If VAWA is unfair, what would be a fair plan to care for all US female and male victims of violence?

Maculinists, non-feminists and anti-feminists often say VAWA is awful. What would be a fair way to care for all US female and male victims of violence?

Actually, I really wanted to know what should be done to fix VAWA, since I have mainly seen complaints about it. I read parts of it a while ago, and it did seem to me that it assumed that men were the majority of the abusers and that women were primarily the majority of victims. I know a primary argument is, who "is" the victim in the majority of cases? I've seen lots of conflicting research results on who "is" the victim in the majority of the cases.

So instead of focusing on who is the victim the majority of the time, I wanted to see if there was a way to create a law or fix VAWA, so women still received domestic abuse support, and men did as well.

What wasn't clear to me when reviewing the VAWA info itself, was if funding was only available to female victims, or if male victims were also eligible for funding and support services. But changing the language could take care of that issue, as suggested. Another issue: has the VAWA funding been adequate to support all victims?

I agree with Steve^ 100%

Although i must argue with you on your assertion that "Maculinists, non-feminists and anti-feminists often say VAWA is awful" I disagree, it's not "awful" it's discriminating in many ways...

It's text assumes that females are the victims of violence and that men are the perpertators. This is obviously discriminating against men feeding the stereotype that men are somehow "naturally" more agressive, but also to women, as it implies a perpetual victim role for women. (nobody recognizing the patriarchy at work here?)

second, the act fails to address homosexual intimate partner violence, of both Gay and Lesbian victims and perpetrators.

with less gender specific text and funding the VAWA might be able to address the more wholistic problem of domestic violence, rather than perpetuating negative gender stereotypes (for BOTH genders) and ignoring all of the other forms of domestic intimate partner violence, including but not limited to FMIPV, and gay/lesbian IPV.

(this is not to say that the VAWA is not beneficial, it is, very much so, but for heterosexual women, who are NOT the only victims of domestic violence)

Do a very simple Find and Replace on VAWA.

Remove the sex specific references.

And remove the language that defines the perpetrators of violence as always men and boys and the victims of violence as always women and girls. Make it gender neutral.

This could be all be done, proof read, and made ready for presentation in one day.

VAWA presumes guilt on the part of the man. By its name alone, VAWA does nothing for male victims of domestic violence. In fact, VAWA creates victims of domestic violence; that is, victims of the system.

Again, implicit in your question is that VAWA is in fact fair. It creates two classes of people; and some members of one group use VAWA as an instrument of revenge.

Also implicit in your question is that you really don't care about male victims of domestic violence. I personally think you're paying lip service by including the word "male" in your question,

Want to make it more fair? Repeal it.

I think that is exactly the arguement. Many men believe the Act is not inclusive of men at all. It also leave too much room for abuse of the proposed laws (using it as a weapon against lovers during verbal quarrels).

No laws are perfect, but the intent is there. I do hope they can work out the bugs.

As an ex-police officer there are some interesting things to consider about VAWA.

Is the law, itself wrong? I think it's incomplete, because it doesn't address the fact that men are as much victims as women. The main problem with men being victims is that it is far less reported then when women are victims of domestic violence. I would guess that the main reason is that the impact or damage men cause to a female victim is usually far more serious than that caused to a male victim. I think the law needs to address three things, and I would call them SIR...Severity, Intent & Result...