by Robert Leclair

This article reveals a few of the many examples of hypocrisy emanating from the radical feminist ideology.  Hypocrisy has plagued the war on domestic violence since the radical feminist element
hijacked VAWA in 1994.  Unfortunately, many dedicated members of OVW believed in the goal to eliminate violence against women but were duped for over two decades.  The public was brainwashed
into thinking that the war to protect women, financed by billions of tax dollars, was successful.  See below for examples of duplicity, the lack of transparency and candor that have allowed this

1.  OVW and Functional Charts

Twenty years after the authorization of VAWA (1994), I called the Office of Violence Against Women to request a copy of their functional organizational chart.  I assumed an organizational chart was
available and it would show the operational functions of that office.  I told them I was writing a book on domestic violence and the chart would be very useful.

To my surprise, I was told the request must be made through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  Normally a professional chart outlines the functions of the organization and their leaders or
contacts.  I submitted the FOIA request and several days later I received a letter containing the organizational chart.  I was shocked and in disbelief when I saw the chart.  This is the only functional
chart available after more than 20 years of waging the war on domestic violence and spending billions of tax dollars.  It is antiquated and says nothing.  The penciled in name of the director on the
chart proves the lack of accountability.

2.  Reasons Cited for Obtaining Restraining Orders

A study indicated that 85% of women requesting a restraining order from the courts cited “I fear for my life” as the reason for the judge to grant the request.  There are two reasons for the
exceptionally high number of requests granted based on “I fear for my life”.  I assume that every senator and member of congress are keenly aware of the two reasons or should be.  If you do not
know the answer just ask one of the many lawyers in the Senate and Congress.  The answer may reveal some duplicity by congress when evaluating VAWA/OVW’s accountability.

3.  Reauthorization of VAWA

Every 5 years since 1994, Congress must reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.  Both parties have always voted for the reauthorization with a few and insignificant skirmishes.  OVW in its first
report to Congress stated that because of their efforts violence against women had been reduced by 64%.  In 2013, Liz Roberts (SAFE HORIZONS’S DEPUTY CEO) stated Violence Against Women
was reduced by 63%.  In 2014, supposedly violence against women had been reduced by 68%.

Despite the reductions of violence against women, the media and nonprofit organization affiliated with OVW never wavered from stating domestic violence was an epidemic or even a pandemic.  Also,
this 10-year reduction in domestic violence did not even budge the yearly statistic that 1 out 3 women experience some form of domestic violence.

We are now in 2020, the disparity still exists, and VAWA is up for reauthorization.  Democrats and Republicans must realize that VAWA and OVW have failed miserably, resulting in collateral emotional
damage to our children, their future, and the future of our country.

4.  The War on Domestic Violence

Lack of civility exists in the war on domestic violence and ignorance impedes true reform.  This behavior detracts from the real goal of protecting women from violence and abuse.  The following
excerpt was taken from an article by Wendy McElroy,

“Thoughtful women are fighting back against gender feminism's "war on men."  One indication that they are succeeding is the malicious backlash they encounter.  A few years ago, women opposing
gender feminism would have been ignored.  The latest target of the backlash gender feminists are unleashing against their critics is the renowned gender-feminist critic, Christina Hoff Sommers.  
Sommers was recently silenced by government officials who told her to cease her presentation at a tax-funded conference to which she had been invited.  Sommers' transgression?  She called for
scientific studies to evaluate the effectiveness of government programs.  During a Q&A session, Professor Jay Wade, an expert on "listening skills" at Fordham University, shouted for Sommers to
"shut the f--- up, b--ch!"  The audience laughed.  The organizers made no objection.”

This type of language by OVW representatives does not inspire confidence in the government’s war to protect women it smacks of bullying tactics.

5.  A 1998 Conference Funded by OVW

In 1998, a 3-day joint conference with OVW and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) was funded by VAWA.  The forum of the conference was a comprehensive strategy
session to implement an approach that would guide OVW through its development and implementation of an ideology to eradicate violence and abuse of women.  The attendees, mainly women
judges, lawyers, and OVW members, discussed all issues that women faced and how to counteract male toxicity.  Here are just a few of the controversial issues:

a. The report identified Blatant Discrimination and Bias:
* Paternal access is of greater value than women’s or children’s safety.
* Because of stereotype roles, mothers must be perfect, but we expect little of fathers.
* The assumption that men and women are equal negates the special role of the mother as primary caretaker and punishes stay-at-home mothers for not being economically self- sufficient, as well as
working mothers for not staying home.
* The appearance of discrimination causes judges to bend over backwards in favor of involving dads.

Most of the issues stated above are either misleading or outright false.
b. The report stated:
“The fathers’ rights group has considerable resources—money, time, and institutional power—to accomplish their goals, and their agenda is spilling over from custody and visitation context into child
protection proceedings.”

This is an assumption that is blatantly false.  Most fathers groups had to disband after ten years for lack of funding.  The remaining groups functioned on a “shoestring”.

“Father’s rights groups often focus on the rights of fathers instead of their responsibilities”.  This clearly shows radical feminists completely distorted the role of fathers and what they were facing.  
Moore importantly, it shows that OVW and the female judges and lawyers on the panel never investigated father’s groups to determine the legitimacy of their concerns and proposals.

6.  Research Study of Restraining Orders

My study of restraining orders in Massachusetts reveals 85% are filed by women and awarded by judges in 99.9% of the cases.  Comparable statistics are available in most states in the United
States.  The study also indicates the various reasons that women file for restraining order.  However, one major reason given in 88% of the cases is “I feared for my life” or “he placed me in fear of
imminent serious physical harm.”  Why this reason is given in most cases and accepted by all judges is clearly an indication of some form of intervention or bias.

7.  Another Act of Hypocrisy and Deceit

A bias that is highly hypocritical and deceitful is clearly evident in Hilary Clinton’s article which made national headlines in 2000.  The first paragraphs are littered with false or misleading statistics:

a. “Fifty percent of men who abuse their wives also abuse their children” is a false and delusional statement.

b. “Of the girls who witness violence in their homes, more than half will become victims when they grow up.  And for boys, witnessing domestic violence is the single best predictor of juvenile
delinquency and adult criminality.”  This Hilary Clinton statement is grossly misleading and adversely affects all boys.  She then states “these statistics came from a resolution adopted by the National
Association of Attorney Generals, urging Congress to reauthorize and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act”.  The AG’s that adopted and promoted these statistics failed to fact check the
source.  I remember another letter from 53 AG’s to Congress in support of the reauthorization of VAWA.  This letter took their support a step further by stating a statistic that was based strictly on
“hearsay”.  This hearsay statistic should have raised a red flag, especially coming from
53 top-level lawyers!

Significant Consequences for Boys and Girls
I found a thought-provoking image of a boy streaming on LinkedIn in mid 2020.  Many readers questioned the boy’s reason for making this seemingly outlandish statement.  It makes perfect sense
when you understand its significance and where it comes from.

Click Here to Find Out.

For the past decades, OVW and radical feminists have been projecting the ideology and image that all women are victims of domestic violence and that their children are also victims as witnesses to
the violence.  OVW’s approach reveals an element of hypocrisy and deceit but more importantly it shows how “the end justifies the means” approach was implemented.  OVW’s solution to domestic
violence was based strictly on the supposition that all women are victims and all men are perpetrators.

8.  OVW Taking Deceit to an Egregious Level

The goal, approach, and ideology of the VAWA leadership was simple but highly hypocritical and deceitful.  The approach was to implement solutions that applied to women and children only.  When
they were asked why their approach and solutions did not consider other factors, such as abuse and violence to men or children, their answer was that the approach implemented was because of the
highly disproportionate number of cases involving abuse to women and children versus an insignificant number of cases involving abuse to men.  What OVW completely ignored was a documented
fact that women kill and maltreat children disproportionately more than men.  The deceit was appalling and destructive.  If they had factored this ignored elusive truth into their approach to eliminating
domestic violence and abuse of women, the solutions would have taken a different and a more successful path.

Every year, The Children’s Bureau under the purview of Health and Human Services reports and provides statistics on Maltreatment of Children as illustrated below.  Every year since 1995 the
statistics are the same:  the percentage of women who maltreat and/or kill children is higher than that of men.


Radical elements of other government agencies were complicit in promoting VAWA’s exclusive war on eliminating violence and abuse of women and children.  It is inconceivable that OVW has spent
billions of tax dollars for over two decades based on a false assumption that all women and children are victims of violence and all men are perpetrators.  For several years (including 2020) OVW and
associated nonprofit organizations spend close to 2 billion tax dollars to eliminate domestic violence, failing miserable every year.

The leadership of OVW and radical feminists deceived Congress and the public when they ignored and excluded the killings and maltreatment of children revealed in the yearly statistical reports by
the Children’s Bureau.  Radical elements of other government agencies were also complicit in promoting VAWA’s exclusive war on eliminating violence and abuse of women and children and the
exclusive portrayal as such.  VAWA and OVW has spent billions of tax dollars for over two decades based on false assumption that women are victims of violence and abuse at an extremely
disproportionate rate.  It is incomprehensible that Congress and the Department of Justice would be duped into believing that VAWA is successful and continue to fund OVW without accountability
and/or drastic reform.

How can anyone believe that VAWA/OVW is justified in implementing its approach, numerous policies such as “100% arrests of men and an arbitrary restraining order process based on an ideology
that assumes a belief that all women and children are disproportionately victims of domestic violence and abuse?  Incredibly, OVW seems to have convinced politicians and the public that this
approach is successful in eradicating violence against women and children.  However, this is pure fiction when the fact that women disproportionately kill and maltreat children more often than men is
revealed.  OVW has conveniently ignored this factor and failed to inform the public.

Is radical feminism so deeply rooted in VAWA that the damage to children is irreversible in 2020?  Is Congress able to stop the insanity and demise of children?  Unfortunately, it is children that are
always victims of the political quagmires and never-ending Cross Fires.  Congress should stop ranting and raving about issues that divide the country and start by addressing the issues that misguide
humanity and generations of young children who are destined to protect our democracy based on a belief in God.  Your first step and due diligence should be to look at the
unparalleled power of
VAWA/OVW and its 2019 reauthorization process.