Republicans Show Their Great Respect for Women

[Drewish]

I'm with orpheus on this one. If I were in the senate, I'd have voted no too, and it's got nothing to do with hating women.

[Drewish]

[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.

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

Domestic violence situations can be complex, and guns are not always the best solution.

For example, suppose one spouse gets really angry and starts throwing around and breakiing dishes. They aren't actually being thrown at anyone, but the other spouse gets worried that the kids will be hit by accident.

If the other spouse is bigger, he may be able to the first spouse's forearms and restrain her until she calms down a bit.

If the other spouse is smaller, should she grab the gun and blow the first spouse away? In many cases, that's not the best reaction.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Um, murdering someone isn't a good reaction. Gotcha.

[Jason]

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."

Domestic violence situations can be complex, and guns are not always the best solution.

For example, suppose one spouse gets really angry and starts throwing around and breakiing dishes. They aren't actually being thrown at anyone, but the other spouse gets worried that the kids will be hit by accident.

If the other spouse is bigger, he may be able to the first spouse's forearms and restrain her until she calms down a bit.

If the other spouse is smaller, should she grab the gun and blow the first spouse away? In many cases, that's not the best reaction.

No, but she could pull both her Colt SAA, akimbo, and shoot the dishes in mid-air maybe?

I bet Annie Oakley was never in danger of being a battered wife.

[Seth]

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

What else is there to say about someone who hangs around to be beaten up more than once? It's either stupidity or cowardice. In either case, it's her own fault for not standing up on her hind legs and walking out the door forever.

As for the OP, nobody needs "special protection" because the law already protects everyone equally, so the Republicans are correct in opposing such special interest legislation.

[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."

Domestic violence situations can be complex, and guns are not always the best solution.

For example, suppose one spouse gets really angry and starts throwing around and breakiing dishes. They aren't actually being thrown at anyone, but the other spouse gets worried that the kids will be hit by accident.

If the other spouse is bigger, he may be able to the first spouse's forearms and restrain her until she calms down a bit.

Which gets HIM thrown in jail for domestic abuse. These days, the best thing to do if one's spouse is "out of control" is to call the police and leave the house immediately, because if you do ANYTHING physical, even restraining them, most current domestic violence laws require that SOMEONE be arrested, and officers have NO discretion to not arrest someone. This means that usually it's the man who is arrested because of the (false) presumption that because he's bigger and stronger he's the cause of the violence. Sometimes it's both parties who are arrested. But only rarely is it the woman who's arrested, unless she has NO injuries and the man is the one bleeding. That's all thanks to the feminist fuckwits who enable cowardly women who should have the guts to just leave if their spouse is abusive.

If the other spouse is smaller, should she grab the gun and blow the first spouse away? In many cases, that's not the best reaction.

That's why one should not attempt to lay hands on one's domestic partner under ANY circumstances at all. Let them rant and rave, let them smash the plates, call 911 and have THEM arrested for domestic violence. It's no longer a "do it yourself" sort of environment out there for men to try to restrain an out-of-control hysterical woman. Best to just leave.

[Coito ergo sum]

The title of this thread is poorly worded.

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose the Violence Against Women Act, and there were two versions in the House, one which Republicans did support. Apparently, the contentious issues involve various newly added programs.

Is it really showing disrespect toward women to oppose the VAWA? I mean -- plenty of women oppose it. The ACLU had some strong words to say against it. Many people suggest some of its provisions are unconstitutional, discriminatory, and have actually worsened the situation (mandatory arrest portions of the act have, apparently, made some people hesitant to call the cops at all, because then the matter won't just be cooled down, it will result in the hubby going off to jail, even if wifey started it...).

And, the definition of "violence" is pretty expansive -- and includes things like "raising one's voice."

But, the title of the Act sounds all protecty of womeny, so, then by all means, people must be members of the He Man Woman Haters Club if they even hint at having an issue with it.....

[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.

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

Domestic violence situations can be complex, and guns are not always the best solution.

For example, suppose one spouse gets really angry and starts throwing around and breakiing dishes. They aren't actually being thrown at anyone, but the other spouse gets worried that the kids will be hit by accident.

If the other spouse is bigger, he may be able to the first spouse's forearms and restrain her until she calms down a bit.

If the other spouse is smaller, should she grab the gun and blow the first spouse away? In many cases, that's not the best reaction.

No, but she could pull both her Colt SAA, akimbo, and shoot the dishes in mid-air maybe?

I bet Annie Oakley was never in danger of being a battered wife.

[Coito ergo sum]

Is this going to be another thread that morphs into a gun debate?

I thought we already established that men who own guns do so to compensate for tiny penises (which is proof positive that I'm hung like stallion, because I've never owned a gun in my life). Women who own guns are probably compensating for small tits, or big vaginas.

Anyway -- I hope we can all agree that violence against women, or anyone smaller and weaker than you, is almost always a dastardly and cowardly act. Whether the Violence Against Women Act makes sense is a different argument entirely, though.

[maiforpeace]

Oh relax CES, I was laughing at Pords humor. You probably haven't noticed since it's not your brand, but he's a pretty funny guy.

So, what is so different about this act this time around, other than a few minor changes in provisions, that suddenly has 61 republican men voting against it when it has passed unanimously twice? All of a sudden, they got how unconstitutional it was?

Slow learners maybe?

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh relax CES, I was laughing at Pords humor. You probably haven't noticed since it's not your brand, but he's a pretty funny guy.

I thought it was obvious that my reference to the gun debate was in jest....

So, what is so different about this act this time around, other than a few minor changes in provisions, that suddenly has 61 republican men voting against it when it has passed unanimously twice? All of a sudden, they got how unconstitutional it was?

Slow learners maybe?

The GOP in the House voted to reauthorize in May. So, the battle is between the House version (GOP) and Senate version (Dem).

This isn't an issue of the GOP claiming the act is now unconstitutional in toto.

It was the ACLU that raised the issue of some provisions being unconstitutional.

The differences in the bills are:

GOP bill uses gender neutral language which textually encompasses any victim, but the Dem bill adds specific language for LBGT folks. The GOP says that the additional provisions are unnecessary.

The Dem bill contains a provision that would allow native american women to take American citizen men to court in the tribal legal system. Republicans say that the Senate measure is unconstitutional and replace it with a proposal that allows Native American women to apply for protection orders from local US courts.

The Dem bill gives a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens.

So, we're not talking about the actual violence against women issues, or about any sort of respect or lack of respect for women. The first two are technical or procedural issues, and the last one has more to do with immigration.

It's this kind of bullshit that the Democrats are trying to sell to the voters this election. They cast it as the Republicans are in favor of violence against women or defending the rights of wife beaters.

[maiforpeace]

So, we're not talking about the actual violence against women issues, or about any sort of respect or lack of respect for women. The first two are technical or procedural issues, and the last one has more to do with immigration.

Exactly. So the Republicans would like to block all those other vital services for these technical and procedural issues they don't agree with, that have squat to do with protecting women.

It's this kind of bullshit that the Democrats are trying to sell to the voters this election. They cast it as the Republicans are in favor of violence against women or defending the rights of wife beaters.

Nope, but they aren't the woman friendly party, that's for sure. This "kind of bullshit" is what will pave the way for rolling back more women's rights, like abortion.

[Warren Dew]

The title of this thread is poorly worded.

I think it's perfectly worded. Republicans are showing their respect for women by refusing to allow the act - an act that's supposed to be protecting women - from being watered down by unrelated provisions.

[hadespussercats]

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

What else is there to say about someone who hangs around to be beaten up more than once? It's either stupidity or cowardice. In either case, it's her own fault for not standing up on her hind legs and walking out the door forever.

As for the OP, nobody needs "special protection" because the law already protects everyone equally, so the Republicans are correct in opposing such special interest legislation.

Fuck off.