Women's Rights

Jump to a section:

What's the Problem with Discrimination Now?
What's the Problem with Women in the Military Now?
What's the Problem with the Wage Gap Now?
What's Happening With Maternity and Family Leave Now?
What's the Problem with Child Care Now?
What's the Problem with Violence Against Women Now?

What's the Problem with Discrimination Now?

Almost everyone says that he or she disagrees with discrimination, but people don't agree about the extent to which discrimination affects people's lives or about the actions that are necessary to stop discriminatory practices, behaviors, and speech.

Some feel that all inequalities among groups are the result of discrimination. This argument assumes that all people are equal and that there are no 'natural' inequalities. So the inequalities that do exist are the result of discrimination and may be overcome. In this scenario, discrimination can be intentional or unintentional, and is deeply rooted and widespread; active measures are necessary in order to eradicate it. People who think this way are usually in favor of legislation and education to prevent discrimination and often support most forms of affirmative action and social programs, like welfare, that aid the disadvantaged.

Are Inequalities 'Natural'?

There are those who think inequalities are likely to be 'natural' or the responsibility of the disadvantaged group. Within this point of view, it is discrimination when a qualified woman is not hired for a job because she is a woman, but the fact that there are few women senators is the result of women's choices, or women's ability to bear children, and is not due primarily to discrimination.

What is the difference between intentional and unintentional discrimination? Intentional discrimination is a deliberate attempt to restrict a group. For example, discouraging a daughter from entering the field of medicine because she is female would be a direct and intentional form of discrimination. Schools that give more funding and encouragement to boys' sports teams than to girls' teams are practicing direct discrimination. In these cases, decisions are based on gender, and are directly discriminatory. This is the type of discrimination that is easiest to regulate through laws.

Sociologists claim that unintentional discrimination is the continuing effect of the initial discrimination. For example, the girls' sports team that receives less funding is unable to support as many players. Thus, fewer girls develop the skills involved in the sport, experience competition and teambuilding, and enhance their self-esteem. These continued results would be the effect of unintentional, or indirect, discrimination. The injuries of indirect discrimination are often far more serious than those of the initial, or direct discrimination.

Title IX

So, an effective way to reduce discrimination would be to regulate direct discrimination, or, to continue with our example, to require schools to treat girls' and boys' sports teams equally. Well, such a law does exist. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in federally assisted education programs. Modeled on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting race, color, and national origin discrimination, it was followed by three other pieces of civil rights legislation: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibiting disability discrimination; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975; and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibiting disability discrimination by public entities. Title IX states that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any educational programs or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

Title IX was passed in 1972, a generation ago. It is difficult to say how much it has contributed to women's progress, but many claim that it has been essential to the opening up of opportunities for girls and women.

"Without Title IX, I'd be nowhere."-Cheryl Miller, Olympic basketball player.

With Title IX in place, do women and girls still experience discrimination in schools? Direct and indirect discrimination still exist within our education systems. There are still thousands more high school boys' varsity teams than girls' teams and women receive only one-third of all athletic scholarships for college. There are many fewer women in the sciences. In addition, many women and girls deal with sexual harassment in school, which, in turn, diminishes their ability to participate.

Evidence of discrimination

Discrimination turns up in so many aspects of women's lives that it is often not recognized as something wrong. For many it is just the way life is. In 2001, American women and minorities filed over 54,000 job discrimination complaints. Of course, not all of these complaints represent instances of genuine discrimination, but on the other hand, not everyone who is discriminated against files a complaint. Discrimination takes many forms. Women make 73 cents for every dollar a man makes; women make up over 57% of America's poor; one out of every three women worldwide is a victim of violence, and a woman's right to reproductive choice is continually challenged, even in the United States..

Because discrimination is so prevalent, many of us have never bothered to stand up and object. We may recognize one kind of behavior as discrimination and not others, depending on our own experience. Some assume it will never change.

Is Affirmative Action an Answer to Discrimination?

Everyone talks about it and has an opinion about it, but how many of us really know the ins and outs of affirmative action? A discussion about affirmative action is necessarily complex, and it requires us to ask ourselves some difficult questions: Should we be willing to sacrifice the individual for the good of society as a whole? Does a person's race or sex help to define him or her in an important way? How widespread is discrimination? Are we still feeling the effects of slavery? The way that we answer these questions will help to determine our opinions about affirmative action.

Affirmative action can mean a lot of things; it is not just the government forcing businesses to hire women and minorities through quotas. It can mean requiring a business to prove that they have tried to find qualified women and minorities. It can be a formalized system of hiring practices that allows workers, salaries, and promotions to be considered in an organized way, instead of at the whim of the guy with the biggest office.

Who is required to take affirmative action? Government agencies and some corporations whose contracts or subcontracts come to $500,000 or more. In addition, companies that are found guilty of discrimination are often ordered by the court to hire a certain number of women and/or minorities over a period of years, or to make their hiring practices generally fairer. So, in other words, only government agencies, companies that receive a lot of money from the government, and companies that have been proven biased are required to take affirmative action.

Is "Quota" a Four-Letter Word?

Sometimes, government agencies, contractors and subcontractors are required to fill quotas. Within affirmative action, a quota is a mandate that requires a minimum number of workers to be minorities and/or women. Quotas are the most debatable form of affirmative action. They are controversial because they may cause a better-qualified white male to lose a job to a less-qualified woman or minority.

Those opposed to affirmative action call this "reverse discrimination." "Discrimination" because an individual is losing an opportunity due to his race and gender; "reverse" because white men are the targets of this discrimination, instead of women and minorities.

Opponents to affirmative action claim that quotas are unconstitutional. They say that a situation in which a more qualified candidate loses a job to a less qualified one because of his or her race or gender violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance.

Defenders of quotas say that the process of considering various job candidates is a highly subjective one, and that the assumption that minorities and women will be the least qualified candidates is erroneous. They claim that quotas help to counteract the race and sex bias that many employers demonstrate in their hiring practices. According to this argument, employers see white male candidates as more qualified because they look and act like the people that are already in high-level positions. White men hold 95% to 97% of high-level corporate jobs.

Those against quotas argue that no matter what the circumstances, an individual cannot be selected on the basis of race; that attempting to eliminate discrimination by practicing reverse discrimination is illogical and immoral.

Years of Oppression

This is the point at which those in favor of affirmative action bring up the countless years of slavery and oppression of minorities and women. Some proponents of affirmative action see it as reparation for past discrimination. They may say, for example, that the African American community is still suffering from the effects of slavery. They remind us that this country permitted slavery for 245 years, followed by 100 years of the legalized subordination of blacks, and that blacks have only had about 40 years of legal "freedom," which does not equate to real, lived, social, political and cultural freedoms. Therefore, affirmative action is needed to "level the playing field." It helps to repair many years of race and sex discrimination and is a proactive approach to eliminating current sexism and racism that is real and prevalent.

The extent to which sexism and racism exist in our society is also debated. Proponents of affirmative action will argue that discrimination is alive and well, while opponents say that its presence is less significant. Challengers to affirmative action will frequently remind us that slavery is, in fact, over, and that women have made tremendous gains even without affirmative action programs. So, sometimes, the argument comes down to a difference in opinion about how serious discrimination really is.

The Bakke Case

It is possible to recognize discrimination as widespread and customary and still be against affirmative action. If one believes that the individual should always be protected from discrimination, even if that individual enjoys the highest levels of privilege, than it is difficult to fully accept affirmative action. White males are often selected against in affirmative action programs. In 1973-1974 Allan Bakke applied for admission to the Medical School at University of California Davis, and was rejected although he had high scores. Minorities with lower scores were admitted because the school reserved slots for members of minority groups. Bakke took the university to court, and his case eventually rose to the Supreme Court, who decided against Bakke in 1978.

The justices were split: four decided Bakke was the victim of reverse discrimination, and four resolved that the university's policy was a logical application of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Justice Lewis Powell broke the tie with an unusual twofold decision: that the school's quota system was invalid, but the use of race as a factor when considering applicants is permissible. The court's decision resulted in Bakke's admission to the school and the upholding of affirmative action.

More than one issue at stake

Powell decided that it was reasonable for the school to consider race in its application process because the university has the right to place value on the diversity of its community. A group is more dynamic when it is made up of people who have varying opinions and experiences. Within this point of view, we can see that it is sometimes necessary to include an individual because he or she will bring diversity to the group, which in turn is beneficial to the individuals that make up that group.

In the Bakke example, it may have been more advantageous for the Medical School and the society at large to have medical students and, eventually, doctors with varying backgrounds. In addition, minority professionals serve as role models to other members of their group, and the encouragement that they provide may be more valuable than Mr. Bakke's skills. On the other hand, is it right to sacrifice Mr. Bakke for the sake of diversity?

Some argue that the Constitution is colorblind, and that the rights provided to individuals there should be applied to all, regardless of whether or not one is privileged or disadvantaged. Others say that colorblindness is the goal, but that we are not currently colorblind. In order to work towards the equality guaranteed under the Constitution, we must be aware of discrimination and make specific efforts to repair it.

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of affirmative action, in part. The Court decided that the University of Michigan Law School could continue to consider minority race a "plus factor" in admissions. However, the Court struck down the university’s undergraduate school admissions policy, which involved a point system to determine admissions. Applicants who identified themselves as minorities received 20 points out of a possible 100, while any applicant who got a perfect SAT or ACT score earned only 12 points. The Supreme Court ruled this point system to be a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it illegal for any federally funded program to practice race discrimination.

The effect of this ruling is that universities and colleges can continue to consider minority race a positive characteristic within the admissions process. In her remarks, swing vote Sandra Day O’Connor claimed that an unsystematic approach to seeking and rewarding minority talent matches Justice Powell’s 1978 ruling in the Bakke case.

return to top

What's the Problem with Women in the Military Now?

Sexism is alive and well in the military. Women are often harassed, abused and even raped while in military service or training. In a 1992 Pentagon survey, about one-third of women soldiers reported experiencing some form of verbal or physical sexual harassment or abuse. Women in military training schools such as West Point or the Air Force Academy often feel unwelcome and drop out at a higher rate than men. Despite the sexism, women perform very well in training and in service.

Although they exhibit competence for any and all positions in the military, most women in the US military are in lower-ranking and lower-paying administrative, clerical and health care positions. Most women officers (there are relatively few) are in health care (doctors are officers), and very few generals are women.

Women in Combat

Do women belong in the military? Are we as capable as men in battle? Can we be strong and brave enough? Many would say a simple "no," but Joshua S. Goldstein, author of War and Gender, discusses these questions at length and comes up with some interesting answers.

Goldstein explains that "killing in war does not come naturally for either gender, yet the potential for war has been universal in human societies. To help overcome soldiers' reluctance to fight, cultures develop gender roles that equate "manhood" with toughness under fire." In other words, women and men are equally reluctant to go into combat, but men are able to create and reinforce their identities as strong, brave and otherwise manly through the enterprise of war. Characteristics that are associated with manhood, such as strength, determination, and stoicism are also the characteristics necessary for a soldier to survive in war.

Women in combat are required to take on traditionally masculine attributes as well, and are, therefore, a threat to the basic equation of manhood = strength and courage in battle. If women exhibit bravery and competence on the battlefield, do we see them as men or do we no longer have a clear definition for "manhood'?

Brains and Brawn

Opponents of this argument usually turn to biology. They may say that although women can be brave, they are not as physically capable as men. Despite the fact that the average size and strength of men is greater than the average size of women, most women in the military are capable of operating and carrying a machine gun and even carrying a wounded soldier to safety. With our technology, brawn is not always necessary, even if many women soldiers have it.

Politician's beliefs about women's capabilities affect policy. President Clinton made 80,000 combat positions available to women. Is President Bush less likely to promote women in combat? Before electing someone, as well as during their tenure in office, we need to think about what he or she thinks about women. Do they believe that women can do any job that a man can do? What are the big-picture consequences for maintaining the belief that there are some jobs that are for men only? What are your assumptions about what women can and cannot do? How does your attitude about women's capabilities help to effect change or to maintain tradition?

What's the Problem with Welfare Reform Now?

The Senate will debate HR 4737, also called the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion act of 2002. HR4737 would change welfare programs in several ways:

Money. HR4737 maintains the current budget for welfare and does not account for inflation. This means that the grant will decrease in real value.

Work. HR4737 increases both the numbers of people who have to fill the work requirement and the number of hours that those people will have to work.

Marriage. HR4737 proposes a $200 million dollar grant for states that promote marriage as a solution to poverty and welfare.

Children. HR4737 provides states with a financial incentive to pass up to $100/mo in child support payments through to single parents on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Currently, half of all states retain child-support money as repayment for TANF.

Advocates of HR4737 argue that these reforms will move more people off welfare and into work. They say that encouraging marriage will result in self-sufficient family units that replace struggling single parents.

Reforming Mothers Instead of Laws

Critics of HR4737 have several problems with the bill. First, it increases the percentage of parents working and the number of hours that they will have to work, but it does not sufficiently increase the funds for childcare. Currently, the bill includes a $2 billion increase for childcare, but officials say that at least $11 billion will be needed if the bill passes. How does this affect the average mother on welfare? She will probably have to arrange free or very low-cost childcare for her children for part of the week. This means that children in TANF families will often get substandard care.

Current law allows some protection for TANF parents if they are not able to work because they can't find adequate childcare; however, HR 4737 increases the probability that parents will miss work but does not increase the protection against sanctions for missing work.

Second, marriage promotion programs have received considerable criticism. They suggest that moms on welfare should just find themselves a good man (who makes a good salary) to solve all of their problems. The bill encourages women's economic dependence on men and therefore increases the possibility that women will not be able to leave the marriage if it is abusive. Marriage promotion programs suggest that women are incapable of working and raising their children without a man. In addition, opponents claim that these programs do not usually address domestic partners or gay marriages, adding heterosexism to the heap of discrimination in the proposal.

Third, opponents say that more child support money should be passed through to the single parent. Many states keep child support money in order to pay back TANF costs. Many feel that this practice keeps TANF families in poverty.

In general, some feel that welfare needs to be reformed to allow single parents to go to school. They feel that we should provide quality childcare and services for families attempting to rise out of poverty.

Others feel that we need to cut back on government spending by getting people off welfare. They are in favor of rewarding states that get people off public assistance and into jobs.

These details are critical, as each of us decides what to think and questions our representatives.

return to top

What's the Problem with the Wage Gap Now?

More than half of all women today work in clerical, teaching, or nursing jobs or in jobs in the service industry. As a society, we value these types of jobs less than jobs that tend to be dominated by men. For example, we can easily say that a nurse has less social status and less pay than a financier. Studies show that fields dominated by women (like nursing) have less social status and less pay than jobs dominated by men (like finance) because they are dominated by women.

The wage gap has become smaller over the last two decades, but most of that change is due to a drop in men's real earnings. Nevertheless, things are fairer. In the early 1970's, we were making only 57% of what men were making, and today we are earning 73% of what men are earning. The improvement is due in part to an increase in women's wages; however, the wage gap has changed at a rate of less than half a penny per year.

So, Why do We Need Pay Equity?

Women, people of color and white men who work in undervalued fields and industries suffer because of the wage gap. 27 cents to the dollar may seem like a small amount of money, but over time, it adds up. During her working life, the average working woman will earn $523,000 less than her male counterpart. That's $523,000 that she could spend on housing, food, education, care of children, and retirement. The situation is even more serious for women of color. In one year, the average black woman working full-time earns about $12,000 less than the average white man working full-time. The average Hispanic woman working full-time earns $17,837 less than the average white man working full-time does. Women of color are faced with two tones of discrimination in the workplace: race and gender.

Hasn't Anything Been Done About This?

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 makes pay discrimination on the basis of gender illegal. This means that a man and a woman performing the same work must be paid the same amount. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits wage discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. So, why is wage discrimination still happening? Well, it is very difficult to prove wage discrimination in the courts and wage discrimination laws are rarely enforced. In addition, entire professions are undervalued because they are dominated by women and minorities, and there is no law preventing this. In addition, racism and sexism are deeply embedded in our society. Although laws may help to prevent the expression of racist and sexist beliefs, they do not completely eliminate these beliefs.

How big is the gap?

There are people that claim that the wage gap does not exist or that it is much smaller than the figure of women's earned 73 cents to men's earned dollar. Many insist that the wage gap does not take differences of education and experience into account. They claim that the wage gap is a reflection of women's choices and lack of education and experience; in short, that differences in earnings have very little to do with gender or race discrimination.

Economists disagree about how differences in education and experience affect the wage gap, but most agree that the wage gap cannot be explained away by education and experience discrepancies. In a study where men and women of the same education and job experience are compared, the difference in incomes is diminished but still evident. And such differences in income can exist even when a woman is more qualified. For example, if education and experience are the only factors that determine wages, why does the average black woman with a bachelor's degree only make about $125 more per month than the average white man who only has a high school degree?

Do women make less because they are mothers?

Since mothers often bear most of the responsibility of raising their children, they sometimes work fewer hours than fathers and men without children. However, mothers who work fewer hours outside of the home and more hours in the home do not account for the wage gap. Many mothers work full-time alongside fathers and men without children, and still earn less. Traditional family roles that required women to work inside the home and men to work outside the home are partially responsible for women's lower wages. Yet today more than half of all women are in the workforce, and many women of color and immigrant women worked outside of the home long before Women's Liberation; but, today's wage gap proves that men are still considered to be the primary wage earners. The wage gap does not exist in all professions.

Some types of jobs have fairly even numbers of women and men workers and pay those women and men equally. However, this is not true for the majority of professions or workers. Some will say that women have lower incomes because they choose to pursue professions that pay less. But what causes women to choose these professions? Why do many women choose nursing over neurosurgery? It is possible that women fear that they will be treated badly by their mostly male colleagues and employees in male-dominated professions. Also, many women have been taught that they will not be successful in careers that are dominated by men.

Does discussion of the wage gap encourage a "Victim Mentality" among women?

Some claim that focusing on the wage gap ignores the progress that women have made in the last decades. But the job is not finished. Those of us who protest the wage gap do not suggest that we are helpless victims, but rather activists who are fighting against sexism and racism in the job market.

In a Nutshell

A woman who works outside of the home is not necessarily free, but economic independence is a component of freedom, and we can only be economically independent if we are paid fairly for our work.

return to top

What's Happening With Maternity and Family Leave Now?

Right now, the Family and Medical Leave Act provides people who work in companies with 50 employees or more with twelve weeks of unpaid leave for family care. This may include caring for one's own illness, for an immediate family member who is sick, or for the birth or adoption of a child. The FMLA requires employers to provide unpaid leave only. Some people think that the next step is to provide workers with paid leave.

Politicians on all sides claim that the family is valuable, but not everyone is willing to support paid leave for workers. Many claim that the cost of paid leave is just too high; they say businesses cannot afford to pay workers who are not at work.

All in Favor of Paid-Leave, Raise Your Hand

Those in favor of paid leave remind us that dual-earner couples and single parents often get into serious financial trouble if they are forced to take leave to care for an infant or sick family member. They note that housework and caregiving are work and therefore should be compensated. The United States is one of only three industrialized nations in the world that does not offer paid leave to employees (and the US is the richest of these three). Both families and companies suffer because there is no paid leave system in place. Families put their financial security at risk when a wage-earner leaves work to care for a family member, and companies experience higher turnover rates, lower productivity and morale, and less company loyalty than they would if workers could get paid leave.

Some say that the first thing that we need to do is extend the benefits that already exist to everyone. Not everyone is covered by the FMLA. People who work in businesses with 50 employees or less are not protected, and they usually make less money than people who work for larger companies. Most of the people who work in small businesses for lower wages are women, and, as we know, women do most of the caregiving work. In addition, the FMLA doesn't allow people to take leave in order to take care of grandparents, in-laws or domestic partners. Some states have made up for these deficiencies with their own family leave policies, but these issues have not been addressed on a federal level.

What are the Differences Between Family and Maternity Leave?

Family leave refers to time taken off work to care for any immediate family members, including oneself; family leave allows fathers to take care of infants as well. Maternity leave is specific to mothers caring for their infants, and so sometimes it is viewed as a special benefit for women, even though it can also be seen as a benefit for all.

Republicans and Democrats are more likely to agree about the need for family leave than for maternity leave, because family leave addresses more people and more situations. Family leave is going to be an even more important issue in the coming years because baby boomers are aging and are going to need to be taken care of when they are elderly. It is to society's benefit to allow family members to provide some of that care so that the state is not overwhelmed.

Do you think you will need to care for a child, husband, or parent sometime in your life? A lot of us will. We must ask our representatives where they stand on paid family leave and why.

return to top

What's the Problem with Child Care Now?

There are people who say that the government should make sure that all children have high-quality childcare when their parents are at work, and there are those who feel that the government should not take care of children, parents should.

Opponents of a national childcare system say that a traditional family structure in which one parent works and one parent stays at home with the kids is best for children, parents, society and the economy. They say that universal childcare would undermine the family structure and result in parents spending less time with their children.

We Need Help

Those in favor of universal childcare remind us that many families cannot afford to have one parent at home, and that single parents clearly need help with childcare. A single woman with two kids working a minimum-wage job simply cannot afford private high-quality daycare, and does not have the option to stay at home.

Non-traditional families should not be considered less valuable, nor should they be punished for their diversity. In addition, feminists claim that the traditional family structure is oppressive to women. It requires us to stay at home and defines us caretakers.

What is wrong with considering women as caretakers?

Nothing. Women can be caretakers, but they can also be many other things. The problem comes when we limit women to that role and deny them other types of roles and experiences. Historically, the traditional family structure (where the man is the breadwinner and the woman the caretaker) has limited women.

Those who support parent care remind us that the father can be the one to stay at home with the kids. Don't you remember Mr. Mom? Although this solution may temporarily appease feminists' worries, it isn't feasible for most families because men usually make more money than women. Most families will choose to have the person with the higher salary (the man) work and the person with the lower salary (the woman) stay at home.

Mothers and more

The traditional family structure may reinforce the wage gap because it promotes the idea of men as workers first and women as mothers first. This makes it difficult for all women (not just mothers) to enter the labor force on equal footing with men. Therefore, a universal childcare system that allows both women and men to pursue and develop their careers and interests outside of the home helps to erase the discriminatory effect of motherhood on women.

So, it is possible to see the childcare debate as a disagreement about women's and men's roles. If one believes only parents should take care of their children, and that women, in particular, should be responsible for childcare, than a national childcare system is a bad idea. However, if one feels that women and men are equally responsible for caregiving duties and agrees that parents should be able to work if they want to or need to, than childcare is a necessity and should be available to everyone.

return to top

What's the Problem with Violence Against Women Now?

What we need

The problem is that millions of women are assaulted, emotionally and physically. Many of us are abused repeatedly by men that claim to "love" us. The effects of any kind of abuse are immeasurable. Many of us experience extreme physical and psychological suffering. Sometimes this causes us to lose our jobs because we are unable to go to work or to work well. When we lose our source of income, we often become financially dependent on our abusers, so it is harder for us to get away. We need resources in order to escape. We need a safe place to be with our children. We need our communities to recognize that it is not our fault. We need women and men to reconsider the family structure and the way we think about power and dominance. We need our friends', family's and government's support. The first time our federal government offered us help was just a few years ago.

VAWA

The first Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994 and was made up of a series of federal laws and grants that addressed domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. The main parts of this legislation include: the full faith and credit provision, the interstate crimes of domestic violence, the battered immigrant women provisions, the gun control provision, the Violence Against Women grant programs, and the Civil Rights Remedy.

The full faith and credit provision means that if a court gives a woman a protection order, such as a restraining order against a boyfriend or spouse, all other states, territories and tribes must respect and enforce that order. This is important because many women move to a new state after a divorce or commute to a different state for work. Under the VAWA, they are supposed to be protected everywhere they go. Unfortunately, this provision has not been implemented fully. Many police and court officers are unfamiliar with this provision and therefore do not always enforce it. In addition, the differences in state laws and punishments make it difficult to guarantee protection.

The Interstate Domestic and Stalking Crimes provision makes it a federal crime to commit domestic violence, violate a protection order, or stalk someone while crossing state, territorial or tribal boundaries. It prevents abusers from evading the law by crossing state lines and allows the more powerful federal government to investigate and prosecute these offenders.

The Battered Immigrant Woman Provisions help women who are not only abused, but also dealing with cultural and legal barriers. Many immigrant women do not seek help because they are worried about being deported. Often they suffer because their husbands control all immigration decisions. This provision helps battered immigrant women apply for citizenship and for cancellation of removal; in other words, to avoid deportation and to become a citizen. In order to do this, she must prove that she is battered, of "good moral character," and that she would suffer if she returned to her home country. Despite these restrictions, the program allows many battered immigrant women to become naturalized and independent of their abusers.

Gun control amendments

The Gun Control Act Amendments are important because women who are killed are most often murdered by a husband or intimate acquaintance and with a firearm. These amendments make it a federal crime for abusers to carry guns or ammunition. If subjected to a restraining order or convicted of certain domestic violence misdemeanors, an abuser loses his right to carry a gun. Many say that these provisions violate an individual's constitutional rights, and others claim that once someone proves himself a threat, he relinquishes the right to carry a gun.

The Violence Against Women Act also provided a series of grants to reduce violent crimes against women. Funding goes to state and local programs that work directly with victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking, training programs for police, court officials and other justice system workers, and rural areas of the country that before offered no services.

Civil Rights

The Civil Rights Remedy of VAWA allows victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking to sue their perpetrator for damages in federal court. However, the Supreme Court ruled against the remedy in U.S. v. Morrison (2000). The majority ruled that these cases are state issues, unless there is a specific interstate component to the case. The dissenting judges noted that domestic violence affects the workforce and state systems on a national level, and should be treated as a national problem.

Overall, the Violence Against Women Act caused individuals, states, and the federal government to take seriously domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The legislation recognized, on a national level, that violence against women is a serious issue. Congress renewed the VAWA in October 2000, so these grant programs will continue until 2005.

The VAWA is a step in the right direction. But organizations that help battered women and victims of sexual assault and stalking need more funding and volunteers

click here to go to next section

return to top