Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 66

Thread: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

  1. #1
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

    House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Washington (CNN) -- An expanded Violence Against Women Act won bipartisan approval on Thursday from the U.S. House after Republicans failed to pass their own proposal due to a party split on an issue important to women and minority groups.

    The measure now goes to President Barack Obama, who said in a statement that it was "an important step towards making sure no one in America is forced to live in fear."

    "I look forward to signing it into law as soon as it hits my desk," Obama said.

    TIME photos: A portrait of domestic violence

    Thursday's votes reflected an emerging political reality in the GOP-led House, with a minority of Republicans joining Democrats to pass legislation that has broad public support, including from increasingly influential demographics such as Hispanic Americans.
    Obama: Good job, Joe

    By a vote of 166-257, the GOP version of the Violence Against Women Act failed to win a majority after almost 90 minutes of debate. The House then voted 286-138 to pass the Senate version, with 87 Republicans joining all 199 Democrats to provide majority support.

    Originally passed in 1994 and reauthorized since, the act provides support for organizations that serve domestic violence victims. Criminal prosecutions of abusers are generally the responsibility of local authorities, but the act stiffened sentences for stalking under federal law.

    Supporters credit the act with sharply reducing the number of lives lost to domestic violence over the past two decades.

    Last year, the House and Senate were unable to compromise on another extension of the act, with Republicans opposing Democratic attempts to specify inclusion of native Americans, undocumented immigrants and lesbian, transgender and bisexual women.

    Opinion: The plague of violence against women

    However, exit polls showed Obama won strong support among women, Latino voters and gay and lesbian voters in the November election that also strengthened the Democratic majority in the Senate and weakened the Republican majority in the House.

    Republicans then changed their stance and agreed to bring up the measure in the new Congress as long as they could offer their own version.

    The Republican proposal deleted provisions from the Senate measure that gave tribal authorities jurisdiction to prosecute cases on Indian reservations, specifically targeted discrimination of LGBT victims, and allowed undocumented immigrant survivors of domestic violence to seek legal status.

    In debate before Thursday's votes, Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-North Dakota, said the Senate version includes legal precedents of expanded sovereignty that could be subject to court challenge.

    Opinion: Rubio missed the year of the woman

    "Please consider the damage we have done if a court overturns this act and its protection all because we wanted a good slogan instead of a good law," Cramer said.

    House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and others repeatedly questioned why Republicans would seek to weaken a measure that received strong bipartisan support in a 78-22 Senate vote earlier this year.

    A majority of Senate Republicans backed the act, along with every woman senator regardless of party, Pelosi noted.

    "It's really hard to explain why, what eyes the Republicans are looking through, that they do not see the folly of their ways in the legislation they are proposing," Pelosi said.

    Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin, herself a rape victim, paraphrased the question of rights activist Sojourner Truth, a 19th century escaped slave and civil rights advocate.

    "Ain't they women?" Moore shouted in reference to native American, undocumented immigrant and LGBT women.

    In response, Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington challenged Democratic claims that the GOP version excluded any women, saying it was all-inclusive.

    A global push to end violence with song and dance

    House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia said the goal was to "make sure all women are safe," and he described the Republican version as an attempt to "improve on" what the Senate sent over.

    However, Pelosi noted that hundreds of advocacy groups supported the Senate version as the best way forward.

    "This is a remarkable day because we have clarity between the two proposals," she said, noting one had support from both parties in the Senate and the president while the other was opposed by "almost everybody who has anything to do with the issue of violence against women."

    The final vote on Thursday followed the same pattern as votes on other legislation at the end of the previous Congress, including the agreement to avoid some impacts of the fiscal cliff.

    A divide between conservative and more moderate Republicans prevented House GOP leaders from being able to pass their proposed fiscal cliff legislation at the end of the year.

    Under public pressure ratcheted up by Obama, the House ended up approving a Democratic proposal that raised taxes on the nation's top income earners, a key campaign theme in the November election opposed by the GOP.

    The measure passed with backing from most or all Democrats and dozens of Republicans.

    Such a dynamic signals the continuing inability of House Speaker John Boehner to marshal his GOP members on some of the most contentious issues coming up, such as deficit reduction and immigration reform.

    Boehner risks his standing as a party leader if he continues conceding on measures that become law without majority support from House Republicans, which also would fuel continuing unrest by conservatives who traditionally comprise the GOP base.

    Domestic violence bill vote critical test of more inclusive GOP

    According to advocacy groups, the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act approved Tuesday strengthens protections of particular groups of women at particular risk.

    For example, one in three native women will be raped in their lifetime, according to the Indian Law Resource Center. Three in five will be physically assaulted, and native women also are killed at a rate 10 times the national average, the center said.

    The National Congress of American Indians addressed the issue in a December 20 letter to Cantor.

    Beyond vomiting, how to prevent rape

    It described situations in which beatings and rapes by non-native men were declined for prosecution at a federal level and returned to a tribal court as a misdemeanor.

    Federal law currently prohibits tribal courts from imposing a jail sentence of more than a year, so they generally do not prosecute felonies. In many instances, such cases are dismissed altogether and a defendant can walk free until a grand jury indictment can be obtained.

    "The federal criminal justice system is simply not equipped to handle local crimes, and this is the primary reason that tribes seek local control over these crimes that are plaguing our communities," the letter said.

    On undocumented immigrants, Human Rights Watch has found that immigrant farm workers are especially at risk for domestic abuse and argued provisions in the Senate bill "would go some way toward fixing the problem."

    Those in the LGBT community are another high-risk group that will be affected by the Violence Against Women Act.

    They experience violence at the same rate as heterosexuals but are less likely to report it. When they do, many are denied services.

    About 45% of LGBT victims were turned away when they sought help from a domestic violence shelter and nearly 55% of those who sought protection orders were denied them, according to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women.

    Opinion: GOP House's inaction on VAWA shows bigotry

    Vice President Joe Biden, who helped spearhead the original Violence Against Women Act in 1994 when he was a U.S. senator, said Thursday that domestic violence dropped by 64% since then.

    "I am pleased that this progress will continue, with new tools for cops and prosecutors to hold abusers and rapists accountable, and more support for all victims of these crimes," Biden said in a statement.
    I am just curious to hear why people support this bill. So first, I would like to find out from those who support the "Violence Against Women Act" as to why they support it? Then I will state my view after that.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    I am just curious to hear why people support this bill. So first, I would like to find out from those who support the "Violence Against Women Act" as to why they support it? Then I will state my view after that.
    Both sides were trying to pass anti-violence legislation.

    The Left wanted language which played more to identity-politics, while the Right wanted universal language not specific to ethnicity or race.

    No one was opposing anti-violence legislation, the fight was over minutia.

  3. #3
    Professor
    vendur's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-05-13 @ 08:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,250

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    "immigrant survivors of domestic violence to seek legal status"

    Umm, ya.

    Another piece of bull**** crapped out by the demonazis and their neocon enablers.

  4. #4
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Wow, I am very surprised there were not more responses! I thought for sure that since this had passed congress that there was a majority of support for this and that support would be represented on this forum. I may have an idea why those who support it have not chimed in. They may have preempted my argument and are avoiding it by not chiming in.

    My question is, why do we need a law that criminalizes violence against females? What offenses does this legislation put forward that are not already addressed by current laws? Murder, Assault, Rape, Harassment and many other violations of ones rights are already addressed by current law.

    To add to this, why is there a focus on violence against women? Men die 7 years earlier than women. Men make up over 90% of the workplace deaths. Men are by far more a victim of violence then women. There are several other metrics that are hard statistic proof that men are the people we should be focusing on.

    And in the end, is this not completely sexist to begin with? Why do women deserve special protection against violence when men are the majority of victims of violence? Is a woman's life, or a woman's right from violence more valuable then a man?

    I think this falls right in line with the current misandric society we live in in the west. What do you think?
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  5. #5
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    My question is, why do we need a law that criminalizes violence against females?
    We don't, which is why VAWA does not apply only to crimes when they are committed against females. When men are raped, they are given just as much protection under VAWA as any female

    What offenses does this legislation put forward that are not already addressed by current laws? Murder, Assault, Rape, Harassment and many other violations of ones rights are already addressed by current law.
    VAWA has enhanced the laws concerning cyber-stalking for example. More importantly, it sets our rules and provides grants that help ensure that these cases are fully and properly prosecuted

    To add to this, why is there a focus on violence against women? Men die 7 years earlier than women. Men make up over 90% of the workplace deaths. Men are by far more a victim of violence then women. There are several other metrics that are hard statistic proof that men are the people we should be focusing on.
    There is not focus on violence against women. Just because we don't call OSHA the "Dept to protect working men" doesn't mean that it doesn't end up benefitting men more than women. The fact is, some laws are going to end up benefitting one group more than another simply because the reality is that certain problems affect one group more than another. I dont know why you're surprised that a law that focuses on crimes like domestic violence, rape, cyber-stalking, sexual abuse, etc ends up benefiting more women than men, when you're not at all surprised, or opposed to OSHA even though it ends up protecting more men than women


    And in the end, is this not completely sexist to begin with? Why do women deserve special protection against violence when men are the majority of victims of violence? Is a woman's life, or a woman's right from violence more valuable then a man?
    So it's sexist to prosecute rape and domestic violence?

    Here's a link to the actual bill. Please post a quote from the law that you think is sexist

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...-113s47enr.pdf

    I think this falls right in line with the current misandric society we live in in the west. What do you think?[/QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #6
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    We don't, which is why VAWA does not apply only to crimes when they are committed against females. When men are raped, they are given just as much protection under VAWA as any female
    I have not read the specifics of the law, but now that you have said this, I will. If this is perhaps the case, then why is it called the "Violence against Women act". I am a bit confused here why this name has been attached to it if it applies equally to men? If the laws here protect both sexes, why could it not have been called "Violence against People act".


    VAWA has enhanced the laws concerning cyber-stalking for example. More importantly, it sets our rules and provides grants that help ensure that these cases are fully and properly prosecuted
    Why did this have to be done in the framework of an act that protects violence against women? And what is wrong with the current harassment laws that don't cover cyber stalking?


    There is not focus on violence against women.
    There certainly is a focus on violence against women. For the last 20-30 years men have been vilified in the media and by the government as rapists. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times I have been thru sexual assault training which focuses on only one side of the issue. That is the issue of men to act appropriately in the workplace. It never seems to address the other side of that issue which is educating women on preventing themselves from becoming a victim. Now by saying this, I realize that I am treading dangerous waters because it will sound like a "blaming the victim" policy. But we can't ignore that there are certain things men who commit sexual assault or rape look for. To educate these women on these things empowers them to protect themselves from such an attack. Things such as, dressing appropriately at work to prevent workplace sexual harassment. Or, if you do happen to be wearing very revealing clothing, make sure you are not out by yourself at night surrounded by a bunch of drunk men. Basically, educating women on situations where they may be taking unnecessary risks. Instead, the focus is only on a man's behavior.

    Just because we don't call OSHA the "Dept to protect working men" doesn't mean that it doesn't end up benefitting men more than women. The fact is, some laws are going to end up benefitting one group more than another simply because the reality is that certain problems affect one group more than another.
    You still have not really addressed the question of what problems effect women that are not already covered by current laws?

    I dont know why you're surprised that a law that focuses on crimes like domestic violence, rape, cyber-stalking, sexual abuse, etc ends up benefiting more women than men, when you're not at all surprised, or opposed to OSHA even though it ends up protecting more men than women
    You're right on this point. I am actually surprised why laws that cover domestic violence, rape, cyber-stalking, sexual abuse end up benefiting women more than men. There have been studies that indicate these crimes are committed against men at an equal rate they are committed against women. So instead of focusing on the under reporting of these crimes against women, we really should be focusing on the under reporting of these crimes by men. When studies indicate that men are affected as often as women by these issues but we have reactive programs for women due to the high rate of incidents, it seems to me there is an indication that under reporting of these crimes by men are a much larger issue.




    So it's sexist to prosecute rape and domestic violence?
    For one sex, yes.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  7. #7
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    I have not read the specifics of the law, but now that you have said this, I will. If this is perhaps the case, then why is it called the "Violence against Women act". I am a bit confused here why this name has been attached to it if it applies equally to men? If the laws here protect both sexes, why could it not have been called "Violence against People act".
    So the entire basis for your complaint is that the word "women" appears in the title of the law, even though the title has absolutely no effect on what a law does?

    Really?

    And the word women is in the title (and not people) because the crimes it addresses are crime which affect women far more often than men. The better question is why isn't OSHA called "The Dept That Protects Men at Work"?


    Why did this have to be done in the framework of an act that protects violence against women? And what is wrong with the current harassment laws that don't cover cyber stalking?
    Once again, your premise that this acts protects women and only women is wrong. It protects men who are victims of the crimes just as much as it protects women

    And before VRA, cyber-stalking wasn't a crime under fed law

    There certainly is a focus on violence against women. For the last 20-30 years men have been vilified in the media and by the government as rapists. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times I have been thru sexual assault training which focuses on only one side of the issue. That is the issue of men to act appropriately in the workplace. It never seems to address the other side of that issue which is educating women on preventing themselves from becoming a victim. Now by saying this, I realize that I am treading dangerous waters because it will sound like a "blaming the victim" policy. But we can't ignore that there are certain things men who commit sexual assault or rape look for. To educate these women on these things empowers them to protect themselves from such an attack. Things such as, dressing appropriately at work to prevent workplace sexual harassment. Or, if you do happen to be wearing very revealing clothing, make sure you are not out by yourself at night surrounded by a bunch of drunk men. Basically, educating women on situations where they may be taking unnecessary risks. Instead, the focus is only on a man's behavior.
    This is nonsense. I worked for people who actually designed such training. There was never a focus on one side of the issue. The advice to act appropriately was directed at everyone, and gave info to people about how to protect themselves from, and respond to, sexually inappropriate behavior in the workplace.

    Abd as far as the media goes, it goes absolutely ape-**** when a woman is accused of sexual harrassment or any sex related crime



    You still have not really addressed the question of what problems effect women that are not already covered by current laws?
    Again, VAWA doesn't single out crimes that only affect women.

    And the majority of VAWA doesn't criminalize anything. Most of it deals with things like providing resources to local law enforcement to help them prosecute these crimes, providing help to orgs that provide support services to the victims of these crimes, etc


    You're right on this point. I am actually surprised why laws that cover domestic violence, rape, cyber-stalking, sexual abuse end up benefiting women more than men. There have been studies that indicate these crimes are committed against men at an equal rate they are committed against women. So instead of focusing on the under reporting of these crimes against women, we really should be focusing on the under reporting of these crimes by men. When studies indicate that men are affected as often as women by these issues but we have reactive programs for women due to the high rate of incidents, it seems to me there is an indication that under reporting of these crimes by men are a much larger issue.
    I've never heard of such studies, but VAWA provides services and encourages reporting of victims of domestic abuse regardless of sex or gender





    For one sex, yes.
    Now you're just being dishonest. VAWA protects men who have been raped also. For example:

    (17) developing, enlarging, or strengthening programs

    addressing sexual assault against men, women, and youth in

    correctional and detention settings;
    from S.47-13
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #8
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    So the entire basis for your complaint is that the word "women" appears in the title of the law, even though the title has absolutely no effect on what a law does?
    Yes, I have a problem with the word women appearing in the title of the law. The reason I have a problem with it is rooted in my original argument. It all falls back to a public awareness aspect. By passing this legislation and naming the way it was named, the authors are trying to bring violence against women into the public eye. That is why most of the protesters and supporters on the picket lines were women, not men. I hate to repeat my original argument and sound like a broken record but the point still stands. Why are we bringing violence against women into the public eye when we have a much larger problem, which is violence against men? I am not saying that we should not be aware of violence against women.But it seems, that by passing a law which only brings attention to women we are ignoring that men are dealing with this in a greater degree. And that seems to not be the case based on both the trends in the well being of men, as well as the lack in media attention about these trends. It is still fact that men die 7 years earlier than women. If this were reversed and women were dieing 7 years earlier then men, do you think we would not know about it? Of course we would. And there would be several programs set up to study why this is the case, and immediate legislation and funding to resolve the findings of that study. A good example of this, is the breast cancer awareness movement. Men have a similar illness called prostate cancer that they die of in near equal numbers. But we rarely hear about it and it is not funded nearly as much as breast cancer is. That is just an example of what I am talking about.

    And the word women is in the title (and not people) because the crimes it addresses are crime which affect women far more often than men. The better question is why isn't OSHA called "The Dept That Protects Men at Work"?
    That is a good question, why is OSHA not called something like "The Mens department of labor protection". I think if it were, there would be much more visibility on issues that effect men. Men make up the VAST majority of workers who work in dangerous environments. They also make up more than 90% of the work related deaths. Now, lets do a little bit or reasoning here. What if congress passed legislation that protected women from workplace dangers and completely ignored that 90% of the workplace deaths are men? Well, that is exactly what they are doing by trying to name this law "violence against women act". When men account for a vast majority of violent deaths in relation to crime, war and the workplace. It raises awareness of violence of half the population, and not only that, it raises awareness on the half that actually suffers less from violence.

    Once again, your premise that this acts protects women and only women is wrong. It protects men who are victims of the crimes just as much as it protects women
    How does it protect men equally when there is no raising of public awareness that men suffer, in large, even more from violence. The focus here is not on the plight of men in respect to violence, but the plight of women. If there is no public awareness, then the public fails to identify a problem. And by naming this "Violence against Women Act" it does nothing in making the public aware that men suffer from violence as well. Which in turn, does not raise concern for men. Which is why we see the trends we see today that I mentioned in my original argument. It is because the public is not aware, thus not concerned.

    And before VRA, cyber-stalking wasn't a crime under fed law
    I disagree, but that is moot in large. We can argue over the details, but by in large, that is not the point of my argument.

    This is nonsense. I worked for people who actually designed such training. There was never a focus on one side of the issue. The advice to act appropriately was directed at everyone, and gave info to people about how to protect themselves from, and respond to, sexually inappropriate behavior in the workplace.
    No, it was directed at men. I do not understand how you could think that it was directed at everyone. What was the reason for the training? If it was directed at everyone, then why did it only start existing once women entered the workforce? And if it is directed at everyone, why does it only objectify men as the villans and women as the innocent victims. It does nothing to hold women accountable for their sexuality. It does nothing to educate women on how to avoid potentially dangerous situations. And it does nothing to educate men on keeping themselves safe from potential false accusations. If this training is to be helpful to everyone, it needs to apply to everyones concerns, not just the concerns of one sex.


    Abd as far as the media goes, it goes absolutely ape-**** when a woman is accused of sexual harrassment or any sex related crime
    Do you think it does this to the degree that it goes crazy when men are accused of sexual harassment. Has there ever been a female version of the Duke Lacross team case?

    And the majority of VAWA doesn't criminalize anything. Most of it deals with things like providing resources to local law enforcement to help them prosecute these crimes, providing help to orgs that provide support services to the victims of these crimes, etc
    Apparently the victim of these crimes are only women, which is why the law is called "Violence Against Women Act". Otherwise WHY WOULD YOU CALL IT THAT! You still have not given a strait answer other than to deflect the question by saying the laws protect men as well. If that is the case then why was there a need to call it "Violence Against Women Act"?




    I've never heard of such studies, but VAWA provides services and encourages reporting of victims of domestic abuse regardless of sex or gender
    Of course you haven't. No one has, and that is the problem.
    Last edited by Capster78; 03-03-13 at 02:22 PM.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  9. #9
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    Yes, I have a problem with the word women appearing in the title of the law.
    That is petty

    The reason I have a problem with it is rooted in my original argument. It all falls back to a public awareness aspect. By passing this legislation and naming the way it was named, the authors are trying to bring violence against women into the public eye. That is why most of the protesters and supporters on the picket lines were women, not men. I hate to repeat my original argument and sound like a broken record but the point still stands. Why are we bringing violence against women into the public eye when we have a much larger problem, which is violence against men?
    Your claims about the intent and motive are unsubstantiated, and violence against men receives a lot of attention in the medai

    I am not saying that we should seems to not be the case based on both the trends in the well being of men, as well as the lack in media attention about these trends. It is still fact that men die 7 years earlier than women. If this were reversed and women were dieing 7 years earlier then men, do you think we would not know about it? Of course we would. And there would be several programs set up to study why this is the case, and immediate legislation and funding to resolve the findings of that study. A good example of this, is the breast cancer awareness movement. Men have a similar illness called prostate cancer that they die of in near equal numbers. But we rarely hear about it and it is not funded nearly as much as breast cancer is. That is just an example of what I am talking about.
    The media plays plenty of attention to issues that affect men more than women.

    Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with congress deciding to focus on issues that their constituents want them to focus on. It's called democracy




    That is a good question, why is OSHA not called something like "The Mens department of labor protection". I think if it were, there would be much more visibility on issues that effect men. Men make up the VAST majority of workers who work in dangerous environments. They also make up more than 90% of the work related deaths. Now, lets do a little bit or reasoning here. What if congress passed legislation that protected women from workplace dangers and completely ignored that 90% of the workplace deaths are men? Well, that is exactly what they are doing by trying to name this law "violence against women act". When men account for a vast majority of violent deaths in relation to crime, war and the workplace. It raises awareness of violence of half the population, and not only that, it raises awareness on the half that actually suffers less from violence.
    If men are concerned about this, then they are free to lobby congress to rename OSHA, and to pass laws with the word "men" in their titles.

    If men do not do this, then the blame is on them, not congress.



    How does it protect men equally when there is no raising of public awareness that men suffer, in large, even more from violence. The focus here is not on the plight of men in respect to violence, but the plight of women. If there is no public awareness, then the public fails to identify a problem. And by naming this "Violence against Women Act" it does nothing in making the public aware that men suffer from violence as well. Which in turn, does not raise concern for men. Which is why we see the trends we see today that I mentioned in my original argument. It is because the public is not aware, thus not concerned.
    I quoted directly from VAWA a passage that promotes public awareness of sexual assault that takes place in prison.It applies to both men and women.


    I disagree, but that is moot in large. We can argue over the details, but by in large, that is not the point of my argument.
    It most certainly was a point that you made, though now that I've addressed it, it suddenly isn't important




    No, it was directed at men. I do not understand how you could think that it was directed at everyone. What was the reason for the training? If it was directed at everyone, then why did it only start existing once women entered the workforce? And if it is directed at everyone, why does it only objectify men as the villans and women as the innocent victims. It does nothing to hold women accountable for their sexuality. It does nothing to educate women on how to avoid potentially dangerous situations. And it does nothing to educate men on keeping themselves safe from potential false accusations. If this training is to be helpful to everyone, it needs to apply to everyones concerns, not just the concerns of one sex.
    Sexual harrassment seminars do not objectify men as villains and women as innocent victims which is demonstrated by your inability to substantiate this ridiculous claim of yours.



    Do you think it does this to the degree that it goes crazy when men are accused of sexual harassment. Has there ever been a female version of the Duke Lacross team case?
    No, it goes crazier when a women is accused of a sex crime.



    Apparently the victim of these crimes are only women, which is why the law is called "Violence Against Women Act".
    Since VAWA specifically states that its provisions are directed at both male and female victims, you are obviously wrong

    Otherwise WHY WOULD YOU CALL IT THAT! You still have not given a strait answer other than to deflect the question by saying the laws protect men as well. If that is the case then why was there a need to call it "Violence Against Women Act"?
    I have already posted a clear answer to this question, but since you think that a law which specifically states that its provisions are directed at both male and female victims is "apparently" saying that only women are victims I can see how you might have trouble understanding the answer






    Of course you haven't. No one has, and that is the problem.
    And yet, you haven't posted anything to support your claim

    I have
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #10
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

    Re: House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

    [QUOTE=sangha;1061528023]That is petty{quote]

    Would you have an issue with a law if it was titled "Violence against Whites Act", or "Violence against Men's act". I guarantee that if the title had been one of those two, there would definitely be people calling it racist or misogynist weather or not it addressed all races or all sexes. And they would be right, because it would only bring to light the violence committed on those specific groups of people.

    Your claims about the intent and motive are unsubstantiated, and violence against men receives a lot of attention in the meda
    Does it? Then where is the funding to support it? What groups can you think of that advocate for men? Oh, I know one.. And guess what happened when they tried to hold a meeting. This happened:



    Now if this were to happen outside a conference for womens rights, do you think we would not know about it? Do you think we would allow it to happen? Would it ever happen?



    The media plays plenty of attention to issues that affect men more than women.
    Like what?

    Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with congress deciding to focus on issues that their constituents want them to focus on. It's called democracy
    So lets look at this a bit closer and actually see what your saying here means. It means, that if our society were still rooted in the 1930's and there was a large constituent that believed womens place was at home and not in the workplace, that congress should ignore that women want a place in the workplace? Pass legislation that prevents women from entering the workplace.... If you want to say that congress should listen to lobbies that ask us to stick to the societal norm, then we would stagnate as a country.

    If men are concerned about this, then they are free to lobby congress to rename OSHA, and to pass laws with the word "men" in their titles.
    There are men that are. I am one of them. But society lambasts us for speaking up. The example of the protesters standing outside the conference room calling everyone that tried to enter rapists is an example of what I am talking about.

    If men do not do this, then the blame is on them, not congress.
    Is it only men's responsibility to stick up for men? It's a societal issue. When women complain that men are running away from responsibility but give them no incentive to be responsible that is when you have the situation we are in. Even worse, when you prevent them from trying to be responsible by blocking them from speaking up about their own rights as fathers and as human beings.

    I quoted directly from VAWA a passage that promotes public awareness of sexual assault that takes place in prison.It applies to both men and women.
    Again, then why was it called Violence Against Women Act? You still are dodging the question.

    It most certainly was a point that you made, though now that I've addressed it, it suddenly isn't important
    No, it isn't. And I won't be diverted from my main argument by arguing details that frankly, don't really matter in the overall point of my argument.

    Sexual harrassment seminars do not objectify men as villains and women as innocent victims which is demonstrated by your inability to substantiate this ridiculous claim of yours.
    Have you ever been to a sexual harassment class? It does not seem like it based on what you say. I would like to know exactly what is so rediculous about my claim. Just calling it rediculous is not enough, you actually have to argue why it is. Then I can address your points.

    No, it goes crazier when a women is accused of a sex crime.
    Could you provide an example? I have.

    Since VAWA specifically states that its provisions are directed at both male and female victims, you are obviously wrong.
    Your not going to escape my question, I will keep asking it until I get an answer. Then why was it called "Violence against Women Act'?

    I have already posted a clear answer to this question, but since you think that a law which specifically states that its provisions are directed at both male and female victims is "apparently" saying that only women are victims I can see how you might have trouble understanding the answer
    I guess by this answer, I could understand why you have such a problem with the question. It's a simple question that you just don't have a good answer for. Your having to jump around like someone is throwing firecrackers at your feet to answer it, well then, maybe you should examine what is being questioned instead of trying to dance around it.

    And yet, you haven't posted anything to support your claim

    I have
    What information do you dispute? I thought it was all common knowledge but I will humor you if I need to for a little bit at least until I simply get tired of pointing out the obvious.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •