Additional Titles









Divorce And Child Support Are Eviscerating Military Recruitment










David R. Usher
September 5, 2005

VAWA (The Violence Against Women Act) is up for congressional reauthorization. Radical feminists hope to expand their billion-dollar-per-year monopoly which pretends that domestic violence is always a gender problem.

Congress is playing a fatal game with the lives of half of American citizens by pretending that violence is purely a matter of sex.

During a 10-day period, Saint Louis has recently seen two brutal murders of husbands on one week, and a nearly-successful one. Connie Raybourn was arrested for killing her husband to collect insurance money. Joann Godt is charged with murdering her husband in a case of long-term violent spousal abuse. Maritha Hunter-Butler was arrested in another foiled murder-for-insurance scheme.

There was no place for these men to seek assistance because there are no shelters for men in Saint Louis. Hot lines, shelters, and legal advocacy agencies have little to offer either because there is no funding to do so.

Under VAWA, husbands with violent spouses have no good choices. Some of them get fed up and become the imputed aggressor, because men are usually stronger and more likely win when they respond to physical abuse. Those who take it like the punching bags we see so often on television may end up dead or seriously injured.

Amnesty International becomes Jane Crow

In the late 1890�s, southern states codified laws subordinating and segregating blacks, thus separating them from legitimate society and severely limiting their economic opportunities. Lynchings by the Ku Klux Klan were common. In fact, much of the discrimination against blacks in the late 1800�s and early 1900�s was propelled by soap-opera portrayals of blacks as being violent or sexually dangerous around white women (as is loosely documented in the movie �Rosewood�).

Amnesty International is doing nearly the same thing on its web site. The only difference is that the sexual agitprop is directed at all men, not just black men. The only difference between Jim and Jane Crow is which men are being destroyed by the mobocracy.

Male violence has declined substantially over the past twenty-five years, while female violence has been increasing (1) (2) (3). Providing cover for women�s violence via psychological projection and creation of delirious fear of all men via brute abuse of statistics is a direct assault on the fundamental rights of men to participate in family and society.

The fear and doubt cast upon every man has been driving what is often called �father-absence� (in sterile political parlance). There is ample evidence proving that approximately three-quarters of divorces represent an abortion of husbandry and fatherhood. In his book �The 12 things You Aren�t Supposed To Know About Domestic Violence�, Thomas James proves how fear of men has translated into systemic divorce discrimination.

In �no-fault� divorce, fear or mistrust of men is perhaps the predominant foundation for the majority of custody orders. Seventy-five percent of divorced men end up with no fungible rights to be a parent. These men are no longer husbands, or a part of �legitimate society�. They are most often portrayed as �deadbeat dads�, when in fact they are economic slaves to their former families and receive nothing in return. We do this without any showing of fault.

This is a clear violation of the 1948 U.N. Convention on Human Rights, which provides equal protection of the law, protection from arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile; a right to be presumed innocent, protection from arbitrary interference in home and family, and are ensured equal rights as to marriage, during marriage, and thereafter.

Amnesty International is knowingly violating the human rights of American men.

On August 17th, Michael, Geanoulis, Director of International Relations for Media Radar, sent a detailed letter to William F. Schultz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA. The letter placed them on notice that their facts are wrong, and suggests that Amnesty International�s strong support for VAWA is inappropriate.

In the letter, Media Radar requested that Amnesty International change the nature of its support to require egalitarian changes to VAWA; making the title and content inclusive of both genders, ensuring that commensurate funding and services are provided for men, and requiring funding for monitoring programs to ensure that men are not falsely accused and deprived of their natural human rights.

Amnesty International failed to respond or to withdraw its support for VAWA. Amnesty International can no longer claim to be a credible human rights organization.

Political contrapositions of science

Amnesty international screams out cult-feminist statistical propaganda about abuse on its web site, despite the fact that the numbers they cite have been proven to be wildly overstated. The statistics used by feminists are commonly based on raw hotline calls and reports which are not adjusted for injury, and are overstated through inclusion of reports involving minor spousal disagreements.

This abuse of science is well-documented in reports by many credible social scientists. The opinion of Dr. Murray Straus is particularly significant. Dr. Straus is a nationally-recognized researcher who originally called for creation domestic violence laws many years ago. It is his experience that feminist politics failed to follow the science. He sees that women�s violence towards men is a serious social problem.

Dr. Straus�s scientific opinion of VAWA, expressed to me last week, is eminently instructive: �I am in favor or renewing VAWA provided VAWA is made gender-inclusive. Otherwise, I am not�.

Many respected organizations and individuals call for equal human rights

An impressive list of leading pro-family organizations, individuals, and women�s organizations, have weighed in strongly against VAWA. They speak the truth because they have no personal or financial incentives to do otherwise.

  • The Independent Women�s Forum takes a very strong position against VAWA: �The Violence Against Women Act will do nothing to protect women from crime. It will, though, perpetuate false information, waste money and urge vulnerable women to mistrust all men � the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is based on "ignorance, non-facts, and wishful thinking about the power of the federal government to curb violence between intimate partners."
  • Wendy McElroy points out that VAWA established an illegitimate socially-engineered protected class at the expense of men. Wendy shows how bad research has lead to bad law, and calls for rejection of VAWA.
  • Phyllis Schlafly resoundingly calls for disposal of VAWA and feminist pork.
  • Cathy Young says we should abolish the special role of feminist-dominated domestic violence coalitions in shaping federally funded domestic violence programs. She also points out the likelihood the actor Phil Hartman might be alive today if Congress did not sanction discrimination against men.
  • Dr Stephen Baskerville, President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, shows why VAWA is actually violence on families. ACFC is strongly urging gender-inclusive modifications to VAWA.
  • Carey Roberts shows how VAWA polarizes the sexes and weakens the family, and demonstrates why it is unconstitutional.
  • The Agape Press shows how VAWA leaves men unprotected. � Glenn Sacks discusses why VAWA must be dis-gendered to stop destruction of the careers of innocent policemen.
  • The CATO Institute demonstrates why VAWA is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down VAWA subtitle C in 2000.
  • The National Review describes VAWA as �Sexual politics with a vengeance�.
  • Stop Abuse for Everyone has issued reasonable recommendations for VAWA changes.
  • The Safe Homes for Families and Children advocates that federal domestic violence legislation should provide equal protection to all Americans, regardless of gende
  • Lisa Scott shows how VAWA is commonly misused in her article Domestic Violence & Show Trials With Predetermined Outcomes.
  • Mark Rosenthal shows us why actor Phil Hartman might be alive today if VAWA did not cover for the behavior of his violent, drug-abusing wife.
  • Eric Ross, Ph.D identifies VAWA as the �fraud of the millennia�.

Human rights include everyone regardless of race or sex

We know that one-half of domestic altercations are initiated by women. Men sustain over one-third of all domestic violence injuries.

There is no reason to continue VAWA in its present form. VAWA must be re-framed to require that at least one-third of funding be directed to organizations known to help men. This funding must not be channeled through feminist organizations. The gender-based language in VAWA should be removed and balanced. These are reasonable changes that cannot be opposed on any legitimate grounds.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

It took America over 200 years to restore basic civil rights to African-Americans. How long will it take America to restore the simple human rights of men?

� 2005 David Usher - All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

David R. Usher is Legislative Analyst for the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition And is a co-founder and past Secretary of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children











The strongest leaders in this movement have coalesced within the American Coalition of Fathers and Children, under the leadership of Dr. Stephen Baskerville. There is no organization in America more capable of organizing a victory than ACFC.