Republicans Show Their Great Respect for Women

[maiforpeace]

Kind of old news, but still relevant with an election coming up.

Senate Reauthorizes Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

04/29/2012

This week, the US Senate voted overwhelmingly to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Here is how the VAWA reauthorization vote went in the US Senate: sixty-eight (68) in favor, thirty-one (31) against. Each of the thirty-one (31) senators who voted against it were Republican men. It should be noted that these thirty-one (31) men are the only senators to ever cast a vote against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. Previously, the Senate reauthorized VAWA unanimously twice.

As has been stated on countless occasions by leaders of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party of today is a different breed altogether. If it comes down to scoring points with the GOP base or protecting women, they are going to choose their base every time as stated by the Chairperson of the Democratic Party.

Next, this important piece of legislation goes to the House. It has been reported that the House GOP is planning on introducing a bill with the same name, but their version of the Violence Against Women Act will likely strip out the very provisions protecting Native Americans, undocumented immigrants, and LGBT Americans that the Democrats just fought for. Before the House votes on the bill, before the GOP even introduces it, Democrats are launching campaigns designed to inform the public about who is really fighting for women.

[klr]

How many Republican men voted in favour I wonder?

[orpheus]

Interesting. I despise the Rethuglicans, but I find the VAWA to be deeply problematic.

[hadespussercats]

Interesting. I despise the Rethuglicans, but I find the VAWA to be deeply problematic.

I just read the Wiki, so I have an idea where you might be coming from. I'm interested to hear your sense of the problems associated with VAWA.

[orpheus]

Interesting. I despise the Rethuglicans, but I find the VAWA to be deeply problematic.

I just read the Wiki, so I have an idea where you might be coming from. I'm interested to hear your sense of the problems associated with VAWA.

The problems are to do with equality under the law. Wikipedia highlights it rather well:

The Act provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

None of those legal changes apply to violence done to men. As such, the VAWA violates the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Without VAWA the law treats men and women equally. (Often that doesn't happen in practice, but introducing biased laws is a bad way to compensate. Moreover, statistically men are the victims of violence much more often than women.)

[maiforpeace]

Interesting. I despise the Rethuglicans, but I find the VAWA to be deeply problematic.

I just read the Wiki, so I have an idea where you might be coming from. I'm interested to hear your sense of the problems associated with VAWA.

The problems are to do with equality under the law. Wikipedia highlights it rather well:

The Act provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

None of those legal changes apply to violence done to men. As such, the VAWA violates the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Without VAWA the law treats men and women equally. (Often that doesn't happen in practice, but introducing biased laws is a bad way to compensate. Moreover, statistically men are the victims of violence much more often than women.)

Bolded in red is exactly why VAWA was enacted...because the law doesn't treat men and women equally. I don't disagree with you that introducing biased laws isn't the ideal way to compensate, but I think that part in nominal in comparison to all the other protections this act provides.

And yes, men are victims of violence. But statistically women are the victims of domestic violence more than men, which is how this act came about.

And did I miss something, or do the services this act provides exclude men?

The Violence Against Women laws provide programs and services, including:
Community violence prevention programs
Protections for victims who are evicted from their homes because of events related to domestic violence or stalking
Funding for victim assistance services, like rape crisis centers and hotlines
Programs to meet the needs of immigrant women and women of different races or ethnicities
Programs and services for victims with disabilities
Legal aid for survivors of violence

[Warren Dew]

It has been reported that the House GOP is planning on introducing a bill with the same name, but their version of the Violence Against Women Act will likely strip out the very provisions protecting Native Americans, undocumented immigrants, and LGBT Americans that the Democrats just fought for.

Why would a law concerning violence against women need special provisions for native Americans and undocumented immigrants? Don't their women have two X chromosomes the same as white/black/Asian/Martian women?

And why special provisions for gays? Lesbians maybe.

I think I'm seeing why senators are voting against it for the first time.

[Tyrannical]

I bet women are the aggressors much more often in domestic violence than the statistics show, primarily due to the social stigma of men reporting domestic violence.

Perhaps a "shield law" so men can be made anonymous in the courts, such as women have for rape.

[Warren Dew]

I bet women are the aggressors much more often in domestic violence than the statistics show, primarily due to the social stigma of men reporting domestic violence.

Possibly, but there's also good reason to expect men to be the aggressors far more often than women are. Most people don't start physical confrontations unless they're likely to win, and being bigger than the other person goes a long way towards making one more likely to win. In the vast majority of domestic situations, the man is bigger than the woman.

[Tyrannical]

I bet women are the aggressors much more often in domestic violence than the statistics show, primarily due to the social stigma of men reporting domestic violence.

Possibly, but there's also good reason to expect men to be the aggressors far more often than women are. Most people don't start physical confrontations unless they're likely to win, and being bigger than the other person goes a long way towards making one more likely to win. In the vast majority of domestic situations, the man is bigger than the woman.

Angry women are not known for being rational.

[maiforpeace]

I bet women are the aggressors much more often in domestic violence than the statistics show, primarily due to the social stigma of men reporting domestic violence.

Possibly, but there's also good reason to expect men to be the aggressors far more often than women are. Most people don't start physical confrontations unless they're likely to win, and being bigger than the other person goes a long way towards making one more likely to win. In the vast majority of domestic situations, the man is bigger than the woman.

Angry women are not known for being rational.

That's true. About angry women, men and birds.

[Seth]

I bet women are the aggressors much more often in domestic violence than the statistics show, primarily due to the social stigma of men reporting domestic violence.

Possibly, but there's also good reason to expect men to be the aggressors far more often than women are. Most people don't start physical confrontations unless they're likely to win, and being bigger than the other person goes a long way towards making one more likely to win. In the vast majority of domestic situations, the man is bigger than the woman.

That's why Samuel Colt called the Colt Peacemaker revolver "the great equalizer."

These sorts of laws are just feel-good liberal pandering to garner votes by creating more and more special classes singled out for "extra protection" when in fact the laws are supposed to (by Constitutional requirement) protect everyone equally.

Women are more often the victims of domestic violence mostly because they are too fucking stupid to a) learn how to defend themselves; and b) walk away from an abusive domestic partner the FIRST time he/she shows aggressive abusive tendencies.

Hit me once, shame on you. Hit me twice, it's consensual sadomasochistic sex play or bad tactical implementation of my defensive skills.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The "Great Equalizer" was seldom packed by women. Most shootings in the Old West were done by double duty weapons, shotguns and rifles. "Gunslingers" were rare and always in danger of being dry-gulched.

[maiforpeace]

Women are more often the victims of domestic violence mostly because they are too fucking stupid to a) learn how to defend themselves; and b) walk away from an abusive domestic partner the FIRST time he/she shows aggressive abusive tendencies.

Hit me once, shame on you. Hit me twice, it's consensual sadomasochistic sex play or bad tactical implementation of my defensive skills.

We should give guns to kids then too, just in case.

[hadespussercats]

Women really are just too fucking stupid, Seth. You're right. That's the big problem facing us all.