Yesterday, I noticed in my Google alerts the latest of a long line of hateful screeds directed at anyone who dares challenge the validity and/or usefulness of the Violence Against Women Act. In it, I found the usual litany of attack phrases about bullying and stupidity, not to mention the veiled accusations of criminal activity.

For the most part, I am fairly used to these, and not particularly distressed by them. They are much fewer these days, as the intended audience is much smaller, and in general more sophisticated in their choice of pundits and commentators. For the most part, the only thing accomplished by these poorly-constructed condemnations of heresy is that the writer so often gives such a clear picture of her ignorance of the issues, and the opposition, while making no considered argument for the points she is attempting to make. Sometimes – actually more frequently than one would expect – there is no point beyond, “these are bad people, and because I say so you should support VAWA and anything else I say is about ending domestic violence.”  

Occasionally I’ll see criticism leveled at the anti-VAWA group for using some of the same arguments the pro-VAWA people use, and that’s always good for a (very) small bit of comic relief.

I have yet to see any argument in favor of this particular piece of legislation that did not contain some level of hysteria, obscure logic, or prevarication. Radical feminists, of course have become proficient at all three over the years, because I believe that if the general public recognized the true essence and purpose of VAWA and its hundreds of associated laws, it would soon be as dead as today’s generation of fruit flies.

That’s not what I’m thinking about right now, however. There was something else that struck me about the particular work I read, something that has been nagging at me for some time. I wasn’t clear on exactly what that was, and so I looked back through the works of this individual, those on her blogroll, and then through the websites of some of the so-called “coalitions against domestic violence.” (I use the quotes because that is not essentially what these orgs are about.)

Then I went through a few of the websites for shelter programs. It took many hours, but eventually that elusive “thing” began to emerge. Probably the reason it was so hard to pin down was the fact that this is an absence of something.

What is lacking in every single program, website, and written work I looked at is this: empathy. One could also view it as a lack of compassion.

In all of the material, I saw not one word of concern for the unique individuals that make up the present and future clientele of these agencies. They were all very proactive; all about making somebody, whether it be a group or a person, do something the agencies want them to do. Even that “empowerment” business is really about substituting the presumed direction of the designated “batterer” for the direction of the program. Never did I see anything about making a victim comfortable, allaying their fears, being responsive to the unique situations of people.

Entirely forgotten in all the talk of power & control, advocacy, and community organizing is the human element; the recognition that no two people have the same situation – or the same opinions and reactions. Wherever you look, there’s this cookie-cutter view of the issue, that when considered in the light of assisting families, of providing help, makes no sense whatsoever.

There is no respect for the individuality of the human beings dealing with a human issue in these programs; neither is there any respect for the desires or choices of those human beings.

My years of work in the field of social services and private charities tells me that this is about as wrong as it gets for an agency dealing with the problems of people in the community. Respect for the individual and compassion for their trouble is paramount in other agencies, so much so that these concepts are often addressed in such things as formal mission statements.

Not so for agencies that work with victims of domestic violence. For example, here is the first line of the mission statement for NCADV: “The Mission of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) is to organize for collective power by advancing transformative work, thinking and leadership of communities and individuals working to end the violence in our lives.”

Their primary concern, then is “to organize for collective power.”  If you read the whole thing, you find they’re all about leadership and laws and community, etc. There is absolutely nothing about recognition of the autonomy or independence of the individual. Of course, this is a national agency, so let’s look at what we find on the state level. (Please note, I’m including snippets only: links are provided to original material.)

The Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence is a statewide, non-profit organization of domestic violence agencies and individuals working to eliminate domestic violence through:
    * Acting as an educational and informational resource to our member agencies and the community;
    * Advocating for domestic violence concerns in Delaware;
    * Providing a strong, unified statewide voice for victims of domestic violence and their children, domestic violence programs, and victim service providers.

AzCADV Mission Statement:
To lead,
to advocate,
to educate,
to collaborate,
to end domestic violence in Arizona.

Nothing with respect to the individual there, either.

Let’s try local:

Sojourner Center in Phoenix has no Mission Statement, rather it has what they call an “Empowerment Philosophy,”
Empowerment centers on the belief that women and children can break the cycle of domestic violence through supportive intervention because they posses [sic] the ability to make decisions that foster healthy, violence free relationships. This philosophy acknowledges a women’s [sic] competency and offers her support, resources, advocacy, information, and education, always striving to equalize power between a woman and her environment.

At first glance this seems encouraging, but then one realizes the language is frankly rather odd, and seems to contradict itself. If women and children “possess the ability to make decisions that foster healthy, violence free relationships,” then why do they need “empowerment” from this program?

While I did note a graphic apparently representing some artwork at the shelter with the words, “tenderness,” and “understanding,” I found no recognition of these concepts elsewhere on the site. Their approach is exactly the same as other programs otherwise: divorce and relocation.

Cape Cod Center for Women
To assist and support battered women and their children in leaving a violent environment and transitioning to independent living fully connected to a network of community support and with a lifelong safety plan.

I could go on and provide dozens more examples, but I think I’ve made the point here, which I’ll repeat: There is no respect for the individuality of the human beings dealing with a human issue in these programs; neither is there any respect for the desires or choices of those human beings.

That is because they are not intended to be “helping” programs in the same way as food banks, literacy programs and the like. They are politically-oriented institutions designed to promote divorce and force women, willing or not, into the workplace. Some state coalitions are quite clear on their intentions. Right on their websites.

The reality is that VAWA and its multiplicity of agencies are but one more vehicle to drive American society to a socialist state. Look at this article entitled, Marxism versus feminism - The class struggle and the emancipation of women from the Youth for International Socialism website.

...The conclusion must be that the oppression of women by men has always existed and therefore, presumably, will always exist.
Marxism explains that this is not the case. It shows that, along with class society, private property and the state, the bourgeois family has not always existed, and that the oppression of women is only as old as the division of society into classes. Its abolition is therefore dependent on the abolition of classes, that is, on the socialist revolution. This does not mean that the oppression of women will automatically vanish when the proletariat takes power. The psychological heritage of class barbarism will finally be overcome when the social conditions are created for the establishment of real human relations between men and women. But unless and until the proletariat overthrows capitalism and lays the conditions for the achievement of a classless society, no genuine emancipation of women is possible.

That rather explains why the radical feminists just don’t seem to give up, doesn’t it? It’s strange, but if you read the whole thing (also other articles) you find the Marxists really don’t like feminists much. If you’re up on the history of feminism, you realize that they’ve tried to piggyback onto other movements and philosophies for quite some time, with varying results.

Also consider this:

"To alter the position of woman at the root is possible only if all the conditions of social, family, and domestic existence are altered." (Trotsky, Women and the Family, p. 45.)

I really don’t know how much longer we can continue to allow ourselves to be so misled into thinking the political operatives in the VAWA milieu are concerned about either women’s safety or domestic violence. There has been no progress in the approach to domestic violence in 15 years of VAWA, and five or even 15 years more will find us in exactly the same position – providing ever more money to ineffective, biased, programs.

The community organizers in charge have no motivation to change or improve anything, because it was never about domestic violence in the first place.