I don't answer pointless questions designed to distract from the reality of the situation.
How convinient for you, just dodge the question. In essence, you are picking and choosing debating points, but thats ok. I know the reasoning behind calling it the Violence Against Womans Act. And if you are not going to debate that point, I will just take the win on that.
The bill was good enough to actually get republican support despite being also supported by their evil nemisis Obama.
Yes, they got something done, they passed a completely useless law that does absolutely nothing but pander to the feminist agenda.
So despite your attempts to make this about a name and to attempt to bring some nonexistent racism into this, I am not going to bite.
You can continue to live in ignorance, or perhaps just ignore the obvious, both are the same in my book. The evidence and statistics are there. If any other group of people were headed in the direction of males, there would be protests. Dieing 7 years earlier, committing suicides at 7 times the rate of women, comprise of 90% of the workplace deaths, Falling behind in education, Make up the majority of the prison population, Are the vast majority of people who are victims of violent crime.. If lets say, women were in this boat, there would be millions marching on washington. But as I said, no one cares about men. And society is paying for it today. You can close your eyes to it if you wish, but it will be at your own plight and the plight of society.
White if obama made a kill a christian day? if you are going to make up what ifs and substitute them for a real argument then you have no argument. Fine you don't like the name and were ignorant of what else it said. That is nice and all, but that does not make an actual argument against the act. It also does not make the act actually prejudiced against men despite your clear attempts to make this about that.
Sure it does. If we were to start a program to help and fund grants for only white people who are impoverished, there would be flags burning in the streets. Even though whites are probably less effected by poverty than any other demographic. The same goes for violence against women. They are probably the least effected of any group when it comes to violence, yet we are putting money and media behind the cause of protecting women from violence.
first girls tend to get more sympathy, so yeah they would use a girl in regards to that. Due to the different ways people treat the genders naming it after a boy would actually harm the boy a second time. For whatever the psychological reasons people tend to regard molested boys a lot differently than girls. So yes i can see why they chose a female over a male to nam the bill after.
And that is what I have a problem with. BINGO!!! You are headed in the right direction with the above statement. Women speak of equality, and tell men that they need to change from the old traditional roles. Yet women have not made this transition. They want men to change from traditional to more accepting of the new roles women want to take on, but women are not changing their traditional thinking on what is expected of men. They still marry up, they still expect men to be traditional men when things start getting tough. They still expect men to supress their internal pain. At the slightest sign of weakness, women jump on them like cougars to disparage them and tell them to act like men. I hear things all the time when men try to express themselves in ways women may not like by being told they have small penises, or that they are not a man, or that maybe they are compensating, or they are weak..ect..ect... You would never hear this from a man when a woman is saying something he may not like about himself that may be true.
In the end it does not matter who they named it after, what matters is the content. Again, all you have is some petty objection, and no real argument against anything. Even your ideas make little sense. think about an actual name like house bill 1124389. Actually that would be a lot closer to the actual legal titles of acts. Again, they use something catchy for the public as titles like that really bore the hell out of people and end up being overlooked. if the government does not do it the media most certainly will. if you don't like titles the Defense of marriage act actually weakened the strength of marriages across state lines by giving the states the ability to ignore other states marriages. but would people have accepted it if it were the weakening of the marriage contract act or Public Law 104-199 which is it's actual title? I don't think so. Don't worry, all of these things have a very benign and neutral designation, since it bothers you, and your argument over the name is completely unwarranted as they are not actually listed under the more memorable names. If it makes you feel any better the law's actual title is Pub.L. 103–322 in congressional record (That is the violence against women act created in 1994). Not that it will actually sway you to know that a neutral numbered designation was actually used, but I like to be thorough in destroying a point. I could easily look up megan's law's actual numerical title if you want, but I am pretty sure whatever neutral numerical designation it has probably does not interest you at all.
Again, your missing the point completely. I would have no problem with the name of the bill if in fact there was a reason to have a Violence Against Women's act. But there is not, and there is no reason to name it that if it applies to all people. I was not born yesterday, and I am sure you understand this as well and are just being purposefully ignorant to the fact. Its all about politics and agenda's. There was a very specific reason this was named what it was named. It has nothing to do with it being catchy. If you want a catchy name there are thousands of options. It could have been called.. How many trees could a wood chuck chuck, if a wood chuck could chuck wood act. But they did not name it that, and there is a reason they named it what they did. Politicians are very purposeful when it comes to titling a bill and having their name appear on it. Don't be ignorant and tell me... oh well, they just needed a catchy name. That is complete BS!
