If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Senate Democrats get their 60 votes for the Violence Against Women Act. Subby's not sure if this warrants a "spiffy" tag for the vote or a "sad" tag for the fact that 60 votes were needed to break a GOP filibuster   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 571
    More: Spiffy, Violence Against Women Act, Senate, Democrats, senate democrats, Jerry Moran, House Republicans, Dean Heller, domestic violence  
•       •       •

10811 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2013 at 2:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



571 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-01 03:37:35 PM

ladyfortuna: rustypouch: Why not have a violence against people act?

Unless the people who wrote the VAWA have such a low opinion of women that they think they can't take care of themselves, and need special treatment.

You don't know much about domestic violence, do you? Most people in those relationships won't report it because their partner has convinced them that at best no one cares, or at worst the victim will get in trouble. it's also not uniformly addressed either by laws or law enforcement; some cops are just as bad as the abusers (note I am NOT against LEOs, just facing the truth here).

I read that when NY and other states implemented a new law a couple of years ago allowing the legal system to press charges for 'choking' attacks, DV arrests went through the roof. The explanation is that it doesn't leave very visible markings so cops couldn't make an arrest in most cases; once the law passed they were able to finally do more to curb abusers.

/Never been abused (physically)
//There would be consequences to the abuser, oh yes.


I'm quoting a site that has quite the agenda (They're a Men's Rights Group), but the statistics stand nonetheless.
"Intimate partner homicides increased by about 60% in states with mandatory arrest laws." - Radha Iyengar, Harvard University
"Increases in the willingness of prosecutors' offices to take cases of protection order violation were associated with increases in the homicide of white married intimates, black unmarried intimates, and white unmarried females." - Laura Dugan, PhD
"Evidentiary standards for proving abuse have been so relaxed that any man who stands accused is considered guilty." -  Cheryl Hanna, Vermont Law School

http://www.saveservices.org/mandate-for-change/
 
2013-02-01 03:37:50 PM

Biological Ali: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them. Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.

That's just not true.


Well, maybe he is.  I get the feeling he's kind of a wuss who pisses a lot of women off.
 
2013-02-01 03:39:13 PM
Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?
 
2013-02-01 03:39:40 PM

Genevieve Marie: The Native American provisions in the bill are designed to specifically deal with gaps in domestic violence responses experienced by Native American women living on the reservations- it's not something that applies to the general public.
I believe one of the provisions is to allow tribal jurisdiction over non-Natives who commit crimes on Native lands. Lots of Native women get raped or assaulted on reservations by non-Native men, and the crime is hard to prosecute because of jurisdiction issues. This was meant to close that loop.


That's fair.  Ideally we'd just tell the Native Americans to get over themselves and stop letting them have their own quasi-jurisdictions, but until that happens putting band-aids on top of that goofy system is the best you can do.
 The other provision in it was simply to make sure that domestic violence services are available to women on reservations- right now, a lot of the time, programs are too far away for those women to make use of them.

That's the part I find objectionable.  Make a general framework that distributes resources fairly, rather than just targeting the part that's currently having problems (so we don't end up in the same situation in a few years if cultural winds shift and "people in suburbs with streets named after trees" suddenly become the unlucky folks who have to drive a couple hours to get to the shelter)
 
2013-02-01 03:40:54 PM

Biological Ali: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them. Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.

That's just not true.


He's defining domestic violence against males to include "not having been brought a sandwich within 3 minutes of walking in the door".
 
2013-02-01 03:41:15 PM

serial_crusher: That's the part I find objectionable. Make a general framework that distributes resources fairly, rather than just targeting the part that's currently having problems (so we don't end up in the same situation in a few years if cultural winds shift and "people in suburbs with streets named after trees" suddenly become the unlucky folks who have to drive a couple hours to get to the shelter)


Distributing resources based on the populations most in need of the resources in question sounds fair to me.
 
2013-02-01 03:41:17 PM

StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?


We need a law about reading THE GOD DAMN THREAD.

Genevieve Marie: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the Violence Against Women Act does here- the primary purpose of the law is to provide federal funding for domestic violence shelters and for coordinated community efforts to protect victims- including counseling programs, legal resources, and housing assistance. When this legislation was originally passed 25 years ago, it was groundbreaking- it drastically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence.

Letting it expire means that a lot of really vital programs will go unfunded.

From what I understand, Republican opposition centered on three things: 1) Allowing LGBT couples in abusive relationships to access VAWA funded programs 2) Providing specific funding to open shelters near reservations- the rape statistics for Native women are staggering, and this was an opportunity to try and address that 3) The original bill that they wouldn't pass last session included some temporary amnesty provisions for illegal immigrant women who are being abused and seek help escaping their abuser. That part, as common sense as it is, has been dropped from this version of the bill.
 
2013-02-01 03:41:23 PM
Nothing brings out the trolls, shills, and retards like a thread about violence towards women.
 
2013-02-01 03:41:52 PM

Virtue: Brought to you by the woman who INVENTED woman's shelters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1215464/Why-I-loathe-femin is m---believe-ultimately-destroy-family.html


And is now a crazy lady who says militant feminists killed her dog, tangled her Christmas lights, and won't get off her lawn.
 
2013-02-01 03:41:55 PM

StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?


Because women are not equal and require special protection that others don't require due to their helpless nature. and if you don't agree you are sexist and hate women

It's a derpacrat's world, we are just living in it.
 
2013-02-01 03:42:19 PM

MyRandomName: Yeap. The thread full of idiots who are unaware there were secondary amendments.

Hey everyone, ive attached a support hitler to this I love puppy bill. Why do you hate puppies!

By ignoring the actual objections you are engaging in ignorant debate. There were amendments that were opposed, not the original act.


Do you actually have examples or are you pulling stuff out of your ass again as usual?
 
2013-02-01 03:43:13 PM

Aeon Rising: StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?

Because women are not equal and require special protection that others don't require due to their helpless nature. and if you don't agree you are sexist and hate women

It's a derpacrat's world, we are just living in it.


Or.... let's try this again... now bolded for morons....

Genevieve Marie: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the Violence Against Women Act does here- the primary purpose of the law is to provide federal funding for domestic violence shelters and for coordinated community efforts to protect victims- including counseling programs, legal resources, and housing assistance. When this legislation was originally passed 25 years ago, it was groundbreaking- it drastically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence.

Letting it expire means that a lot of really vital programs will go unfunded.

From what I understand, Republican opposition centered on three things: 1) Allowing LGBT couples in abusive relationships to access VAWA funded programs 2) Providing specific funding to open shelters near reservations- the rape statistics for Native women are staggering, and this was an opportunity to try and address that 3) The original bill that they wouldn't pass last session included some temporary amnesty provisions for illegal immigrant women who are being abused and seek help escaping their abuser. That part, as common sense as it is, has been dropped from this version of the bill.


 
2013-02-01 03:44:06 PM

StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?


Another one who doesn't know what the fk he's talking about!

Yes, princess, this means violence against men if perfectly OK.

morans
 
2013-02-01 03:44:45 PM

StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?


Ok, I was just kidding with that last post. The women in my life have access to guns and training in their use. For some reason I have a problem with those weapons being taken away and them being told that instead they should submit to the beating and then sue for compensation later.

Seriously, I HATE dems and libs. why cant they just go away forever?
 
2013-02-01 03:44:46 PM

Mrtraveler01: Thunderpipes: If there were any real men here, you would see it. But you are girly men.

But not you right? You're a real manly men.

Christ you need to work at this "trolling" thing.


Real men understand that if people want to be treated equally, stop making special laws that penalize or elevate a class of people.

Not real hard.
 
2013-02-01 03:45:13 PM

Biological Ali: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them. Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.

That's just not true.



286 independent peer reviewed studies.....http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
 
2013-02-01 03:45:31 PM

mahuika: clane: i guess if the name of a Bill sounds good we should just close our eyes and vote yes.

Has it occurred to you that some of us who were upset when the bill did not initially pass knew what was in the bill and approved?

I can't believe how many people here are basically running in and yelling "Guys it's a trick they don't just want to help protect women they also want to help protect gay people, Native Americans, and undocumented immigrants!" and expecting progressives to be like "Oh! In that case, fark that!"


help protect women?  i thought we were all equal?  help protect gays?  why do gays get more right than me and my family?  hmm and it will cost about 1.2  billion but hey whats money?
 
2013-02-01 03:45:46 PM

serial_crusher: Make a general framework that distributes resources fairly, rather than just targeting the part that's currently having problems (so we don't end up in the same situation in a few years if cultural winds shift and "people in suburbs with streets named after trees" suddenly become the unlucky folks who have to drive a couple hours to get to the shelter)


But that's kind of what we already do. Distributing something fairly doesn't always mean equally. A neighborhood with a lot of kids is going to have four elementary schools, whereas a neighborhood in which a lot of single young professionals live might have one.
 
2013-02-01 03:46:27 PM

Thunderpipes: Real men understand that if people want to be treated equally, stop making special laws that penalize or elevate a class of people.

Not real hard.


People with basic comprehension skills look at the world around them and recognize that inequalities exist, and that addressing them in the legal system is sometimes the best way to bring about equality.
 
2013-02-01 03:46:51 PM

FirstNationalBastard: dericwater: FirstNationalBastard: sex0r: DeathCipris: So it protects women and choice minorities from violence? I am ashamed this has to be a law...and even more ashamed it had to be FOUGHT over to get passed...

They were already protected under the same laws as everyone else.  This is the equivalent of double secret probation.

Honestly, that's the same reason I don't understand the whole "hate crime" thing. Generally, you're not beating the shiat out of someone or killing them because you feel the warm fuzzies for them.

The Hate Crimes law adds an additional layer of penalties if the crime was done as a hate crime. In other words, if I held up a gay guy, say, that's just robbery. But if I stalked that gay guy because I hate gays, beat him up and took some money at the end for all the effort I put in, then it's robbery plus hate crime.  The point is that I'm not just targeting a person, but an entire class of people and thus putting others on alert to my hate.

The legislation itself isn't what bothers me, it's the kind of stupid name for it that bugs me... much like you're seeing in this thread with many people and the term "Violence Against Women Act".


Well you could also call it "terrorism" because the idea of these crimes is to terrorize an entire segment of the population. But, of course, we all know that only brown people can be "terrorists".
 
2013-02-01 03:47:23 PM

DrewCurtisJr: So all politics aside. Are there any studies that show how effective this program has been?


"Cost benefit analyses" and "effectiveness studies" are just tools wife beaters use to avoid justice.

Anybody who didn't vote for VAWA is objectively pro-rape. As is anyone who disagrees with this post.
 
2013-02-01 03:48:05 PM

OgreMagi: Do you not see the farking difference?


I'm arguing that it's a distinction without a difference. If men can get access to shelters, I'd say it doesn't much matter whether they're VAWA-funded or not. So long as you're safely away from your abuser, the fight is at least 40-50% won.

At that point, they're getting "some" support. Not "zero", as you initially claimed.

// hell, an iota of support - a kind word, for example - is more than "zero", so I don't have a high bar to clear
// but I'm better than that
// getting out the door and out of immediate harm's way does more for psychological "shelter" than four simple walls do
 
2013-02-01 03:48:12 PM
Did they doublecheck the bill for any 'no abortions for rape babies' amendments or other derp chicanery?
 
2013-02-01 03:48:32 PM

Thunderpipes: Mrtraveler01: Thunderpipes: If there were any real men here, you would see it. But you are girly men.

But not you right? You're a real manly men.

Christ you need to work at this "trolling" thing.

Real men understand that if people want to be treated equally, stop making special laws that penalize or elevate a class of people.

Not real hard.


When those classes of people stop being victimized simply because of being those classes of people by assholes and filth who feel the need to victimize those classes of people because of their petty evil reasons, then we can stop making special laws for them.
 
2013-02-01 03:49:33 PM

Aeon Rising: StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?

Ok, I was just kidding with that last post. The women in my life have access to guns and training in their use. For some reason I have a problem with those weapons being taken away and them being told that instead they should submit to the beating and then sue for compensation later.

Seriously, I HATE dems and libs. why cant they just go away forever?


We hate you, too, honey.
 
2013-02-01 03:49:35 PM

coeyagi: Aeon Rising: StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?

Because women are not equal and require special protection that others don't require due to their helpless nature. and if you don't agree you are sexist and hate women

It's a derpacrat's world, we are just living in it.

Or.... let's try this again... now bolded for morons....

Genevieve Marie: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the Violence Against Women Act does here- the primary purpose of the law is to provide federal funding for domestic violence shelters and for coordinated community efforts to protect victims- including counseling programs, legal resources, and housing assistance. When this legislation was originally passed 25 years ago, it was groundbreaking- it drastically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence.

Letting it expire means that a lot of really vital programs will go unfunded.

From what I understand, Republican opposition centered on three things: 1) Allowing LGBT couples in abusive relationships to access VAWA funded programs 2) Providing specific funding to open shelters near reservations- the rape statistics for Native women are staggering, and this was an opportunity to try and address that 3) The original bill that they wouldn't pass last session included some temporary amnesty provisions for illegal immigrant women who are being abused and seek help escaping their abuser. That part, as common sense as it is, has been dropped from this version of the bill.


At the risk of inviting further derp into the thread, I'd like to offer another opinion about the VAWA, from Christina Villegas of Huffington Post.
Congress Must Address Flaws

Although there is merit in the argument that many Republicans oppose it just because they oppose anything Obama does, and that some just don't want gays to be covered by it. But there appear to be some legitimate concerns. I also understand why the additional amnesty for illegal immigrants that report domestic violence is a major sticking point that had to be dropped to get broad support.
 
2013-02-01 03:50:48 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Frank N Stein: What  exactly does this law do? I don't feel like looking it up

It's a set aside of a couple of billion dollars a year for the special investigation and prosecution of anyone who commits violence against women.  It is feel-good pork legislation for things that are already illegal and already prosecuted.  Most importantly, I don't understand why the entire thing isn't unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.


IANAL, but seems like it's OK to discriminate on the basis of gender as long as you show there's a good reason.

Why we need the Equal Rights Amendment

"The [Virginia Military Institute] decision now tells courts to exercise 'skeptical scrutiny' requiring 'exceedingly persuasive' justification of differential treatment on the basis of sex, but prohibition of sex discrimination is still not as strongly enforceable as prohibition of race discrimination."
 
2013-02-01 03:51:10 PM

Biological Ali: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them. Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.

That's just not true.


Here's a summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence

You can easily google the subject and see for yourself that what I stated is true.  I doubt you will bother since your mind is made up.  Here's a snippet in the futile hope that you will educate yourself.

Straus and Gelles found that in couples reporting spousal violence, 27% of the time the man struck the first blow; in 24% of cases, the woman initiated the violence. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analyzed. In order to counteract claims that the reporting data was skewed, female-only surveys were conducted, asking females to self-report, and the data was the same.
 
2013-02-01 03:51:47 PM
Okay call me naive-- but where in the Constitution does the federal government have the authority to pass criminal laws of this nature, or to fund anti-domestic violence centers?

I'm not saying I oppose such laws or such measures-- but aren't those inherently state functions?

Secondly, there seems to be a belief here that the federal government funding something means it comes free. Whether you pay for it or your city or the state does or the Feds do-- someone is paying for for it. Clapping your hands together and applauding congress for "fighting domestic violence" ignores the fact that it's this sort of unconstitutional pandering to special interest groups that put us in a position where the USG owes itself trillions of dollars.

Don't blame congress for the country's economic clusterfark, blame people who support feel good, unnecessary, porkulicous legislation.

Ron Paul, we need you more than ever.
 
2013-02-01 03:52:43 PM

Dr Dreidel: Giltric: What does this bill do in regards to charging people with a crime that the regular old laws against violence and murder lack?

How does it protect women if they have to get beaten or murdered in order for the law to apply?

You may want to read the bill, as those questions are answered therein.


Informing oneself might lead to actual participation in the democratic process, and that, sir, is un-Amurricun!
 
2013-02-01 03:52:43 PM

clane: mahuika: clane: i guess if the name of a Bill sounds good we should just close our eyes and vote yes.

Has it occurred to you that some of us who were upset when the bill did not initially pass knew what was in the bill and approved?

I can't believe how many people here are basically running in and yelling "Guys it's a trick they don't just want to help protect women they also want to help protect gay people, Native Americans, and undocumented immigrants!" and expecting progressives to be like "Oh! In that case, fark that!"

help protect women?  i thought we were all equal?


So what, you think that Gloria Steinem woke up one day, stuck her head out her window and yelled "FEMINISM", and since then America's been a bastion of equality?

help protect gays?  why do gays get more right than me and my family?

More right to do what?

hmm and it will cost about 1.2  billion but hey whats money?

Schools cost a lot of money, let's get rid of them too.
 
2013-02-01 03:52:45 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Nothing brings out the trolls, shills, and retards like a thread about violence towards women.


Indeed.

i243.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-01 03:53:01 PM

nickdaisy: Ron Paul, we need you more than ever.


No...no we don't.

I'd rather not have him wreck the global economy by pegging our currency to a shiny rock thankyouverymuch.
 
2013-02-01 03:53:08 PM
So, none of the concerned "conservatives" in here are going to explain why something that's been around for almost 20 years is now suddenly a big, terrible thing?

There is a reason, right?
 
2013-02-01 03:53:40 PM
So violence against women is worse then violence against other people because?
 
2013-02-01 03:53:43 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Biological Ali: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them. Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.

That's just not true.


286 independent peer reviewed studies.....http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm


Admirable attempt at a Gish Gallop. I give it 6/10.
 
2013-02-01 03:53:54 PM

OgreMagi: You can easily google the subject and see for yourself that what I stated is true.  I doubt you will bother since your mind is made up.  Here's a snippet in the futile hope that you will educate yourself.


See the .edu link I posted for a glossography of more studies.
 
2013-02-01 03:53:59 PM

Dr Dreidel: OgreMagi: Do you not see the farking difference?

I'm arguing that it's a distinction without a difference. If men can get access to shelters, I'd say it doesn't much matter whether they're VAWA-funded or not. So long as you're safely away from your abuser, the fight is at least 40-50% won.

At that point, they're getting "some" support. Not "zero", as you initially claimed.

// hell, an iota of support - a kind word, for example - is more than "zero", so I don't have a high bar to clear
// but I'm better than that
// getting out the door and out of immediate harm's way does more for psychological "shelter" than four simple walls do


If it's a distinction without a difference, then why does there need to be special funding just for abused womens shelfters?  I'll answer that for you.  Because sometimes there are children involved.  It's not just the man or woman who needs to escape an abusive person, the children might need to escape.  The specialized shelters are designed to handle the children, too.  Are you suggesting a man should abandon his children to a violent crazy woman?
 
2013-02-01 03:54:29 PM
Keizer Ghidorah
Nothing brings out the trolls, shills, and retards like a thread about violence towards women.

What took you so long
 
2013-02-01 03:55:02 PM

nickdaisy: Ron Paul, we need you more than ever.


ooooh my god the main page is adorable
 
2013-02-01 03:55:14 PM

clane: mahuika: clane: i guess if the name of a Bill sounds good we should just close our eyes and vote yes.

Has it occurred to you that some of us who were upset when the bill did not initially pass knew what was in the bill and approved?

I can't believe how many people here are basically running in and yelling "Guys it's a trick they don't just want to help protect women they also want to help protect gay people, Native Americans, and undocumented immigrants!" and expecting progressives to be like "Oh! In that case, fark that!"

help protect women?  i thought we were all equal?  help protect gays?  why do gays get more right than me and my family?  hmm and it will cost about 1.2  billion but hey whats money?


Gays "get more rights"? No, they're getting the exact same rights you and your family already have, the same rights denied to them because people like you hate and fear them for loving people with the same sex organs. You can marry who you want to, correct? You can see your wife and family in the hospital, correct? You can leave your stuff to your kids when you die, correct? You can work anywhere and not be harassed and fired because of your sexual orientation, correct? How are those normal rights for you but "Special rights" for them?

If people like you weren't forcing them to do this, then women, gays, and minorities wouldn't need "special rights" or special protections.
 
2013-02-01 03:55:22 PM

chiefsfaninkc: So violence against women is worse then violence against other people because?


Because you can't read THE GOD DAMN THREAD.

//Seriously, just try people, instead of barfing your ignorance upon us.
 
2013-02-01 03:55:25 PM

Genevieve Marie: Thunderpipes: Real men understand that if people want to be treated equally, stop making special laws that penalize or elevate a class of people.

Not real hard.

People with basic comprehension skills look at the world around them and recognize that inequalities exist, and that addressing them in the legal system is sometimes the best way to bring about equality.


Such inequalities can be addressed without specifying a group of people. For instance, equal pay:
A law that says something to the effect of, "experience, duties, and performance are the only metrics by which you can differentiate pay rate," is a hell of a lot more egalitarian than, "women must make at least as much as men." The first one addresses the problem dynamically. If there's a field where women are paid more, it helps men. If there's a field where straight folks are paid more, it helps gays. The second one, helps a group that may or may not be on the lesser (or greater) side of an inequality with no attention to context. It also-adjusts for changing social conditions w/o having to stack more and more laws every time you want to add a new 'protected' group.

The most generic form of the problem is the one to address; not throwing laws at subsets until it sort of seems like the whole is vaguely addressed.
 
2013-02-01 03:55:28 PM

Thunderpipes: Genevieve Marie: Thunderpipes: Real men understand that if people want to be treated equally, stop making special laws that penalize or elevate a class of people.

Not real hard.

People with basic comprehension skills look at the world around them and recognize that inequalities exist, and that addressing them in the legal system is sometimes the best way to bring about equality.

There is no inequality here. Women have all the rights men do, and more. Accuse a dude of rape? No problem, we will hide your identity while plastering his all over the media. His life is ruined even though you lied. Don't like it? Too bad. You are a man, and men must be punished.

Grow some balls.

Are you all for treating men the same when it comes to say.... life and auto insurance? Maternity leave? Nicer bathrooms? Child support? Divorce?


You do realize rape shield laws work in reverse too, right? That a man who reports a rape will not have his name revealed in the media? That a woman falsely accused of rape would have  the same hassle?

You don't think about it that way though because in this world, rape is much more often committed against women- and often, when it's committed against men, it's by another man. Women rapists DO exist, but not in nearly the same number.

As far as life and auto insurance- I'd be absolutely fine with dropping gender from the actuarial tables, but that would require regulating private business pretty extensively. How do you feel about that?

And as for maternity leave- OF COURSE I support paid paternity leave as well. Most feminists do. Honestly, the way Sweden handles it would be ideal- 16 months paid per couple to be split however they choose.

As far as child support and divorce laws go- I do support gender equality there. But my idea of equality is actual equality, and not "Stupid biatch ruined my life so I should get to ruin hers" which is generally how those conversations devolve on the internet.

 
2013-02-01 03:55:43 PM

nickdaisy: Secondly, there seems to be a belief here that the federal government funding something means it comes free.


No. There isn't. But you can argue against a position that doesn't exist if you want.
 
2013-02-01 03:56:36 PM

chiefsfaninkc: So violence against women is worse then violence against other people because?


Because you touch yourself.
 
2013-02-01 03:56:38 PM
CRS VAWA Report 2010

Provided for everyones situational awareness

Looks like there was already (some) inclusion of illegal immigrant and native american issues. Though the Act has gender neutral language it is probably a good idea to update to reflect the inclusion of LGBT protections.

I hope this gets resolved (passed) soon and both sides of the aisle put at least this much effort to passing a budget.
 
2013-02-01 03:56:45 PM

Thunderpipes: There is no inequality here. Women have all the rights men do, and more. Accuse a dude of rape? No problem, we will hide your identity while plastering his all over the media. His life is ruined even though you lied. Don't like it? Too bad. You are a man, and men must be punished.


The same is true if a dude accuses another dude of rape. Or if a man accuses a woman of rape. Remember the cop in...NM? a few months ago charged with sexual harassment? We all knew her name - even had a whole thread about it. It's not about their genders/sexes/genitalia, it's about who is accusing whom of what.
 
2013-02-01 03:56:54 PM
ParallelUniverseParking: GAT_00: Remember kids, the Violence Against Women Act is completely unnecessary and wasteful government legislation.  However, women need unlimited access to guns for protection.

More guns, less laws. The GOP -Somalia.
 
2013-02-01 03:56:54 PM
Wait, I'm confused. Why would anyone vote for violence against women? Truly, we live in an evil patriarchy.
 
Displayed 50 of 571 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report