Call Email Join Donate
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

From its Inception to its Essence, VAWA is the Fraud of the Millennia and Must Be Repealed

March 5, 2012

vawaFrom its Inception to its Essence, VAWA is the Fraud of the Millennia and Must Be Repealed

By Eric Ross, Ph.D. March 02, 2012

How did VAWA, the most unconstitutional, sexist legislation, became adopted and why? – In the January 24, 2000 issue of the U. S. News, on p. 12, a syndicated columnist John Leo wrote:

“The Violence Against Women Act slipped into law in 1994 without most members of Congress quite knowing what they were passing. We have Andrea Dworkin’s word on this. Dworkin is surely a contender for the North American title of most overwrought, man-hating feminist. She told the New Republic at the time that the only possible explanation for the bill’s popularity in the Senate was the ‘senators don’t understand the meaning of the legislation that they pass.’”

Andrea Dworkin is credited with laying the “cultural” foundation, and Catharine A. Mackinnon, “the most quoted lawyer in America” – the legal foundation for this sexist legislation. Both are viewed as the “founding mothers” of VAWA. Andrea Dworkin described her brand of “feminist justice” for men in Mercy (1990, 1991) quite vividly:

“I keep practicing horse position…and I kick good; I can kick to the knee and I can kick to the cock but I can’t kick to the solar plexus and I can’t kick his fucking head off… I fucking smash their faces in; I kick them; I hit them; I kick them blind; I like smashing their faces in with one kick, I like dancing on their chests,…with my toes, big, swinging kicks, and I like one big one between the legs, for the sake of form and symbolism, to pay my respects to content as such… I like smashing the bottles into their fucking faces and I like taking the knives, for my collection; I like knives. I find them drunk and lying down and I hurt them and I run; and I fucking don’t care about fair; discuss fair at the U.N.; vote on it; from which I enunciate another political principle, It is obscene for a girl to think about fair.”[Fn-1]

The legal brain behind VAWA, Catharine A. MacKinnon, was described in the feminist magazine Bust Guide to the New Girl Order (Nina Hartley, 1999) as a “bitter and angry” advocate who “silences women”:

“Don’t even get me started on MacKinnon… Now I’d just look at her and shake my head… and say, “You know what, I’m really sorry you are that bitter and angry,” cuz that’s what it is. It’s her fuel. It’s what drives her.… I do believe she is deluded, and I do believe anger and fear and jealousy and resentment and frustration and out-and-out prudery are what drive her, are her motivating forces… MacKinnon really does feel like she is helping women, while at the same time, she and Dworkin and their ilk silence women.”

The many tirades by Catharine A. MacKinnon, a Yale-educated law professor, whose reputation for being a humorless control freak rivals even that of Dworkin, were summed up by her critics:

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.”

Objectivity, facts and logic have nothing whatsoever to do with MacKinnon’s brain-child, “feminist jurisprudence,” which resulted in propagation of the “Family Law” throughout the states, and in adoption of VAWA. Feminist jurisprudence seeks to eliminate logic and to give women a distinct, pronounced legal advantage to compensate for alleged inequities of the “patriarchal” society. MacKinnon demands legal asymmetry favoring women.

The particularly virulent, men-hating brand of feminism spawned by McKinnon and Dworkin – MacDworkinism – has resulted in the practical elimination of the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” for cases of alleged rape, sexual harassment and intimate partner violence. MacKinnon’s arguments prostitute the English language by  equating “objectivity” with what she sees as “objectification” of women:

“Objectivity is the methodological stance of which objectification is the social process. Sexual objectification is the primary process of the subjection of women. It unites act with word, construction with expression, perception with enforcement, myth with reality. Man fucks woman; subject verb object.” [Fn-2]

A stunning revelation on where the national Domestic Violence movement came from appeared in the November 01, 2004 issue of The Oregonian, as told by activists Lisa Schroeder and Bonnie Tinker. Said Tinker, the creator of the gay-rights advocacy group, Love Makes a Family:

“In fact, it was a small group of lesbians from Portland who were at the forefront of a national movement to provide safe havens for women… We knew that foundations were not going to fund a house for a bunch of homeless bar dykes. We realized the language that would be understood was the language of battered women… We had a house, but we really didn’t know what we were doing,” Tinker said. “We just declared ourselves a social-service agency because we needed an agency” [to receive corporate donations and state grants.]”

 Described by her admirers as a “highly passionate speaker and called “the eloquent feminist”, speaking out against “the right wing” women, violence against women, racism, and anti-Semitism, Andrea Dworkin’s bizarre claims were repudiated by medical doctors and scores of other feminists. Camille Anna Paglia, an avowed feminist intellectual and college professor, arguing from a position embracing homosexuality, fetishism, prostitution, and… classical education, characterized Andrea Dworkin as follows:

“Dworkin…has turned a garish history of [her own] mental instability into feminist grand opera. She publicly boasts of her bizarre multiple rapes, assaults, beatings, breakdowns and tacky trauma, as if her inability to cope with life were the patriarchy’s fault rather than her own.”

Dworkin’s provocative writings of a delusional “victim” would have landed her in a psychiatric ward elsewhere in the world, but in the United States of America her sociopathic tendencies were turned into a money-making machine. Her brand of “angry feminism” was bolstered by the feminist-controlled media and the “progressive” leftist academia, which was selling books, magazines, speaking engagements and… legislation to perpetuate this cash cow.

Dworkin’s delusional rants cannot be discarded as simply a product of an unstable mind, stuck on the idea of women as victims of sex, violence and rape. The MacDworkins are cunning and ruthless creatures, they use their alleged victimhood as a tool for achieving societal dominance and material riches; they know perfectly well what they are doing. Here’s Dworkin’s self-described process of conconting VAWA:

“I am writing a plan for revenge, a justice plan, a justice poem, a justice map, a geography of justice; I am martial in my heart and military in my mind; I think in strategy and in poems, a daughter of Guevara and Whitman, ready to take to the hills with a cosmic vision of what’s crawling around down on the ground; a daughter with an overview; the big view; a daughter with a new practice of righteous rage, against what ain’t named and ain’t spoken so it can’t be prosecuted except by the one it was done to who knows it, knows him; I’m inventing a new practice of random self- defense; I take their habits and characteristics seriously, as enemy, and I plan to outsmart them and win…” [Fn-3]

And so, a Congressional Act was adopted, carving these axioms of feminist wisdom in stone, supporting them with the full faith and credit of the U.S.

Government, its police, sheriffs, courts, jails – the entire punitive apparatus of a police state, and funding the VAWA’s resolutely gender-biased feminist programs with the taxpayers’ money.

Following the “wisdom” of VAWA, restraining orders removing men from their homes and severing their contact with children are summarily issued without any evidence or due process. These orders are often purely ideological, issued ex parte on allegations having nothing whatsoever to do with violence, when DV statutes clearly do not apply.

VAWA funds the training of judges and law enforcement, where the advocates directly benefitting from VAWA funds make these “training programs” deliberately biased, based on fabricated “factoids” substituted in place of true statistics. VAWA frames the issues of the intimate partner violence (IPV) as a Neo-Marxist Gramscian “oppressor-oppressed” theory of wealth re-distribution, in direct contradiction to any facts: study after study show women to be an equally if not more likely aggressor in partner violence. Thus, the 2007 U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study showed:

“Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women.”[Fn-4]

The CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey published in December 2011 showed that:

“ Men and women inflict and suffer equal rates of IPV, with 6.5% of men and 6.3% of women experiencing partner aggression in the past year. More men (18%) suffer psychological aggression (humiliation, threats of violence, controllingness) than women (14%). Feminists often define IPV as a “pattern of power and control,” but the survey finds that men were 50% more likely to have experienced coercive control than women (15.2% vs 10.7%).”[Fn-5]

In her recent article “Rethink violence law from the center” (1 March, 2012), Cathy Young confirmed the essentially Gramscian stance taken by VAWA advocates:

“The activists tend to view violence against women entirely through the lens of gender oppression –  men terrorizing women to enforce patriarchal supremacy… This rigid dogma – … is not about equality but female victimhood – fails both sexes.”[Fn-6]

Meanwhile, the “education programs” funded by VAWA  are typified by the following advice dispensed by a NJ Judge to other family court judges:

“Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional protections of the man that  you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’”[Fn-7]

VAWA spawned the “integrated domestic violence courts” with their instant presumption of guilt. As then Chief Judge of the state of New York Judith Kay said, these courts “make batterers and abusers take responsibility for their actions.” She did not use the word “alleged” when referring to “batterers and abusers” quite deliberately – conveying the presumption of guilt in these courts. Virtually no exculpatory evidence is accepted by the judges who fancy themselves “fighters for social justice,” and use the subjective “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof in these no-jury, Kangaroo courts.

Family courts and integrated DV courts seize property, including homes, bank accounts and vehicles without the accused being convicted, or even formally charged or present to defend himself, on often absurdly false allegations arising in the context of divorce. Lawyer Walter Fox described these courts as “pre- fascist”, probably being polite to the judges before whom he practices law.

These courts are as fascist as were the Nazi Gestapo courts or the extrajudicial “Special Commission” of the NKVD in the Soviet Union. The only difference is that men are not executed outright; instead, they are destroyed financially and emotionally.

Forced “confessions” are widespread. These courts take children away from loving fathers and precondition fathers’ visitations with their children on false confession of guilt and crimes never committed. As Prof. Steven Baskerville noted in his 2010 article Feminist Gulag: No Prosecution Necessary [Fn-8], Pennsylvania men are incarcerated unless they sign forms stating, “I have physically and emotionally battered my partner.” The man must then describe the violence, even if he insists he committed none. “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behavior was not provoked.” Family Courts in other states act likewise.

Not only has VAWA been used for wealth redistribution without due process, but as the U.S. Senator from Iowa, CHUCK GRASSLEY wrote in the February-24, 2012 issue of the New York Times, VAWA funds have been used for personal enrichment of its advocates:

“The inspector general’s random audits of the act’s grant recipients repeatedly found irregularities and misconduct, including unauthorized and unallowable expenses in 21 of 22 grants. It’s only logical to change the committee’s bill to ensure that those funds go to help victims… Also, the committee’s bill fails to address testimony at a hearing demonstrating that some immigrants applying for visas falsely claim to be victims of domestic violence.”

As the columnist Carey Roberts noted in his article “Hungry for Profits? Diversify into Abuse Shelters!”[Fn-9], the functionaries of the tax-free non- profit DV movement earn incomes of $170,000 a year, while utilizing shelters for drug trafficking, stealing up to 95% of donated property and cash, coaching immigrant women how to make false allegations of abuse to force their unsuspecting boyfriends from their homes, and engaging women in housing scams.[Fn-10]

The syndicated columnist Wendy McElroy in her recent article “VAWA Hurts Abused Women” pointed out again at the corruption and malignancy of this federal law:

“The perpetuation of a gender schism and demonization of men only acts to harm women who need to heal… Lies do not help, lies do not heal, especially when the sleight-of-hand is done for profit… The bureaucrats who administer the [VAWA] funds receive high salaries and benefits, social status and prestige. They have enormous incentive to ignore the cries of men victimized by domestic violence and the protest of men who would step in to protect women…”

About 4 times more men than women in the US commit suicide [Fn-11], with suicide rates steadily growing. The CDC data shows that out of nearly 37,000 suicides in 2009, about 30,000 were men. Most of these men were fathers who endured the unbearable pain of forced separation from their children in what can be described as deliberate legal abuse by the family courts. Thus, Thomas J. Ball, a military veteran who served his country for 21 years, self-immolated in protest of the “Justice” system on the steps of the Family Court [Fn-12], accompanied by the media blackout of his death and related news. Seventy percent (70%) of Iraq war veterans come home to divorce, and within two years ninety percent (90%) of them are divorced.

The suicide rate among US military veterans is about 18 each day [Fn-13], far exceeding combined US military casualties in any year of the “war on terror” 2001-2012. VAWA has been not only handing out feminist pork as government grants, it also enabled and financed a bloody  war they waged against American men in “family” courts, a war that claims about 30,000 casualties every year. Yes, that’s about three (3) infantry divisions, wiped out annually.

Americans are not blind or dim. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, who co-sponsored this bill favoring special interests, cannot look American People straight in the eye and say that they champion common good.

A great number of families have been destroyed and children denied the benefit of love and caring by both parents, and millions of Americans endured unspeakable suffering as a result of VAWA programs.

Not only is VAWA embracing a fascist, hateful ideology, fraudulent social engineering and outrageous lies, it is fraudulent on its face, evil in its intent, its practices and real goals. This unconstitutional law must be repealed.

Say NO to Sen. Leahy’s VAWA reauthorization bill !

 © Copyright 2012. Eric Ross, Ph.D.



Fn-1: MERCY. Chapter Eleven. By Andrea Dworkin, 1991, 1993.

Fn-2: Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge (1991) (Originally published in: (1982) “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 7(3):515–44.)

Fn-3: MERCY. Chapter Eleven. By Andrea Dworkin, 1991, 1993.


Fn-5: Barbara Kay: The awkward truth about spousal abuse. National Post. Dec 21, 2011.

Fn-6: Newsday.


Fn-7: N.J. Judges Told To Ignore Rights In Abuse TROs. By Russ Bleemer. New Jersey Law Journal. April 24, 1995.  Quoting the municipal court judge Richard Russell in a program conducted many times over.




Fn-11: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Web- based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS):

Fn-12: Fn-12Thomas James Ball Self-Immolated in Protest of the “Justice” System.

Fn-13: Army Times – 18 U.S. Veterans Commit Suicide Each Day, about 950 per month.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

14 Responses to From its Inception to its Essence, VAWA is the Fraud of the Millennia and Must Be Repealed

  1. Eric Ross, Ph.D. on March 16, 2012 at 9:47 PM

    << WHAT IS NEXT.. castrate all boys at birth??? >> Actually, there are enough deranged extremists among feminists who demand just that. They are not celebrated openly, only at the closed meetings. They are the least dangerous type because there are still laws on the books against mutilation (not necessarily enforced, as the case of Lorena Bobbit shows.) Here is a sampling of the most disgusting of their ramblings and mass-castration fantasies:

    After reading that page, go on to the site There's plenty of information there.

  2. Prof. A J N Oborski on March 16, 2012 at 7:19 AM

    They stare you straight in the face and say this, ("""-vawa-""") is right!


    Are you all so blinkered that you cannot see the NONSENSE in front of you…

    WHAT IS NEXT.. castrate all boys at birth???

  3. Zepo on March 15, 2012 at 12:57 AM

    Men, just a question. I am a man in Nairobi. There have also been attempts here to introduce feminism through the new constitution passed in 2010 and pushed hard by the US government. But as men too have woken up and cases of violence by women are getting alot of highlight in the media.

    My question is: What is WRONG with men in leadership like Obama? Don’t all these feminist laws get passed by US Congress which is dominated by men? Why don’t they support men rights?

  4. Marc A. on March 10, 2012 at 9:07 PM

    Don't get married ANYWHERE. They can take the marriage certificate to the U.S., divorce you here, and you're bound by the laws in that state. You CANNOT escape it. Just do a ceremony if you want, but make sure you have proof that your spouse knows you're not legally married. Such as with an email, or something. Because some states have a "putative spouse" rule allowing the laws to apply if your spouse sincerely *thought* the marriage was valid.

  5. Robert_Yourell on March 10, 2012 at 1:10 AM

    The post isn't really about the VAWA. Is a good men's rights advocate supposed to rehash the same narrow history of feminism until it crowds everything else out? Has anyone criticizing the VAWA ever bothered to read it and post an informed critique? And does anyone want men's rights to have credibility? Like by having someone proof your post and tell you that mellenia means thousands of years. Compare the funding of the VAWA to some other things like the destruction of indigenous populations, slavery, or the Nazi incursions and tell me about millennia. Compare the limited legal teeth the VAWA has to those things and tell me about millennia.

    • Eric Ross on July 12, 2021 at 7:16 AM

      What Robert_Yorell is saying is this: Don’t you dare “to rehash the same narrow history of feminism”. In other words, don’t point out that it’s steeped in hatred of men and is monetizing mental illness of its prominent figures, and is seeking absolute legal dominance through legislation, court appointments, corporate and government grants and foundations seeking to undermine the labor’s bargaining for better wages. Don’t talk about the well-paid and VAWA-financed feminist “scholarship” (the scholarship of how to lie with statistics and demagogy) and the whole juggernaut of the identity politics, wealth redistribution and usurpation of political power. No, he wants us to change the subject from the insane feminism running the asylum to “the destruction of indigenous populations, slavery, or the Nazi incursions”. He also wants us to “show that you [we] are aware of positive aspects of what you criticize [VAWA]”. — Really? Tell a man what he may or may not think? What he’s doing is telling men they must look for the “silver lining” in the feminist sword swung over their heads for their slaughter, resulting in a massive destruction of the male gender, of which more than 60,000 annual suicides do not even begin telling the story. Ain’t nothin’ new in his “objective” criticism. “Just shut up and obey” is Robert Yorell’s messatge.

  6. Robert_Yourell on March 9, 2012 at 12:34 PM

    The post isn't really about the VAWA. Is a good men's rights advocate supposed to rehash the same narrow history of feminism until it crowds everything else out? Has anyone criticizing the VAWA ever bothered to read it and post an informed critique? And does anyone want men's rights to have credibility? Like by having someone proof your post and tell you that mellenia means thousands of years. Compare the funding of the VAWA to some other things like the destruction of indigenous populations, slavery, or the Nazi incursions and tell me about millennia. Compare the limited legal teeth the VAWA has to those things and tell me about millennia.

    It's not that it's wrong to show the corruption of ideology and how it has played out in violating civil rights (yes, in horrible, tragic ways, and on a massive scale), but it's wrong to assume the reader will make the jump that you imply (but do not support) that the VAWA is in lock-step with the most bigoted feminist thought-leaders. A thoughtful reader (one that you should want to persuade–instead of preaching to the choir) will not make that jump unless you do your homework and show that link. That will only work if you show how, currently, the VAWA in word and in execution, is harming civil rights. And don't be content to find some buzz words in the text and think you've proved anything–or programs that would exist if there were no VAWA. It will take more than that.

    Also, if you really care about credibility, show that you are aware of positive aspects of what you criticize, or people will write you off as the same kind of ideologue that you are against. What specifically (besides the title, let's dig deeper) would you change? What would you keep if it applied to both genders?

    Sorry to be an armchair quarterback. I'm up to my ears right now in projects, so I can only say I wish a quick Google search got me the critique I'm looking for. There is some helpful material, but what I found is too limited to be very helpful *so far.* There are some interesting critiques from women (divergent ones, by the way). Anyone have links to material that really addresses the VAWA?

    • Eric Ross, PhD on September 3, 2023 at 2:04 PM

      Robert_Yourell, You are right about one thing, when you say that the post is not about the VAWA — it is not about its legal, funding, financial and economic details. It is about its fraudulent ideological and political roots, demagogic in nature, of which MacDworkinism emerged as the most prominent.

      This is not an academic research paper, but a brief article addressed to a working stiff with limited time and attention span. But thank you for reading.

      • NCFM on September 3, 2023 at 2:32 PM

        Nice to hear from you Eric. Harry

  7. Father Marker on March 9, 2012 at 5:52 AM

    @Ivan let me add to your don’t get married in the US. I’d go further and say don’t get married in any western country. If you go into another country to look for a chick make sure that you’re prepared to stay there so that she is less likely to be corrupted with western ways.

    Alternatively follow the example of the under thirty men of Japan sixty percent of whom do not marry and are called grass eaters.

  8. Fred Sottile on March 6, 2012 at 11:33 AM

    Ivan, you have hit the nail on the head. Boycott marriage. In no time at all, the reason will become a national issue.
    That is the action that will have the most effect, and, it is of totally no cost.
    Eric Ross, Thank you for the most comprehensive appraisal of this issue I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few.
    Harry Crouch, Thank you for your tireless effort to bring this masterpiece to me.
    I will pass it on.

  9. Ivan on March 6, 2012 at 9:27 AM

    The Lesson is clear . Dont get married in America !!!!! Feminatzis will not rest till they see every male with criminal record !! Its a travesy realy !!!

    cheers from Canada .

    • Samma on March 12, 2012 at 12:04 AM

      Dont have children either. Men really need to be more careful with this aspect because without using children it takes alot of their powers away. Boycott marriage and children

  10. Mike Savage on March 6, 2012 at 12:59 AM

    Thank you for exposing the feminist lies and shedding light on the ever growing problem of gender discrimination. I have experienced it myself seven years ago my wife and I were having problems in our marriage. She was trying to make me hit her so she could have me thrown in jail. It did not work so she hit me, I called the police they did nothing to her and she was so angry they did not lock me up she called them every time I raised my voice. I was never charged or convicted but when I applied for a job as a police officer the only reason I was turned down was the fact she called the police on me.
    The facts your organization brings to light are very scary because all of our society accepts these feminist male bashing laws and policies without question. I often comment about racial discrimination but this is worse because it includes all men no matter what color, race, or religion. Keep up the fight for male rights in a female world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.