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

NCFM letter supporting the re authorization of VAWA has some interesting unintended consequences

May 16, 2012

Click on the picture for the article "How Abusive Women Brain Wash You" like some do about the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The ask yourself if your elected officials fit the bill. If so, please vote for someone else. Someone who supports a Domestic Violence Prevention Act rather than the VAWA. Help stop the war on boys, men, and families..

This morning, while debate in the U.S. House of Representatives raged over the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Brian Beutler a reporter or blogger from Political Talking Points Menu called our national office to ask about a letter we had sent to members of the House of Representatives.

He asked that I explain the differences between H.R. 4970 and the Senate version; that is, H.R. 4971.  A few minutes later came his article National Coalition For Men Endorses GOP Version of VAWA Bill , in which he wrote, “one that Democrats couldn’t be happier with.”  Then Laura Bassett called from the Huffington Post.  Within minutes, Huffington Post posted House VAWA Bill Picks Up Unhelpful Ally: National Coalition For Men.

Bassett wanted to know whether NCFM was helping H.R. 4970, implying that because of the nature of our organization, albeit “men’s rights,” whether we were doing our cause more harm than good.  I told her I couldn’t imagine why not since our organization is concerned with helping all victims of domestic violence – male and female – and that “NCFM is dedicated to the removal of harmful gender based stereotypes against men, their families, and the women who love them.”

Then came, Misogynistic ‘Men’s Rights’ Group Endorses GOP Version of Violence Against Women Act. Now we hate women.  Who knew?

NCFM has been distributing flyers to the Senate and House for the last two years.  We have sent members to educate legislators about the need to reform VAWA.  Yesterday, the brief letter that caused the commotion above in support of H.R. 4970 was successfully faxed to 601 members of the House.  One or more of the House members or their staff apparently forwarded the letter to the press.

Reporter Bill Douglas called from McClatchy Newspapers.  He had heard about but not seen the letter, “If it really exists,” he said.  I confirmed it did and emailed him a copy as requested.  He seemed lonely.  Being left out is never any fun… as experienced by a large portion of our legislators turning their backs on half our population just because they have penises? He said we had an interesting website.

I’m proud to be a member of an organization that stands up for the rights of the innocent, regardless of gender – not just for the rights of only women or only men.  I’m proud of NCFM for supporting legislation that holds people accountable for inappropriate, if not criminal, behavior, including those who abuse scarce resources intended to help those in need rather than further questionable ideological and political agendas.  And, I’m really tired of listening to all the political pap about waging war against women.

If there’s a war on women then why isn’t the Violence Against Women Act called the Domestic Violence Prevention Act?  Because, if there is a gender war, and arguably there is, it’s being waged against men, that’s why.  For those of you who were able to listen to the House floor debate today reflect on what you heard and ask yourself how many times a politician mentioned helping abused men versus abused women – or simply all abused “persons,” male or female.

Did that sound like legislators turning their backs on women?  No, indeed, it did not.  What rang loud and clear was the lack of concern for abused men.   Is that more testimony about a war against women? We, us, our nation, is being duped into believing our men wage war against our women.  How many personal friends and acquaintances do you have marching to an upcoming BRING YOUR PENIS, JOIN THE ABUSE WOMEN AND CHILDREN RALLY?  Any critical thinker should quickly determine that such a notion is absurd, politically driven, pompous, ideological claptrap.

Read our letter. See for yourself.120516 ltr to Representatives re VAWA H.R. 4970 , the version that passed the House today thanks to more good people than I can name.

Harry  Crouch






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

22 Responses to NCFM letter supporting the re authorization of VAWA has some interesting unintended consequences

  1. A Concerned Citizen on June 6, 2012 at 7:56 PM

    In response to your three posts immediately above:
    1. I've never posted anything before under a "concerned citizen" moniker. To the extent you believe you told me something "on another board," you're mistaken.
    2. Your posts attack and attempt to debase my inquiries in an often juvenile fashion. This seriously undermines the credibility of all that you say.
    3. Your allegation that an average citizen like myself shouldn't expect some kind of distilling of the bills into main conceptual differences is troubling. Do you work for NCFM? I sure hope your views do not represent their institutional stance on such an important function. I mean, isn't that a central activity of advocacy organizations – to pay experts to, among other things, help explain complex legislative initiatives?
    4. Who fares better in history's eyes? Those who defended human dignity in the Warsaw Ghetto uprisings, or the Polish Jews who took jobs as police state officials and directed traffic to the deathcamps. Unfortunately, I continue to be unconvinced that NCFM's endorsement does not fall within the latter category. I'm hoping someone can convince me otherwise.

  2. Eric Ross, Ph.D. on May 28, 2012 at 7:31 PM

    The time for any "Concerned Citizen" to discuss proposed legislation is while it is discussed, not after it has been voted into the law.

    The critics, such as the "Concerned Citizen" above, who seem to dislike "horse trading" in the bills adopted by Congress cannot honestly criticize NCFM for partaking in the discussion with Congressmen. It is the system. Congressional deal-making is the only governmental system we currently have.

    If the process does NOT satisfy your romantic notion of some "pure" idea that our 4-th Graders may share, maybe American form of Democracy is not the right form of government for you, but currently that's the only one we have, established by the US Constitution.

    As a rather grotesque example, Nancy Pelosi was calling on Congress to adopt Obama's 1,600 pages healthcare bill "without reading it" — sign it first, read it later. They had a duty to read it, but did they? The text was available, but did citizens read and understand its ramifications?

  3. Eric Ross, Ph.D. on May 28, 2012 at 7:11 PM

    While VAWA has been "feminist pork" since its inception in 1994, previously the enormous amounts of money was spent in the environment of secrecy and lack of accountability, resulting in huge paychecks of $300,000/year to some of the functionaries of the divorce industry, and financing of some of the most shadowy branches of this racketeering enterprise, which was unaccounted for. All the critics of VAWA could do before was to count on a disgruntled member of the racket to come forward. Now, the accountability alone is a major victory in HR 4970.

  4. Eric Ross, Ph.D. on May 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM

    "Concerned Citizen":

    there was NO alternative of not adopting VAWA. Congressmen want to be re-elected. All of them indicated that VAWA will be adopted, pronto.

    In military terms there were just two alternatives:

    1) an utter, complete, humiliating and devastating defeat for men;
    2) avoiding a defeat and attaining a partial victory by participating in the discussion and pointing out glaring problems in the mere fact of VAWA existence, and in its specific provisions, thus shaping up this better alternative.
    3) No third option, that of a mythic "total victory" was in the cards.

    But the occasional disingenuous "critic", such as yourself, will dress himself in a white toga of a "purist" and insult our intelligence by pointing at (3), a figment of primitive imagination, which is light years far from reality.

    The least detrimental alternative which included: a) some gender-neutral language (as opposed to only gender-exclusive) and b) provisions for accountability and measures against fraud ***was the only viable*** option on the table, while "expiration" was clearly out of the question. The HR 4970 was adopted, but by the narrow margin.

    May I remind everyone that on all prior occasions, VAWA was adopted in 48 hours, no questions asked, by a by-partisan, unanimous vote. This time around it took about seven months, with some serious discussion on the floor of the US Senate and Congress. That discussion alone was priceless and is a victory of reason over the politically-correct demagogy.

    While such organizations as SAVE services and many members of NCFM took pains to compare the hundreds of pages of the texts and amendments, and participated in frequent discussions of amendments demanded by both sides of the isle, you were nowhere in sight during these frequent and regular discussions, nor did you speak with congressional staffers, let alone those Congressmen who were leading the fight and were in the know as to the important points of contention. If you did, you would not be posting what you did here. You are quite a bit late to declare yourself a "concerned citizen."

    While the "other VAWA" was "going to change things in real appreciative way" (quoting you) — resulting in the ultimate demise for millions of men, your so-called criticism reveals that quite apparently, you know nothing at all about either proposed laws. All you can say here is that you "suspect", and you go as far as to suspect some behind the scene "dealings".

    I told you on another board, and I will tell you again: nobody owes you any duty of listing the texts here, or comparing them for you with any "degree of specificity" for your benefit. You should have done so yourself, if you are, indeed, a "concerned citizen."

    I doubt that the Congressional printing office, where people are very well paid, has merged yet the amendments with the text. I suspect they will take their sweet time. Get on Google, like other people do, dig out the texts and amendments and do your own research. It is all public information. I had to use a lot of software to save me time, and still it took dozens of hours.

    If you want any of us to do it for you, donate a sizable amount of money to our cause, and we'll see what we could do.

  5. Eric Ross, Ph.D. on May 19, 2012 at 12:12 PM

    I am calling it a "victory" for people of good will in the same sense as the Battle of Dunkirk (1940) was a victory, when thousands of British civilians in small boats saved the soldiers of the surrounded British expeditionary corps in France . The British surrendered the French territory they defended, but the men lived to see their ultimate victory five (5) years later. The only other alternative for them was death and humiliation. Likewise, VAWA is coming for review in 5 years. Let's bury it then. For now, we prevented the worst and most fraudulent provisions. There's noting here to apologize for.

    On the contrary, NCFM memebrs must be proud.

    HR-4970 is still a VAWA, but minus the numerous NEW openly fraudulent provisions directly rewarding false accusers with subsidized housing and the property of the accused, as insisted on in the "other versions".

    HR-4970 is still a massive feminist pork bill. But it is a step away from the floodgate of NEW malfeasance and fraud in "the other" bill. VAWA is still unconstitutional on its face, but in the current pop-culture the Congress had no choice but to adopt one or the other.

    So, is it a "victory" for men? – I will answer it with a question: “Was there a better alternative on the table?” – The answer is No. A much worse alternative was. It is certainly a moral victory. No wonder the NYT, Huffington Post and a bazzillion of feminist outlets are going at NCFM with venom and vengeance. Here is another question: was there ever a 100% victory in history? — Only once, when Hitler took over Czechoslovakia without a shot fired (and took possession of CZ's largest and best equipped army and military manufacturing in Western Europe at the time.)

    So, those self-proclaimed "purists" who come here to confuse and obfuscate, have nothing to offer, never had. They would rather sit on their a%$ and theorize than see any positive development.

    • A Concerned Citizen on May 26, 2012 at 9:26 AM

      Would HR-4970 have passed without the NCFM endorcement? If so, then, for some crazy reason, NCFM endorsed, using your words, "a massive feminist pork bill."

      What I haven't found on this website, nor in either of your or Harry Couch's articles and/or posts, is either (a) a user-friendly and appropriately detailed comparison of the bills and (b) a sufficiently detailed rationale for the endorsement.

      For example, will the horrendous gender bias in contemporary DV practice now be realistically actionable? Have a reasonable level of funds been allocated to specifically support male-victim DV services and research? Have due process protections been added in family court?

      I firmly suspect that each of the above questions must honestly be answered with a "no." Thus, unfortunately, the reality is that 4970 isn't going to change things in any real appreciable way.

      Given this, to attach an NCFM endorsement to its passage is troubling and, frankly, smacks of back-room deal-making.

      If I am wrong, would someone in NCFM please, with appropriate comparative specificity, show me exactly why endorsement of the bill was justified.

  6. Eric Ross, Ph.D. on May 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM

    Let’s make it real simple. Let’s see who “likes” HR-4970 and who intensely hates it.

    I) The White House threatened to veto the House GOP’s version (HR-4970) if adopted, warning the Congress that it would “undermine the core principles” of the act." The talking head Rachel "the crooked smirk" Maddow called it the GOP "effort to undermine women's interests in 2012." The DV industry groups have whipped up a deafening media frenzy against HR 4970, culminating in a massive crescendo, a hysteria quickly approaching a thunderous collective orgasm.

    Who else totally hates HR 4970?

    II) It is still a VAWA, according to the two-bit brain advocates like Bob Allen (under the alias Bob Knows) who would rather men should loose everything, so millions of them lose property and end-up in jail for non-payment of child or spousal support, which they cannot pay in the rapidly dilapidating economy.

    III) It is “watered down” VAWA, according to the DV Industry. How is it “watered down?”— Reforms contained in H.R. 4970 include strong accountability measures, gender-inclusive language, and provisions to stem fraudulent claims of abuse.

    According to the DV Industry:

    “H.R. 4970 rolls back current law on confidentiality, making it more risky for immigrant victims to seek help from the police and thus imperiling their safety and survival. Despite the well-documented unacceptably high rates of domestic violence on tribal lands, H.R. 4970 eliminates provisions that would make it easier for Native women to obtain orders of protection from their abusers. In addition, H.R. 4970 drops all the provisions that would ensure access to services for LGBT survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence.”

    1.In plain English it means that the “other” VAWA had provisions for immigrant women to secretly allege being a “victim”, not only obtaining legal status in the US, but also subsidized housing. The true victim of the immigration fraud, the man, was to be kept in the dark, and could NOT testify in his self-defense. If this is not a direct incentive to lie and connive – what is? – HR 4970 killed it.

    2.If a tribal woman accuses any man of DV, he and his property became subject to jurisdiction by the tribal court. Note that this “protection” was extended only to women. This was an open invitation to fraud – 4970 killed it.

    3.LGBTQ “survivors” do not need a special status, if victimized they should be served and treated as any other victim.

    4.The “other” VAWA called for all “victims” and “survivors” to receive government-subsedized housing, irrespective of any statute of limitations, including retroactively. I call it a “Honey, hit me, give me a shiner. I want a new house for free” provision. HR 4970 killed it.

    5.It has been documented that the various functionaries of the DV Industry has been getting paychecks of $300,000 and $175,000 a year, while also receiving huge corporate donations, which they mostly pocketed. Some of them were implicated in housing scams, massive drug trafficking, sexual and child abuse. HR 4970 provided accountability, finally!

    As you should know, an option of “expiring” VAWA was NOT on the table. The cultural backdrop is the result of a 75-year-old campaign of a “cultural revolution” which culminated (IMHO) in VAWA – one of the most fraudulent, fascist, unconstitutional laws ever in the history of the Western civilization. Yet, it would take organizations, such as NCFM to reassert the eternal cultural values, not people like Bob Allen who sometime ago offered such cultural "solutions" as calling women "cows" and the dedicated men here "mangynas." (Some of the local men who called the Congress are veterans of the 101 airborne, marines, former special forces, even an atomic submarine commander, none of them known to tolerate disrespect.)

    The adoption of the “other” VAWA was imminent. Congressmen were under enormous pressure from the DV Industry directly benefitting from VAWA.

    As you may know, the NCFM delivered a letter in support of HR-4970, put on the desks of virtually all members of U.S. Congress first thing in the morning of the voting day.

    HR 4970 was adopted. I am calling it a victory. It certainly is not a defeat, nor a cop out.
    It is what people with brain do when confronted with only two choices: 1) to loose everything; 2) to win some, but not all.

  7. Ray on May 17, 2012 at 11:22 PM

    VAWA has been based on a false premise called "gender based violence," since its inception. "Gender based violence" simply blames all males as the cause of all violence, but especially intimate partner violence. It's a spin off of gender feminist, Patriarchy theory, but IT'S A BIG LIE. Yes, VAWA being based on a false premise of "gender based violence" makes it nothing more than a thin facade for a hate movement – plain and simple.

    • Bob Knows on May 18, 2012 at 4:18 PM

      Yes, Ray. No organization is "for men" if it supports the VAWA Renewal Act of 2012. No real man would promote renewal of the worst anti-men hate law ever passed by Congress. He just would not do it.

  8. Ray on May 17, 2012 at 11:20 PM

    When will the domestic violence industry recognize women who batter children, and men? According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services and DOJ statistics, more kids are killed by neglect and abuse in a year (1,460 in 2005), than all the female intimate partner homicides in in a year (1,181 in 2005). and

    As shown by HHS statistics, the age range for those child homicides is about ten times narrower than that for female intimate partner homicide, making that rate of child homicide far more concentrated. Yet funding to prevent those child homicides is minimal, compared to the billions that go to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

    And mothers are the single largest group of kid killers. They have a rate twice that of fathers, yet the taxpayer funded (gender feminist run) domestic violence industry would have us believe that women don't egregiously batter men too. They're lying!

    Credible research overwhelmingly shows that the ratio of domestic violence is at least 50/50 between women & men. According to one study by researchers who work at the CDC, in 70 percent of domestic violence incidents, where the domestic violence is not mutual, it's women who initiate the domestic violence.

    Vice President Biden has called the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) “his baby,” but Biden should be ashamed, not proud, of his misandric piece of gender feminist, legislation, which excuses and rewards women’s domestic violence against children and men, thereby fueling more domestic violence against men and children by women.

    V.P. Biden recently called violence against women, "the very worst abuse." The very worst abuse is valuing one life less than another for having been born the wrong sex, or the wrong age. Under Biden's Violence Against Women Act the wrong sex is men and the wrong age group is children. Shelter and services are virtually non-existent for male victims of domestic violence (and in some cases men and their children) so those options out of a bad relationship, that are routinely available to women, are very often not available to men. Men wind up gender profiled and often falsely accused by the taxpayer funded, domestic violence industry, because of gender feminist ideology controlling the domestic violence industry. Men are often battered by domestic violence, and then battered again by the taxpayer funded, domestic violence industry.

    The taxpayer funded domestic violence industry has largely mischaracterized the true nature of domestic violence from the beginning and continues to mislead the public. Domestic violence law, following the gender feminist agenda/ideology over facts in evidence, does great harm to many innocent men and children (and also many battering women who need help) as shown in "Los Misandry" at Youtube and "Witch-Hunting Males" at Youtube.

  9. Ray on May 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM

    NCFM and friends have had a little success and out come the claws of hateful feminist bigots and their ilk.

    I have to laugh at the ludicrous claims about NCFM, coming from those ill informed / misinformed, Lame Stream Media news articles. Collectively, those news agencies remind me of the emotional and irrational Babu character from the Seinfeld series, i.e., "NCFM is very, very, bad men – very bad men."

    Well, I'm still proud to be a part of NCFM, and think what is primarily being revealed in these articles (more than the fraud of the Violence Against Women Act) is the ignorance and blatant misandry of the main stream media.

  10. Marc on May 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM

    Bob, NCFM didn't support renewal of VAWA. That's an error by whoever posted this. NCFM supported the altenrative bill, HR4970, which is gender neutral and includes due process provisions.

    • Bob Knows on May 18, 2012 at 4:15 PM

      "HR 4970 VAWA Renewal Act of 2012" Got it. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

      • Marc on May 19, 2012 at 2:44 AM

        That's a completely different version than the feminist one. The GOP version is gender neutral in its text and it has provisions for due process. It's a lesser of two evils. This is the first time there has ever been significant challenge to the feminist anti-male version. If the GOP titled their version "VAWA" they should not have. But I stand by NCFM's support for a version that is gender neutral in its text and is far better at protecting against false acusations.

  11. Bob Knows on May 17, 2012 at 9:47 AM

    How can you call yourself "For Men" when you supported renewal of VAWA, the worst anti-men hate law ever enacted.

    • Ray on May 17, 2012 at 8:53 PM

      I don't think anyone is disagreeing that VAWA is vile and needs to be confronted on every front where it works its evil. Different venues require different tactics. Over the past couple of years, when I see misandrist news articles about domestic violence, I confront the misandrist gender feminist agenda with facts and also post links to a couple of straight forward videos at Youtube: #1. "Los Misandry"
      #2. "Witch-Hunting Males"

      That hasn't stopped me from calling my elected representatives and tactfully urging them to reform VAWA, telling them how VAWA has destroyed innocent men, children, and yes, women, all in the name of a feminist agenda.

      As I work to be effectively derail the prejudiced, gender feminist hate agenda that's spawned by the Violence Against Women Act, I am careful not to lose fact of one glaring truth, VAWA is nothing less than a hate movement – plain and simple, cloaked in the imprimatur of law.

      • Ray on May 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM

        I should have read that last paragraph another time. Here it is with a couple of corrections:

        "As I work to effectively derail the prejudiced, gender feminist hate agenda that's spawned by the Violence Against Women Act, I am careful not to lose sight of one glaring truth, VAWA is nothing less than a hate movement – plain and simple, cloaked in the imprimatur of law."

  12. Bob Knows on May 17, 2012 at 2:25 AM

    This happens every time the VAWA expires. All the faux men rush out and support its renewal. Hate doesn't have to be repealed. It only needs to be not passed again. But all the false men rush to Congress and onto Men's forums insisting that "Men" support VAWA. Congress gets thousands of phone calls from manginas and pussy boys pretending to be men who support VAWA. Idiots in Congress think men support their anti-men hate legislation. Women want it. "Men" support it. So it passes.

    Any pansy arse traitor who supports renewal of the worst anti-men, anti-family hate law ever enacted should turn in his man badge, or have it removed from him by every man who calls himself a man, by every man who cares about children and families, by every man who cares about men. No real man would ever support such vile anti-men hate for any legitimate reason. He just wouldn't.

    I have already contacted my Congressc*nt and demanded that it be shelved. Every decent man would do the same.

    • Harry Crouch on May 17, 2012 at 11:29 AM


      Some of us fight hard to make things better. Demanding of your legislators to "shelve" VAWA is helpful, very helpful actually. Unfortunately, political realities dictate that others work within the system advocating for various reforms to make legislation like VAWA more male and family friendly. And, thus far, this time around, we have had considerable success. Had we and our allies simply demanded that VAWA be shelved our opposition would have had their way completely. Hence, the re authorization of VAWA would have caused even more damage to innocent children, men, and families, to include many women who care deeply about the men in their lives. Believe me, many times I would prefer to tell our opposition that they can take VAWA and shelve it up a dark place. Unfortunately, that doesn't get the job done. But we need people like you to stand firm and people like us to whittle away the corruption. So, again, in all sincerity, thank you for doing what you did.

    • Astrokid on May 17, 2012 at 2:50 PM

      I agree with Harry. We need diplomats and warriors as well.
      While we all know about the widespread misandry, we do the best we can. I personally wish that I can collect with other like-minded men at the doorsteps of capitol hill and stage multi-day protests. The next best thing is to call our congressmen, but I have difficulty speaking over the phone in such scenarios due to cultural differences. So I did the next best thing of mailing in letters/email.

  13. John Lukas on May 16, 2012 at 6:36 PM

    One reading of Title IV to ANY of these individuals should help to clear up this mess…..

  14. Marc on May 16, 2012 at 5:53 PM

    Igor Volsky is a total idiot. NCFM stands for equal rights, nothing more. VAWA discriminates against male victims and their kids both in its title and in various provisions, such as section 904 that excludes American Indian men. It's very title discriminates and leaves male victims invisible as usual. I'm Igor Volsky you would oppose a title like "Men's Occupational Safety and Health Act" even though 92% of job deaths happen to men. But somehow excluding male victims is ok. The Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) very recent domestic violence study (released 11/11) found: "More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%) and more than 1 in 4 men (28.5%) in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime" and "About 1 in 4 women (24.3%) and 1 in 7 men (13.8%) have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner (e.g., hit with a fist or something hard, beaten, slammed against something) at some point in their lifetime." See executive summary at ViolencePrevention/pdf/ NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

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.