Domestic-Violence equivalent of the Berlin Wall crumbling? The Third District California Appeal Court ruled in a 3-0 decision, October 14, 2008, that to deny support services to men who are victims of domestic violence is unconstitutional.
Regardless of the overall impact, Justice Fred Morrison said in Tuesday’s 3-0 ruling, the state acknowledges that “domestic violence is a serious problem for both women and men.” He noted that the California Constitution forbids sex discrimination, under a 1971 state Supreme Court ruling, and said men and women are entitled to equal treatment, even if one sex is affected more than the other. (San Francisco Chronicle)
With that decision comes the beginning of the end of the corner stone of feminist agitprop: “Women good. Men Bad.”
Domestic Violence or its equivalent expression, family violence, is a misnomer, as that term – as used by feminist activists – excludes violence against children and the elderly in families and almost invariably is used by feminists to point only to violence by men against women and to sweep the vast majority of domestic violence under the carpet.
The largest single group of domestic violence victims is comprised of children in families, of which in the vast majority of cases, 70 percent, mothers are the perpetrators. That does not mean that in the remaining 30 percent of the cases of violence against children only natural fathers are the ones who commit violence against their children. Those remaining 30 percent of the cases involve primarily the mothers’ boyfriends, other relatives, babysitters, and so on. Natural fathers comprise only a small fraction of those remaining 30 percent of the perpetrators of violence against children in families.
The feminist tactic of remaking the public’s perception of the term domestic violence achieved great success. Feminist camp followers, journalists, social services, and other non-governmental but taxpayer-funded organizations, and even judges intent on helping “victims of domestic violence,” direct their help almost exclusively to women who claim, often falsely and as a very effective part of divorce tactics and separation strategies, that they became victims of violence by their husbands or boyfriends.
Even men’s rights activists became indoctrinated by the feminist rhetoric regarding the alleged sole victims of domestic violence, women, in as much as they clamor that men too are often victims of their wives’ violence.
Still, most men’s rights activists at least advocate that domestic violence is not a gender issue but an equal opportunity employer who affects both sexes to equal extents.
Unfortunately, talking about domestic violence as affecting both partners in marriage or in ostensibly similar relationships ignores the largest group of domestic-violence victims, children.
It is fortunate that some men’s rights activists do not fall into that trap set by feminists and their fellow travellers. Marc Angelucci is a California lawyer who could be considered to be one of the more enlightened men’s rights activists. He is the lawyer who clearly identified, in his fight for the monumental California Appeal Court decision to declare favoritism in the provisioning of services to only one class of domestic violence victims as being unconstitutional, that domestic violence victims are not only women and not only men, but, far more importantly, also children who are victims of their mother’s violence.
The decision by the California Appeal Court judges must be seen from that perspective. It provides hope not only for battered husbands but for all victims of domestic violence. That is rightfully so and thus gives full recognition to the fact that, all feminist propaganda to the contrary, domestic violence is a human condition that, fortunately, affects women as victims not all that often, relative to its remaining victims.
Unfortunately, domestic violence affects children as victims far more often than either women or men. Even more unfortunately, domestic violence is most often committed by violent women.
The California Appeal Court decision will now permit us to begin work on finding solutions to a problem that for far too long found public concern only for a relatively small sector of its victims, women, and no concern at all for it primary perpetrators, also women. The decision gives, at least indirectly, legal recognition that services for domestic violence victims must be available to all of its victims.
However, the decision only addresses problem symptoms, the plight of all victims of domestic violence.
The California Appeal Court Decision does absolutely nothing to address the major problem cause of domestic violence, the lack of treatment, education and counselling for the primary perpetrators of domestic violence, violent women.
We have a long way to go before we get from the recognition of all domestic violence victims to the full recognition of all of its perpetrators. Only when we do that can the human problem of domestic violence be solved.
Just as did the judges of the California Appeal Court, all of the journalists who rejoice over the decision failed to address all of the root-causes of domestic violence. Here is what those journalists had to say.
A big piece of stone just fell out of the Domestic Violence version of the Berlin Wall
Posted: October 15, 2008, 8:43 AM by Jonathan Kay
October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month and I am sure that to 99% of readers the two words “domestic violence” means violence against women. Only.
The politically correct view that all domestic violence (DV) can be accounted for either by the inherent aggression and controlling instincts of men or by women’s defensive reactions against those instincts is so deeply entrenched in our culture that it has become the Berlin Wall of the gender wars – or rather the war of feminism against men.
In fact women initiate violence against their partners in an almost equal ratio to men. And in many cases the violence they inflict is severe (as one woman in a woman’s shelter told the director, “knives make great levellers”).
For all the men who have suffered at the hands of battering women, a chunk of stone just fell out of that huge gendered wall. In a taxpayer lawsuit by four male victims of DV, the Third District appellate court in California reversed a previous ruling holding that because they are not statistically situated with women, men are not entitled to equal protection. The new ruling declares the exclusion of men from Domestic Violence programs unconstitutional….(Full Story)
More information on the California Third District Appeal Court decision is contained in the following articles.
Victory! CA Appellate Court Says Excluding Men from Domestic Violence Programs is Unconstitutional
October 14th, 2008
by Glenn Sacks
California attorney Marc Angelucci scored a tremendous victory today as the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence [victim support programs] violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights….(Full Story)
San Francisco Chronicle
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Appeals court decision supports battered men
California domestic violence laws violate men’s rights because they provide state funding only for women and their children who use shelters and other programs, a state appeals court has ruled.
The decision by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento requires the programs to be available to male as well as female victims of domestic violence. The court said the services don’t have to be equal – an agency could maintain a battered-women’s shelter while giving men vouchers to stay at hotels, for example – but both sexes must have access to the programs.
The ruling overturned a Sacramento County judge’s decision to uphold the laws on the ground that women are more likely than men to be victims of domestic violence and to suffer more serious injuries….(Full Story)
- DV programs in California must open doors to battered men, Press Release
By Marc E. Angelucci, Esq.; National Coalition of Free Men
- The Domestic Violence Index Page at Fathers for Life.