive evidence that children SURVIVE much better in a two-parent home, there are NO recommendations for strengthening families. And, even though fathers are in the extreme minority when it comes to inflicting abuse on a child, the executive summary has presented
Recommendation 22:
"State and local agencies should design prevention programs for men.
Programs should integrate services on child abuse and domestic violence
and address the need for interagency training.
Specific strategies must reach men and alert women to the potential
role of men in abuse. These strategies should be funded via Federal
Family Preservation and Support monies, as well as public and private
sources at the state and local levels. Because of the correlation
between frequent co-existence of domestic violence and child abuse,
programs must address all forms of family violence, especially when
children are in the home."
Notice that the Department of Health and Human services is recommending the FRAUDULENT use of funds designed to preserve families, and stating that these funds should be used instead to promote anti-family propaganda that is contrary to their own research. This is the reason why only 24% of the families in crises received family preservation services. The government is recommending that those monies be spent educating women to believe that their children are in danger from the safest person for them to be around… their FATHER! Donna Shalala should be indicted for treason.
This Executive Summary: Fatal Child abuse and Neglect in the United States, also states on page 22, "In addition, research suggests that males cause most physical abuse fatalities." Whose research? Certainly not their own:
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report: Child maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, the report that this executive summary is supposed to summarize, 66.8% of the fatal child abuse perpetrators were female.
That executive summary is appropriately named, but this Nation’s Greatest Shame, is that the Department of Health and Human Services is lying to Congress so they can avoid their duty to protect children from fatal abuse. As a child advocate I say this is only one small step from murder. Again I say Donna Shalala should be indicted for treason against the United States of America for the deliberate fraud she has perpetrated against the moral fabric of this country. I would point out to you again the mentioned figures from Ms. Shalala above wherein she SPECIFICALLY states that in a recent year there were TWENTY TIMES as many deaths from single mothers. This is not "mistake" on her part. It is a several BILLION DOLLAR FRAUD.
Justice is blind, it turns a blind eye
Speaking of attorneys:
" ...eighty percent of those polled said they had actually handled a case
where they believed there was false accusation of abuse, as in disputes
over custody of children, for instance." [News Release, from The Dilenschneider
Group Inc., (representing the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers),
Three First National Place, 70 West Madison Street, Chicago, IL 60602, 11/91.]
As a country we will never win the war against abuse until we first win the war against false allegations. We will never win the war against false allegations until there is a price exacted for them. When 80% of the attorneys surveyed state that they believe they have represented a client who has made false allegations, I have to ask, "Did you report them?" Aren't attorneys sworn to uphold the laws and Constitutions of the country and their state? Aren’t attorneys "officers of the court" and as such sworn to uphold the integrity of the court? Yet these attorneys don't report these clients, because false allegations are the fuel that feeds the fire of billable hours. In a Miami Herald article on April 11, 2000, a University of Miami Law professor says false allegations are "the stock in trade of family lawyers..." If a suitable alternative to VAWA is to be found, it must incorporate severe penalties for false allegations. They traumatize parents and children and many NEVER recover.
The following excerpts and articles from around the country paint a clear picture of the social view of this new class of sub-human... The American father. First let's look at the employment arena.
Monday, April 17, 2000
The Associated Press
BOSTON -- A group of Massachusetts companies are tackling a problem that businesses have been reluctant to confront -- domestic violence.
The group, Employers Against Domestic Violence, realized that it's not just a domestic problem: Domestic violence costs American businesses up to $5 billion each year in absenteeism, lower productivity, higher turnover, and health care costs, according to the Bureau of National Affairs.
Employers Against Domestic Violence began three years ago as a series of lunchtime discussions among several Boston companies about how to protect employees from abusive husbands and boyfriends.
Today, the group is a formal non-profit with 28 private corporations among its members, as well as government, police, and advocacy groups. It has helped similar organizations get started in cities such as New York and Indianapolis.
Last summer, Colleen Mackesey was trying to keep her two children away from a husband she says was abusive and had threatened to kill the entire family.
"They said you can go to court 4,000 times and you won't be fired," Mackesey said. EADV members cite statistics from the Family Violence Prevention Fund that one in four American women report having been physically abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives.
"We realized if it was happening in society, it was happening in the workplace," said Rebecca Jones, a director of human resources at Verizon Wireless.
It is certainly a safe bet that any man, who has been the victim of a false domestic violence claim, would be quickly dismissed by one of these companies. It is also a sure bet that a father, who has been accused of vile acts such as domestic violence, child abuse, or child sexual abuse, will not find an employer willing to let them "go to court 4000 times without being fired". In fact most of these fathers can't even disclose that they have to go to court for fear of reprisal. Most Americans still believe that if you are convicted of a crime you must have done it. They don't realize that the most realistic estimate is that TWO THIRDS OF ALL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONVICTIONS ARE FALSE. [3]
This is further complicated by the fact that in the age of the internet it takes anyone with a keyboard and five dollars, about ten minutes to get a complete background check on someone else. If a father finds himself wrongly convicted, and loses his job, he will not be able to find another one easily. His reputation is marred. Companies, and their human resources departments who are comprised of 85% women, don't want to hire child abusers and wife beaters. For some employers it is disdain, for others it is fear of a loose cannon in their workplace, for some it's payback for women who've been abused, but the reasoning doesn't matter. The important thing is you have a father out of work with little chance of finding meaningful work, and now facing incarceration for not being able to pay child and spousal support (which is routinely set at the highest possible level for abusers in a tactic that flies in the face of "double jeopardy").
WOMAN PLEADS GUILTY TO PERJURY /
MOTHER OF 3 RECANTS ALLEGATION OF ABUSE
At first glance this story might seem like a step in the right direction, but consider that this prosecutor never ONCE even considers that the woman might be telling the truth that she wasn't abused. In fact he implies that as many as 50% of all domestic violence complaints are recanted because the "victim" has second thoughts. What could blind this man so much to the truth that many, if not most, of these women are lying? They aren't lying when they recant, but when they make the claim in the first place. Attorney Reid tells us why in the story. It's about money. It's about time and resources. VAWA grants pay his office to convict for domestic violence, they don't pay for perjury charges. In a scam-- that no public defender will ever admit publicly, but will admit privately-- court appointed lawyers try to lose these cases. They don't want to lose big mind you, certainly no jail time for their client, but they see a victory when an innocent is convicted, but still gets to walk out of the courthouse. And everybody in every courthouse in America knows all about it.
The public defender and the prosecutor supposedly work out an agreement where the man can get off with no jail time if he pleads guilty, pays costs and a fine, and takes a class. This works well for everybody except the new convict, although he won't realize it until it's too late. This way the state collects all court costs and attorneys fees, they also collect a fine, and they collect Federal matching money for being tough on domestic violence. Public defenders that don't play this game soon find their name removed from the public defender list of attorneys, and they get no more of these easy cases that are open and shut convictions from the beginning. For the most part these aren't malicious people. They are attorneys who have been fed false information. They have also been taught that it is better to err on the side of caution. Most of them don't realize what they are getting their clients into, because most of them don't practice family law.
But this is where you, as members of Congress, come in. Now all the statistics that are thrown at you to get additional funding have been inflated. In a state that may have 10,000 legitimate cases of abuse, the conviction rate may be as high as 25,000. The numbers get skewed way up and soon the pressure groups are talking about how domestic violence is on the increase and every few seconds another woman is being beaten, so therefore funding must be increased. Incidentally most of these special interest groups are the ones training the judges and lawyers about domestic violence, and they are being paid through VAWA grants to do the training. It is as if the government handed over their Visa card to an irresponsible teen.
But back to the prosecutor who charged the woman with perjury. Lest you believe this man is waging war against "perjury" to protect the integrity of the courts, I will tell you that I have personally spoken with this man SEVERAL times about documented cases of perjury. His office not only refuses to file charges, they refuse to investigate, because, "It's just too difficult to prove" and "We don't want to get in the middle of domestic relations matters."
The sentiment of this prosecutor is the same as others around the country. He doesn't care about perjury, due process, or justice. He cares about convictions that produce Federal monies in the state coffers. He advances his career that way. In a few years when his boss decides to step down his record for being tough on domestic violence can get him elected. It got some of you elected.
Consider the story above about the woman who made a spiteful malicious claim in a fit of jealous fury. It was similar to the way someone might strike his or her spouse in a fit of jealous fury. But she used the most accessible force that was sufficient to inflict emotional and bodily injury against him--the false allegation. When she tried to correct her mistake, the state brought forth its extreme power to COERCE this woman to testify falsely against her husband.
This prosecutor admitted to a newspaper that he has threatened a woman with 11 years in jail if she won't change her story. God forbid she was a weaker woman or of less noble character, because I dare say that their are millions of women who would, and in fact do, crumble under such pressure. I would point out to you something that may not be obvious at first glance. If there was ANY physical evidence or ANY witness to this crime, this prosecutor would not have been charging the woman with perjury; he would have been convicting the man without her. The only thing they had to build a case on was her word. We live in a time when that is all that is necessary, one person's uncorroborated word. This over zealous prosecutor was basing every ounce of this on her word, and his preconceived bias. He could have obtained a conviction with a photograph of her injuries, but there were none. He could have built a circumstantial case by calling in the neighbors to testify to what they heard, but they heard nothing.
But this is not about "he said/she said"; this is about the attitude of this prosecutor. This attorney had already decided that the alleged abuser was guilty. Even when the ONE witness admitted that she had lied this prosecutor still proceeded as if the man had committed the crime. This prosecutor had usurped the roles of not only judge and jury, but also executioner. He was livid when that opportunity was taken from him. This wasn't a case of domestic violence; it was a case of another prosecutor deciding that the Constitution didn't apply to him.
The falsely accused man spent 8 days in jail before he was released. The woman convicted of perjury spent time in jail too. The prosecutor who admitted in the newspaper to seeking a fraudulent conviction against an innocent man probably got a promotion. This is also VAWA at work. She probably deserved some jail time, but in the end she was trying to do the right thing. Every one of us knows what it's like to be angry and say something we wish we could take back later. The problem arises when the police and prosecutors fail to realize that sometimes people who are in love do stupid things and say stupid things that they later wish to recant. But just like once you invite a vacuum cleaner salesman into your house they won't leave till you buy something, so it is with the state when it comes to family matters. You open the door, and they are there till they get somebody behind bars, or at least take away your children. All too often this starts off as someone (usually a woman) seeking a tactical advantage:
In a 1993 article in the Massachusetts Bar Association Newsletter, Elaine Epstein, then president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, warned that the "frenzy surrounding domestic violence" was leading to disturbing excesses: "Restraining orders ... are granted to virtually all who apply... In many [divorce] cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage."
Even when women beat their husbands they are told it isn’t their fault. Consider this article from The Detroit News:
For thirteen years he never hit back
By Becky Beaupre / The Detroit News
For 13 years, Karen Gillhespy was the abuser.
She says she broke her husband's ribs, ripped entire patches of his hair out, scratched him, bit him, beat him with a baseball bat and kicked him.
He never hit back -- and he never filed charges.
But more shocking to Gillhepsy are the reactions she encountered telling her story.
"They told me I was the victim," said Gillhespy, 34, of Marquette. "Here's no way any of this was his fault. ... I knew the difference between being the victim and being the perpetrator. I am ashamed for what I did."
Gillhespy believes most people don't believe men can be victims. She knows they are wrong.
"I think it is just as serious as (violence against women) -- you just don't hear about it," Gillhespy says. "Maybe more men would come forward if you did."
Gillhespy, who wed at 16, says she began beating her husband early in their 16-year marriage. Her former husband, reached by phone, declined to comment but confirmed that abuse took place.
At the time, Gillhespy was a crack user, heroin addict and alcoholic. She says she beat her husband in fits of rage, usually when she wanted money or the car.
"I told him he was no good, and that he was loser. I kicked him and threw things at him," she says. "I used him and used him and used him."
The turning point came in February 1993, when Gillhespy struck two pregnant women in Grand Rapids while driving drunk.
Gillhespy received 45 days in jail and was sent to a drug treatment program in Marquette. She has gotten a divorce, finished high school and stayed sober. In a year, she will receive a degree from Northern Michigan University.
And although Gillhespy now understands the issues that led her to violence, she says she accepts full responsibility for her actions.
Her strength, she says, comes from admitting that she had a problem -- and from trying to help others accept that domestic violence goes both ways.
"I'm the other side of the coin," she says simply. "If you're abused, you're abused."
Lesbian Rights Are Women's Rights |
"When my ex-husband challenged the custody of my children because I am a lesbian, my years of activism in NOW and the women's movement were returned a hundred fold." -- Rosemary Dempsey, a long-time National NOW leader who won a precedent-setting lesbian custody case"For lesbians of color, homophobia is compounded by race and sex discrimination. I am glad to see NOW linking all of the issues that are under attack by the radical right, as it gives us a perfect opportunity to bring together people with common goals." -- Mandy Carter, one of the nation's leading African-American lesbians fighting the radical right and a member of NOW's National Lesbian Rights Committee."As a lawyer and an activist, I know that changing laws isn't enough. We've got to work together to end the culture of discrimination." -- Susan Mackenzie, attorney at law and National NOW Board Member."NOW's organizing was instrumental in our successful campaign to add sexual orientation to the White House Conference on Aging's non-discrimination policy." --Del Martin , early NOW leader and author of Lesbian Woman with Phyllis Lyon."Any women who is or has ever been active in the feminist movement knows that the question isn't whether you will be called a lesbian, but rather when. It's a divide and conquer tactic designed to stop us from pursuing power." -- Lisa Tiger, Native American AIDS activist.(Quicktime clip from Rally for Women's Lives speech)"I am a young lesbian, a feminist and an activist. NOW provided a safe and empowering place for me to be who I am." --Amy Drayer, co-president, Scripps College NOW. |
|
|
You and your girlfriend are holding hands on a busy street. A man shoves you and spits out a threat. You are both shaken, but aren't comfortable going to the police. |
You avoid conversations with your office colleagues so you don't have to discuss your lover. You wouldn't dream of having a photo of her on your desk or bringing her to the office holiday party. You're attracted to other girls at school, but there's no one for you to talk to. You're afraid you'll lose your friends and your parents will kick you out of the house. You're fired from your job of 25 years because your boss finds out that you are a lesbian. When you call a lawyer to sue for reinstatement, you're shocked to find you have no legal protection against such discrimination. |
|
We're Working To Stop The Hate.NOW is the largest feminist organization in this country working for lesbian rights. The day-in, day-out activism of NOW's quarter of a million members and hundreds of chapters makes a difference. We mobilize our powerful grassroots activists to defeat anti-lesbian and gay ballot measures and legislation. We press members of Congress and the administration to prosecute hate crimes and outlaw employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We organize record-breaking marches to protest the radical right wing and their hateful agenda. We advocate for women who are driven out of the military by lesbian-baiting and military witch-hunts. We champion important advance such as same-sex marriage and funding for lesbian health issues. We need your help NOW.Show You Support Equal Rights.......for all women. To win those rights, we need to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. We need to stop the violence that keeps many of us silent for fear of being known or perceived as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. More of us need to tell the truth about our lives and make it clear that homophobia is a social disease.We need legal recognition of all of our families. We need the same rights to health, pension and tax benefits as heterosexual couples. We need to stop bigoted judges who take children away from nurturing lesbian mother. Regardless of your sexual orientation, we urge you to stand united against discrimination. By simply joining NOW or buying feminist products from our catalog, you help give us the clout and money we need to champion these issues. Contact your local NOW chapter to find out about their action plans to stop the hate.Join NOW, where lesbian rights have been a national priority since 1975. Do it for yourself--and for girls and women everywhere. If you click Join NOW, you can DO IT NOW. |
||
|
"In a stunning defeat for women this week, the Supremes invalidated a small portion of the Violence Against Women Act (but NOT its programs or services), declaring that gender-motivated violence is not economic - even though the cost to women is estimated at $3 billion a year. The ruling was 5-4, carried by the conservative majority. The next President will appoint at least two more judges -- 'nuff said." -- The Washington Feminist Faxnet http://www.feminist.com/hot.htm May 19, 2000 This represents that blatant dissemination of lies in an attempt to subvert the democratic process. The "truth" is the greatest fear of these presure groups, so they twart it at all costs. These messages of propaganda are blatantly spread by government tax dollars, as is pointed out in the article below: Feminist Ideology Dominates Perpetrator Programs It's Always His Fault © 1997 by Sally L. Satel,M.D. Increasingly, public officials are buying into Gloria Steinem's assertion that "the patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself." They are deciding that the perpetrators of domestic violence don't so much need to be punished, or even really counseled, but instead indoctrinated in what are called "profeminist" treatment programs. And they are spending tax dollars to pay for these programs. |
|
The government of the People of the United States of America is funding the subversion of itself. If patriarchy requires violence, then why are women as violent or more violent then men? The answer has nothing to do with violence. This isn’t a "war against the violent patriarchs" it is a war against a societal form of government founded in patriarchy… by those esteemed men we call our Founding FATHERS. This is the war that VAWA fights-- a war against the principles and values entrusted us by the framers of our Constitution, but VAWA is ON THE WRONG SIDE. VAWA does not protect women or children, VAWA DESTROYS them. [6] This is a war against families. Consider the quotes below from the leaders of the rebellion against America, and from the feminist leaders who fight for VAWA. They know too well how effective VAWA is, and they also know what it is used for: From Sisterhood Is Powerful, Robin Morgan (Ed), 1970, p. 537: "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." Barbara Findlen, "Is Marriage the Answer?" Ms Magazine, May~June, 1995: "Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women." Roxanne Dunbar in Female Liberation: How will the family unit be destroyed? "[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." Lenore Walker, after visiting one of the early shelters for battered Women, as cited in The Battered Woman, p.195: "I was struck by what a beneficial alternative to the nuclear family this arrangement [communal housing and child raising] was for these women and children." Linda Gordon, "Functions of the Family," WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969: The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must Find better ways of living together.... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the Break up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her Special responsibilities to her children.... Families will be finally Destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all. |