• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House passes Violence Against Women Act after GOP version defeated.

Capster78 said:
Yes, and there are already sufficient laws out there that protect, and in some cases overprotect women from these issues. I have read thru bits and pieces of the legislation passed (it is 107 pages of grueling small print) and it does not seem to address anything really. Because much of it is already addressed by current laws.
Click to expand...

Do I sense the slow realization that contrary to your deluded beliefs, VAWA does little in the way of criminalizing anything, and deals mostly with providing resources and support for various branches of law enforcement so that they can do a better job of enforcing the criminal laws which are already on the books?
 
sangha said:
Do I sense the slow realization that contrary to your deluded beliefs, VAWA does little in the way of criminalizing anything, and deals mostly with providing resources and support for various branches of law enforcement so that they can do a better job of enforcing the criminal laws which are already on the books?
Click to expand...

Why do women need special enforcement if they are equal?
 
sangha said:
I'll repost your quote where you criticize VAWA because:
You obviously have a problem when the govt does anything regarding women on issues that affect them more often than that issue affects men. That's why you whine about breast cancer reduction efforts, but are silent when it comes to the prevention of heart disease.
Click to expand...

You are the one that said it protects both sexes, and my point was that it only includes men.. and actually.. to be more accurate, after doing more reading, it only does not exclude men from protection. Much of what the bill talks about is funding and grants to organizations to support victims from these crimes. But most support groups are built and centered around women. How man battered men shelters do you know of? There is really no infrastructure or programs set up to deal directly and specifically with men who have the issues stated in the bill. Almost all are centered around the female victim. The bill states that many of its provisions will not discriminate based on sex, but only states that a particular organization can discriminate based on sex if that organization is not set up to deal with that particular sex. And as we are all aware, many organizations are centered around treating women, not men. So unless the government is saying it is going to set up organizations to deal with men in the same regard, I dont know how they expect to help men.

And to think some people think that there is no War on Women
Click to expand...

No, there isent. There has been a war against men for the last 2 decades though. Just look at the most prominent feminist thinkers and see what they say about men. It is akin to what hitler said about the jews.
 
Capster78 said:
You are the one that said it protects both sexes, and my point was that it only includes men.. and actually.. to be more accurate, after doing more reading, it only does not exclude men from protection. Much of what the bill talks about is funding and grants to organizations to support victims from these crimes. But most support groups are built and centered around women. How man battered men shelters do you know of? There is really no infrastructure or programs set up to deal directly and specifically with men who have the issues stated in the bill. Almost all are centered around the female victim. The bill states that many of its provisions will not discriminate based on sex, but only states that a particular organization can discriminate based on sex if that organization is not set up to deal with that particular sex. And as we are all aware, many organizations are centered around treating women, not men. So unless the government is saying it is going to set up organizations to deal with men in the same regard, I dont know how they expect to help men.



No, there isent. There has been a war against men for the last 2 decades though. Just look at the most prominent feminist thinkers and see what they say about men. It is akin to what hitler said about the jews.
Click to expand...

It does protect both sexes. And "does not exclude men" means it includes men, just as I said.

WRT to funding orgs, there's nothing stopping anyone from creating a mens' shelter, and under VAWA they're just as eligible for funding under VAWA. IOW, there's nothing unfair about it.

And there are programs set up to deal directly and specifically with men. I even mentioned it earlier: Prison rape.

Yes, there are more sexual assault programs directed towards women, but that's because there are more female victims. Complaining about this is like women complaining because the govt doesn't support any organizations to help women with with prostate cancer.
 
I love how we have federal laws against this stuff. :roll:

Also, just why do we need services besides punishing the crimes?
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
It does protect both sexes. And "does not exclude men" means it includes men, just as I said.

WRT to funding orgs, there's nothing stopping anyone from creating a mens' shelter, and under VAWA they're just as eligible for funding under VAWA. IOW, there's nothing unfair about it.

And there are programs set up to deal directly and specifically with men. I even mentioned it earlier: Prison rape.

Yes, there are more sexual assault programs directed towards women, but that's because there are more female victims. Complaining about this is like women complaining because the govt doesn't support any organizations to help women with with prostate cancer.
Click to expand...


And what happens when men use the resources that are suppose to protect men and women equally. This is what happens.

GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive
Of the abused men who called domestic violence hotlines, 64% were told that they “only helped women.”
Click to expand...
In 32% of the cases, the abused men were referred to batterers’ programs. Another 25% were given a phone number to call that turned out to be a batterers’ program.
Click to expand...
Overall, only 8% of the men who called hotlines classified them as “very helpful,” whereas 69% found them to be “not at all helpful.”
Click to expand...
Sixteen percent said the people at the hot line “dismissed or made fun of them.” One abused man said:

They laughed at me and told me I must have done something to deserve it if it happened at all.

Another said:

They asked how much I weighed and how much she weighed and then hung up on me…I was told by this agency that I was full of BS.
Click to expand...
Twelve percent of the hotlines accused the man of being the batterer or responsible for the abuse. One abused man said:

They told me women don’t commit domestic violence — it must have been my fault.

Another said:

They accused me of trying to hide my “abuse” of her by claiming to be a victim, and they said that I was nothing more than a wimp.
Click to expand...
Another said:

They didn’t really listen to what I said. They assumed that all abusers are men and said that I must accept that I was the abuser. They ridiculed me for not leaving my wife, ignoring the issues about what I would need to do to protect my six children and care for them.
Click to expand...

I posed as a male victim of domestic violence and called every domestic violence shelter in all of Los Angeles and San Diego counties. Not a single one would accept me or offer assistance, with the exception of Valley Oasis. Most flatly refused any assistance at all, but a couple did offer me space in a homeless shelter. When I asked, “Am I supposed to take my children to a homeless shelter?”, they replied, “That’s all we can do.”
Click to expand...

So while all this grant money is going to suposibly support domestic violence and sexual assault on men and women equally, men are being denied services based on their sex.
 
Capster78 said:
No, there isent. There has been a war against men for the last 2 decades though. Just look at the most prominent feminist thinkers and see what they say about men. It is akin to what hitler said about the jews.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the Hitler comparison, but feminist hating on men is about as old as the movement itself.
 
And this is the heart of the issue right here. This is how society views battered men....

 
I agree that there are problems with how men are treated in certain situations. I think it has more to do with men being expected to be either brave, but expendable warriors, hard workers ripe for exploitation or disposible criminal thugs. It is a classist, sexist notion that predates feminism.
 
Capster78 said:
And this is the heart of the issue right here. This is how society views battered men....
Click to expand...

The comparison was not fair. Look at the woman being abused, she does not have her arms up defending herself, which makes her look more vulnerable, which she was, due to her smaller size and relative lack of muscle. When the man was being beaten he had his arms up and was defending himself, in addition he looked like he could win if he was in a serious fight with her. In another scene he was reading and seemed to barely notice the beating. For a true comparison they should have used a small weak man and a big strong woman. If they had, more people may have let it slide more than they would have for a woman, but more people would have tried to protect the man than in the example they staged.

In my own experience women rarely do much damage when they get mad and start hitting.
 
Hard Truth said:
The comparison was not fair. Look at the woman being abused, she does not have her arms up defending herself, which makes her look more vulnerable, which she was, due to her smaller size and relative lack of muscle. When the man was being beaten he had his arms up and was defending himself, in addition he looked like he could win if he was in a serious fight with her. In another scene he was reading and seemed to barely notice the beating. For a true comparison they should have used a small weak man and a big strong woman. If they had, more people may have let it slide more than they would have for a woman, but more people would have tried to protect the man than in the example they staged.

In my own experience women rarely do much damage when they get mad and start hitting.
Click to expand...

And there lies the problem. It does not matter how much damage an abuser looks like they can inflict on someone or if the one being abused is bigger. All you are looking at is the physical abuse, but the physical abuse generally heals after a period of time. It's the mental side of it that inflicts the most damage. Especially for men who know they can not fight back or they will be the one in jail while she walks free because she is a woman.
 
Capster78 said:
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?
Click to expand...
The reality of it is, just like everything else (ex: ACA), republicans try to muddy the water so much you don't know what to believe.
 
sangha said:
Do I sense the slow realization that contrary to your deluded beliefs, VAWA does little in the way of criminalizing anything, and deals mostly with providing resources and support for various branches of law enforcement so that they can do a better job of enforcing the criminal laws which are already on the books?
Click to expand...

Nothng like muddying the water so no one knows what is really going on. Being done here and now with this thread.
 
Capster78 said:
You are the one that said it protects both sexes, and my point was that it only includes men.. and actually.. to be more accurate, after doing more reading, it only does not exclude men from protection. Much of what the bill talks about is funding and grants to organizations to support victims from these crimes. But most support groups are built and centered around women. How man battered men shelters do you know of? There is really no infrastructure or programs set up to deal directly and specifically with men who have the issues stated in the bill. Almost all are centered around the female victim. The bill states that many of its provisions will not discriminate based on sex, but only states that a particular organization can discriminate based on sex if that organization is not set up to deal with that particular sex. And as we are all aware, many organizations are centered around treating women, not men. So unless the government is saying it is going to set up organizations to deal with men in the same regard, I dont know how they expect to help men.



No, there isent. There has been a war against men for the last 2 decades though. Just look at the most prominent feminist thinkers and see what they say about men. It is akin to what hitler said about the jews.
Click to expand...


After doing more reading and research, you come up with that doozy? Can you put that into language we can actually understand.

You proceed to provide your interpretation, but you provide no proof with a direct link about any of your assertions. YOU saying it does not make it so!

As we can all see, your interpretation as stated above is incomprehensible.
 
Last edited:
66gardeners said:
After doing more reading and research, you come up with that doozy? Can you put that into language we can actually understand.

You proceed to provide your interpretation, but you provide no proof with a direct link about any of your assertions. YOU saying it does not make it so!

As we can all see, your interpretation as stated above is incomprehensible.
Click to expand...

Much of the wording does not specify who it applies to. But in a society where it is pretty much implied that only men sexually and physically assault people, that is what I mean by it only does not exclude men. It does not mean men are covered. As I mentioned above in a previous post on how abuse shelters regularly turn away men or simply don't have the resources to help them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom