Jackson Herring: Domestic violence against men is also covered in the bill, you farking ballgargling shiatwizards
miss diminutive: Jackson Herring: Domestic violence against men is also covered in the bill, you farking ballgargling shiatwizardsDammit. Well there go my plans to travel to Las Vegas for the annual Beat Your Man Like The Rented Mule That He Is convention.
miss diminutive: I don't know how they feel about Native Americans, but their position regarding the first two has been pretty well documented.
R.A.Danny: Serious question: Why are special, gender specific laws needed? Isn't an assault an assault? Isn't assaulting another human being just as bad if the victim is male or female?
Diogenes: It added: "Supporters of the VAWA portray women as helpless victims - this is the kind of attitude that is setting women back."
Theaetetus: R.A.Danny: Serious question: Why are special, gender specific laws needed? Isn't an assault an assault? Isn't assaulting another human being just as bad if the victim is male or female?Serious question: know how I know you've never read the bill or anything about it other than the title?
miss diminutive: I couldn't understand why conservative organizations would oppose such a bill, especially since the definition of domestic violence wasn't changed (contrary to their derp about it).Then I read this: beefs up funding for local law enforcement to prosecute domestic abusers while expanding coverage to gays, illegal immigrants and Native Americans.ahhh and now it all becomes clear. I don't know how they feel about Native Americans, but their position regarding the first two has been pretty well documented.
Philip Francis Queeg: A man that raises his voice at his partner, calls her an offensive name, stalks her, causes her any emotional distress, or simply just annoys her can potentially be prosecuted under the VAWA.What in the fark is wrong with these people? Seriously how can one defend stalking?
vpb: Well, it is a threat to their base.[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 222x227]
BMulligan: While I recognize the good the VAWA has done, and of course anything that annoys Republicans I will presume to be a good thing, the fact remains that I'm a little bit suspicious of efforts to federalize crimes which have traditionally been state matters. Just a small, nagging doubt tempering an otherwise enthusiastic response.
THX 1138: RoxtarRyan:clap. clap. clap.
Jackson Herring: Maybe if every single post in this thread was just "VAWA is not gender-specific" some people would get the farking point
Citrate1007: The GOP has no is no war on women
hubiestubert: Somehow I'm betting that if there was a provision that provided protection to CEOs who were beaten by their shareholders they could warm to it...
Dr Dreidel: THX 1138: RoxtarRyan:clap. clap. clap.And now I'm trying to remember what movie that's from.// you know what's REALLY unfair to men?// the way we're profiled over the whole rape thing// maybe if rape/sexual assault weren't a thing that happened all-too-often, we wouldn't have to feel bad about it (and that actually goes for the ladies as well)
Dr Dreidel: // you know what's REALLY unfair to men?// the way we're profiled over the whole rape thing
DamnYankees: I don't know - why do we need any crimes other than assault? Maybe if you thought about it for more than 5 minutes you'd understand it a little better.
Jackson Herring: ballgargling shiatwizards
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: May 24 2017 04:21:31
Runtime: 0.371 sec (371 ms)