LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Domestic Politics

Sat. Apr. 19, 2008


For almost 15 years, we in Congress have fought to have domestic violence recognized as a dangerous crime and not reduced to a private family matter.

Most recently, in 2005, we led the reauthorization of landmark legislation to ensure that all victims of violence could find safety, and perpetrators could be held accountable for their actions. It was named the Violence Against Women Act to reflect the reality that the vast majority of victims of domestic violence are women and children. Yet VAWA is gender-neutral and applies to all victims of domestic violence. Nothing in the legislation denies services, programs, funding, or assistance to male victims of violence. No philosophical perspective is “enshrined” into VAWA. It does, however, recognize that domestic violence is a crime, that victims need safety, and that perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions.

We know that VAWA programs work. The act provides critical resources to fund coordinated community responses to domestic violence that have led to a marked decrease in the number of domestic-violence homicides across this country.

We are troubled by Neil Munro’s misleading suggestion [“Domestic Politics,” 4/5/08, p. 32] that the government has “poured” excessive funding into victim services. Furthermore, the article inaccurately suggests that federal funding is being hijacked to reshape family relationships pursuant to an ideological perspective. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Violence Against Women Act is an effective investment to make our communities safer. By preventing these crimes and serving victims, VAWA actually saved taxpayers over $14 billion in its first six years alone.

Sen. Joseph Biden, Democrat, Delaware
Rep. David G. Reichert, Republican, Washington

Though Neil Munro’s article “Domestic Politics” pertains largely to domestic violence, his overarching criticism of anti-violence-against-women advocacy includes both factual mistakes and misguided inferences about efforts to end sexual assault. In making a point about overfunded advocacy agencies, Munro states that the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence has 30 employees. In fact, NAESV has zero employees. The bulk of our work is accomplished by a volunteer board of directors and state sexual-assault coalitions around the country.

Munro also intimates that research used by advocates against sexual assault overstates the problem. At the same time, he points to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a beacon of potential hope for unbiased research. Yet, the CDC found recently that the prevalence of sexual violence is difficult to determine because the crime is significantly under-reported—a fact with which most sexual-assault advocates would agree. And no one could reasonably argue with the [Justice Department’s] Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2000 finding that sexual assault was the violent crime least often reported to law enforcement.

Advocates against sexual violence are continually trying to make our society a place where survivors can come forward and receive help. Articles such as this give little hope that accurate prevalence statistics will be forthcoming.

Monika Johnson Hostler
President, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence

As I told Mr. Munro, judges who hear domestic-violence cases go to work every day trying to get it right—not because we would be embarrassed by a bad ruling that makes it into the headlines but because we understand so well that lives are at stake.

I don’t know how he could position my comment, that judges worry about the consequences of their rulings, as a disagreement with the comment by Cindy Dyer of the [Justice Department’s] Office on Violence Against Women about false domestic-abuse charges. We have both worked on domestic-violence cases for many years, and we both know how important it is for the court system to take the claims of victims seriously. The story here is that people of conscience from various systems are working together to promote just outcomes in domestic-violence cases. Your article got it wrong and missed the point.

Judge Susan Carbon
Concord, N.H., Family Division

Thank you very much for your accurate and comprehensive article on the plight of modern-day fathers. The misuse of judicial resources with the sole purpose of separating fathers and children must stop.

Myrna B. Murdoch
Commissioner, Commission on Fatherhood
Honolulu

Excellent job on your article “Domestic Politics.” I found it well written, comprehensive, and highly thought-provoking. I work as a domestic-violence advocate through a national nonprofit agency. We specialize in offering supportive services to male victims of spousal/intimate-partner violence. Many of the men I speak with on our help line are victims of abuse, first by their wives/girlfriends and then, at times, by the very system that we have put in place and fund to protect victims.

I have called battered-women’s shelter programs over the years all around the country on behalf of our clients, seeking supportive services for them, only to hear, “We don’t help men,” or, “Let me refer you to … a homeless shelter or batterers intervention program.” At times, because of society’s reliance on and adherence to the feminist perspective of domestic violence, female perpetrators are enabled to continue abusing their male intimate partners long after these victims get the courage to leave the abusive relationship.

I hope that many people read and learn from your article. Change is starting to happen already—the first-ever study of its kind on male victims of female aggression is taking place right now, and the first-ever stand-alone domestic-violence shelter for male victims in Ohio opened recently—so I am cautiously optimistic that we will see an expanded definition of domestic violence.

Jan Elizabeth Brown
Founder and Executive Director
Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women
Harmony, Maine