Schlafly: Violence Against Women Act “Breaks Up Families”

Everyone’s favorite anti-feminist, Phyllis Schlafly, is at it again.  This time, she’s advocating that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) be defunded because it’s anti-family.  You know, since it encourages women to leave husbands and partners who are beating them and all.

Via World Net Daily:

Of course, real domestic violence exists and is a crime, and should be punished. However, this issue raises constitutional problems that domestic violence has come to mean whatever a woman alleges, with or without evidence, and men often lose their presumption of innocence and right to confront their accusers.

The fiscal problem is that a billion dollars a year is streaming into the hands of left-wing feminists to pursue their agenda, which does not include preserving or restoring marriage. Taxpayers’ funds are used to lobby for feminist legislation, to train law enforcement and judicial personnel in feminist ideology and in the aggressive enforcement of feminist laws, and to break up families instead of giving them pro-family and anti-substance-abuse counseling.

Yes, we need to make sure more money goes to those who work to “preserve or restore marriage” and “pro-family and anti-substance abuse counseling” (faith based organizations, especially, no doubt), and less to groups that, you know, stop violence or encourage women to leave the partners who are causing them harm. 

Because putting someone in jail for beating his wife?  Why, that’s just an “aggressive enforcement of feminist laws.”

Between 25 to 50 percent of all women in the world have been a victim of abuse at the hands of an intimate partner.  It is projected that 40 to 70 percent of all female murder victims were killed by an intimate partner.

Staying in an abusive situation isn’t “pro-family,” it’s advocating violence against women.

(Hat Tip, Media Matters)

wikimedia commons


Scott P.
Terry C4 years ago

Phyllis, so anxious to get back to the good old days of barefoot and pregnant in a woodstove warmed kitchen.

Duane B.
.4 years ago

Thank you for sharing.

Mary L.
mary Lee4 years ago

We truly need a new perspective of the issue of men and women and their role in human society. Read this message on "Age of Women" on

"Over the centuries, men have been so afraid of the power of women and the possibility of women ascending within the society and culture that they really have denied themselves the assets and the benefits of these skills. And civilization as a whole has been retarded and restrained, its full potential not realized because of this.

The confusion about male and female roles, the masculine and the feminine, has led to a great retardation in human development and great abuse of people throughout the ages in many cultures. To limit women to child raising and domestic duties and minimal employment opportunities is a great mistake, and wherever that exists in any culture, that culture will suffer as a result. Until recently, in most societies in the world, women were considered to be simply the possession of men—a valuable possession, but a possession, something you could buy or sell or trade or destroy—and that is one of the reasons that human civilization has progressed so very slowly.

Why has it taken humanity so long to really make advancements? It is not simply energy and technology, the limits there, that have held you back. It is the restraint upon the roles of men and women. It is the weight of history and tradition. It is the expectations of children. So for a woman who is dest

Jim B.
Jim B.4 years ago

There are laws that prohibit abuse. Why do feminists need a another one? The reason this unconstitutional (no provision for men) bill was unfunded is because people (men and women) finally woke up to how it was destroying America by eliminating fathers from their families and encouraging the neglect and outright abuse of their children by their opportunistic mothers. (All this is public record and irrefutable.) It has to appear to be a financial reason because the truth appears to be soooo crazy. We don't need this bill because we already have enough laws to ameliorate domestic violence. Joe Biden and Pat Leahy (now numbers 2 and 3 in your hierachy, ahem) sponsored this bill in the 90's and enjoyed the profits from the paternal-authority-figure-hating feminazis. Millions of good men have had their lives ruined for violating the stretched definitions of abuse. Some lost security clearances and employment licenses, their homes and careers, and can no longer possess a rim-fired or center-fired gun because they answered hand-written notes presented to them by their wives (indirect communication was to be allowed) or other equally-innocuous acts. VAWA was evil incarnate and deserved to be put to death. Now more children will finish highschool, refrain from crime and other risky behaviors, and lead a full and productive life with Dad.

Catt R.
Catt R5 years ago

Fred.... how nice you think that being beaten on a daily basis is a reasonable foundation to base a marriage on------- I wonder if you have ever had someone beat you because the mail was late..... or because it was snowing.... or because his mother had cancer...... because his candidate lost the election.... or because his hair was thinning.

I hope there are no women in your life having to deal with your thought that it is reasonable to abuse a woman, and she should just accept it.

Rebecca F.
Rebecca Farvour5 years ago

It's hard to think of something to reply to this, I just want to stutter.

Gene Jacobson
Gene J5 years ago

That woman is clinically ill. And clearly in need of treatment for that shriveled up compassion gland. Perhaps even a transplant. I wonder if she ever listens to herself? Or stops to just think about what she is saying. Her life is perfect, wonderful, that does NOT mean everyone else's is. That we need a law like this and have for so long is all the proof anyone needs that continuing it is critically important. He can get his substance abuse treatment AFTER his victims are safely out of his reach.