Talk:Violence Against Women Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating.


Contents

[edit] restitution

I think the word 'restitution' is used wrong:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=restitution

[edit] Section Regarding Men's Rights Activist Groups Reaction

One should first start at Wikipedia's entry for Misandry, VAWA,DV Violence against women, Domestic Violence are all misandristic tactics feminists propagandists also put foward Power and Control as an attack solely aginst males as a sex and use open Propaganda "Power and Control Wheel" which is not a peer reviewed empirical model but rather an embodiment of what somen seek advantage in over men. The Power and Control Wheel decries budgets in a husband wife setting, where a freshman taking Econ 101 would know all units require budgets. The Misandry Caucus has espewed propaganda as fact for at least three decades and this deserves the highest degree of examination. NO NO NO below has reversed the facts and presnted a propaganda piece: for instance "the continuing pattern of abuse" which includes any effort to maintain a family budget, women make the largest (by dollar volume USD) share of retail purchases and efforts to thwart that spending pattern, as by a Family budget, is then abuse. Abuse is also denigration of another such as you are not good enough for me to sleep with tonight, or "be a man", "get me this" or "do this", and if you do not I am taking the kids.VAWA is indeed a political piece where some women and certainly the misandry caucus seek leverage over the male citizens of their country for personal gain. Keep this discussion open it will take time to link the sources, and cite them, overwhelming evidence USDOJ, RADAR, et al demonstrates female perpetration as more pervasive, further the totality of what is alleged by some to be abusive or violent (such as budget, not my fault comes from the Wheel) behavior. There has been a huge amount of political activity around this for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobV01 (talk • contribs) 13:50, August 27, 2007 (UTC) NO NO No- People please take a good look at where the information comes from that says men are just as likely to be victims of aggression or that women are more likely to be the initiator. Seriously, take a look at it. They look at primary agression. It is not about who the primary agressor is. Rather, it is about the pattern of abuse. Women are far less likely to be the perpetrator of the abuse. There is a huge difference between primary agression and patterned abuse. Also, it is a lot less likely to be reported if the man is the abuser, because of this pattern which in turn means that the abuser is so controlled by the abuser and fearful, that it will not be reported. The fact of the matter is: the deeper the abuse runs, the more afraid the victim is and the less likely they are to report. Also, when the abuse has become a cycle, it is more than likely to be kept private. This means that an abused woman may feel that she has an opportunity to retaliate in public when people are around and she feels safe to do so, even though it is more likely to be reported by a bystander. Now lets get to more real talk. when a female get up in your face, how do you react? Do you become paralized with fear? Well, if you are like most men, you laugh or think: oh, she's so cute when she is angry. Honestly, think about it. Now some will say that men are less likely to report out of shame. Do you think the shame of a woman who has built her life around this man only to find out how he really is would be any less? I know I didn't.


This information should be of interest:

Just read this for my own knowledge, and have to say it's not very informative at all. Only negative aspects of the bill are included. Criticism is fine but this article is really unbalanced. What does Feibert's study have to do with the VAWA act, for one?? Don't know much about Schlafly but she's hardly a good reference point for an editor trying to be neutral. Dinorific 07:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Links are ridiculously one-sided as well! Dinorific 07:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


This is bullshit. This is about as NPOV as WW2 propaganda.

[edit] Critism

In addition to the fact that this article needs to be cleaned up, someone needs to include the fact that many men claim to have been unfairly proesecuted, denied their constitutional rights, ect . . . under VAWA. As for Schlafly I believe her views should be included as representing one side of the arguement as she is both a constitutional lawyer, and the countries leading feminist basher and opponent of VAWA. It isn't POV to include major critics critism as long as you give both sides a mention. 216.255.40.133 07:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


The criticism section needs work. Not only is it the first section besides the overview, but the heading isn't "criticisms" - it's one criticism like it's the top issue surrounding VAWA. Not to mention that VAWA has been used against its original intentions by anti-immigration lawmakers. Please, someone who knows more, clean this up!! Glitterglue 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep your RFC open for awhile, a clean definition, will take considerable time, VAWA is a political piece with valid political amplification from many points of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobV01 (talk • contribs) 13:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

I've opened an RFC on this page to establish whether Criticism section is violating WP:NPOV or not. The criticism section that has been posted into this article and parts of it into Pro-feminist men may be a povpush by User:Loneranger4justice. This diff shows the most recent re-insertion by Loneranger4justice. What I see wrong with the section is that it violates neutral point of view, borders on soapboxing, is possibly synthesising sources and in other places is unverified.

The final sentences of the second paragraph have been added to 2 other articles: Feminazi and Pro-feminist men. These lines are unsourced pov: "Critics of VAWA reject inferences that instill gender politics of radical feminists and pro-feminist men by portrayal of women as victims and men as perpetrators and view the VAWA as discriminatory toward men as would be a Violence Against White's Act toward blacks. False allegations of violence or of a sexual nature was also a main tactic of the WKKK to encourage discrimination of black men." These lines have been removed.

The external links to eagleforum.org are also violations of WP:EL.

This material is not neutral and not properly verified by reliable sources and has been reinserted by revert by Loneranger4justice twice this month[1][2] here and 6 times since February 2007 on Profeminist men.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Loneranger4justice has few other contributions to wikipedia outside of adding these criticisms and making these reverts. They have twice been warned at level 4 (final warning) for NPOV about this.--Cailil talk 13:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The material is not neutral, but that is irrelevant as to whether it violates NPOV. It is appropriate to include non-neutral things (in fact it is a requirement of NPOV to do so) in order to make the article NPOV. Good and appropriate challenges to the position of some main pov in the article is appropriate. The edit that is presented here has some failures though. It should not weasle word saying "some critics say X". It should simply point out the criticism with a reference. So the introductory phrase in the first sentence, first paragraph should be deleted. The second paragraph may be true but it is unreferenced. Without a reference it should get a {{Fact}} tag and then if it fails to get a cite in a month, take it out of the article. In both cases, the relevance of the criticism to the main article should either be clear or it should be made clearer. --Blue Tie 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)