June 30, 2005

I'm Talking to YOU

But I'll put it here just in case it ever comes up again with anyone else, which I hope fervently it does not, because believe it or not I do not enjoy being an asshole:

If I am on a mailing list for Thing A, and you send me an email about Thing B, and Thing A and Thing B are wholly unrelated, yet you use Thing A to retrieve my email address in order to email me about Thing B, and you're already aware--or should be--that I am against your stance on Thing B with every fiber of my being, but you click "Send" anyway, you are forever after one foul, corn-speckled shitstain of a human being in these parts.

It's called spam. I don't want any.

Meryl Yourish has often expressed a wish for anti-Semites to just die already. I'm on board with that.

I'm also on board with this wish: Wifebeaters and your apologists?--Die.

It isn't nice of me. It certainly isn't Christian of me. But if I have to argue with the Lord Himself about it, it also isn't going to change. Ever. Accept it, or get lost.

But first, have some email. Because one good turn deserves another.

(For the pathologically curious, the full text of the email is below the fold. I have added emphasis where I felt it appropriate. Hmm, appropriate: Now what does that word remind me of? Oh, right: How appropriate it isn't to send unsolicited email.)

Return-path: TWSchuett@peoplepc.com
Envelope-to: ilyka@ilyka.mu.nu
Delivery-date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:49:30 -0500
From: TWSchuett@peoplepc.com
To: ilyka@ilyka.mu.nu
Subject: Children and the elderly at risk from VAWA 2005
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:21:32 -0700

I am a blogger, an activist for unserved victims of domestic violence since 1999, and someone with 20 years’ experience working in, around, and with social services and private charities. I know how these programs work, and what makes for good and bad programs.

Without doubt, the 4000+ agencies and services funded and supported by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, are among the worst programs I have seen. They do not serve their communities with any practical service, and they mislead the general public as to the need for and workings of their programs. These agencies are in a constant state of crisis, due to poor financial and other management, and often have adversarial relationships with other community services and law enforcement.

While it is generally believed these programs provide services for all women suffering abuse, in fact the women accepted in these programs are chosen by arbitrary rules which exclude many seeking help. Women who have jobs, women with male children over the age of 12, and women who wish to address their problem while remaining in their marriage are among those who are denied services, as are abusive women, who are generally claimed not to exist in significant enough numbers to consider.

Despite the fact of this severely limited client base, shelters are always at or near capacity due to the fact that these programs define domestic violence in such broad terms as to cover nearly every kind of negative exchange between couples. Staff and volunteers are trained to encourage women from the initial contact to believe they are in a serious, dangerous situation which can only be helped by the shelter. Often shelter personnel will coerce and threaten women looking for assistance if they appear hesitant.

Those women who accept aid are presented with a “solution” that requires divorce, and immediate application for various welfare programs. Clients and their children are indoctrinated with feminist ideology, which places blame for the problem entirely on patriarchal men, and presumes women are always victims in need of outside guidance.

While it should be obvious this approach cannot address the many facets of the actual problem, any other way of addressing the problem has been rejected by these agencies, who actively prevent research and development, as well as any suggestion of relaxing their rigid standards of who is “deserving.” Domestic violence services are unique among the variety of agencies serving the community in that they have made no effort to change their approach in thirty years.

VAWA has exacerbated this problem of stagnation, and 10 years out, there is no evidence that women in actual situations of domestic abuse are any better off than before. So-called “batterer treatment “ programs, which are also based on feminist ideology and funded by VAWA, have also been shown to be of dubious value. VAWA sponsored programs are not expected to comply with the same standards of accountability and transparency as applied to other agencies, which makes actual analysis difficult, but the simple fact of these programs being mandated by the government at all is telling.

Healthy, successful social programs do not require federal assistance, as they are willingly supported by the communities they serve.

VAWA is due to be reauthorized, and legislation has been introduced in both houses of Congress to that end. VAWA 2005 expands the scope and reach of these agencies into the areas of elder and child abuse, which could have disastrous implications for existing programs. Agencies which serve children and the elderly have historically been free of the gender bias and political agenda which characterize the women’s shelters and batterer programs. Applying feminist ideology to these programs could put many children and elderly people at risk, considering the known performance of past and current VAWA programs.

It is unknown at this time how VAWA’s advocates would expect to implement their agenda in their new arena, but the prospect is frightening.

The feminist political machine is working overtime to push their legislation through Congress. Already, the Senate has stacked its July 19 hearings with pro-VAWA supporters, who no doubt will provide the Judiciary Committee with the same unsupportable advocacy research, and the blame-and-shame techniques they use on the general public.

The politically-connected groups you’d expect to be right out front, fighting this threat, are demoralized. The previous VAWAs in 1994 and 2000 sailed through without a hitch, and they expect more of the same this time.

This time there is far more at stake.

We cannot allow our elders and children to become part of the social engineering experiment that has been sanctioned for the past ten years, with adult women and men as the guinea pigs. This is not the same old VAWA that was easy enough to ignore as long as you didn’t know anyone directly affected.

It is time for the bloggers to speak out, and create a mass of public opinion that cannot be ignored or explained away. We are not afraid of the feminists, because we know how few of them there are. We know their only concern is in keeping the funding, and their jobs, because they are unemployable anywhere else. We know there are honest, concerned legislators that are only waiting for permission to send these ugly, divisive, programs back to the private sector where they belong, and can die a natural death without the artificial support of your tax dollars.

To track the current status of VAWA, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and enter the bill number.

-- Senate bill: S. 1197
-- House of Representatives bill: H.R. 2876

Trudy W. Schuett

P.O. Box 1252

Yuma AZ 85366

Posted by Ilyka at June 30, 2005 01:56 AM in hell is other people

They's some funny folks in the gubbermint. But I am reassured that they are not afraid of [THEMEFROMPSYCHO] feminists [/THEMEFROMPSYCHO]. Yeah.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 30, 2005 03:23 AM

You've lost me on this one. I can't tell if you think this is a good e-mail or a bad spam. But you are passing it along? Complete with the e-mail address of the sender so she can in turn receive more spam from the bots picking up her address?

Posted by: Norma at June 30, 2005 10:52 AM

I can't tell if you think this is a good e-mail or a bad spam

. . .

Posted by: ilyka at June 30, 2005 06:15 PM

Hey, didn't some blogger show how the whole "abuse" thing was a construct of brown shirted feminazis who were taking a break from emasculating their American men by making them the butt of the jokes in cereal commercials and forcing them to wear vagina hats?

I'm pretty sure I remember something along those lines from a year or so ago...

Posted by: Jim at June 30, 2005 06:57 PM