VAWA be renewed? (1 Viewer)

[nkgupta80]

the controversial violence against women act is about the expire. Should it be renewed?

 

[cnredd]

the controversial violence against women act is about the expire. Should it be renewed?

Depends....why is it controversial?

 

[debate_junkie]

http://www.vawa2005.org/

Here's the act as it's being proposed to reauthorize it. I don't see, from what I've read so far, how it's controversial. But I'm not done reading yet.. so if I find something I'll let you know.

 

[cnredd]

http://www.vawa2005.org/

Here's the act as it's being proposed to reauthorize it. I don't see, from what I've read so far, how it's controversial. But I'm not done reading yet.. so if I find something I'll let you know.

Your research is admirable, DJ, but I think the cards should be laid out on the table instead of everyone having to "go fetch".

 

[debate_junkie]

Your research is admirable, DJ, but I think the cards should be laid out on the table instead of everyone having to "go fetch".

True that.. but I'd probably go research even if it were already laid out for me. :lol:

 

[cnredd]

True that.. but I'd probably go research even if it were already laid out for me. :lol:

And then I'd research your posts 'cause I don't trust you.:tongue4:

 

[nkgupta80]

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050718-092251-1716r.htm

see the problem with this law is that its evolved into such that men are guilty until proven innocent. Ever since I learned of this law, I thought ok, there seems nothing wrong with it, seems pretty noble. But now, two years later, my uncle is going through a horrible ordeal with his family. Under false accusation from his wife, he has undergone divorce, put under heavy counseling, and due to the nature of the accusations he hasn't been able to see his children for over a year. His wife and kids have moved to canada, and of course receive mandatory financial support from the father.

and there are many more cases like this, and I think they should be addressed in renewing VAWA.

 

[debate_junkie]

And then I'd research your posts 'cause I don't trust you.:tongue4:

I wouldn't trust me either. I was born in this state, and am still here. Something is seriously wrong with me mentally.. I think.

 

[debate_junkie]

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050718-092251-1716r.htm

see the problem with this law is that its evolved into such that men are guilty until proven innocent. Ever since I learned of this law, I thought ok, there seems nothing wrong with it, seems pretty noble. But now, two years later, my uncle is going through a horrible ordeal with his family. Under false accusation from his wife, he has undergone divorce, put under heavy counseling, and due to the nature of the accusations he hasn't been able to see his children for over a year. His wife and kids have moved to canada, and of course receive mandatory financial support from the father.

and there are many more cases like this, and I think they should be addressed in renewing VAWA.

I tried pulling up your link... just sat idle.. like it was trying to pull something up, but didn't. Hmmm maybe my computer is on it's last leg and I should just toss it out the window. Who knows... but there is one thing listed in the title that get's me to think there needs to be more than just a commentary article from the washington times.. as more often than not commentary articles are solely the opinion of the writer... but we'll see. as for now I have to go be exploited by my boss to go earn a buck (I answer phones all afternoon... )hmmm or am I exploiting him? oh well

 

[cnredd]

I wouldn't trust me either. I was born in this state, and am still here. Something is seriously wrong with me mentally.. I think.

You're a liberal....and according to Michael Savage, that's a mental disorder..

 

[ElGringo17]

This female chauvanist piggery act is a clear violation of the 14th Amemendment's Equal Protection Clause which reads in part:

...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equall protection of the laws.

When taking money from the people towards a political cause, the women controlled government in our matriarchal society is sucking up and pandering to the men hating RadFem vaginal supremacists in another shameless women-vote gathering scheme.

I ask, What about violence against men?! Oh, that's right, men, our lives and our bodies are disposable, and we continue to be invisible.

Men are 6 times more likely to be the victims of violent crimes

Men are equally likely to be the victims of domestic violence at th ehands of female partners

Men are almost 100 time more likely to be killed or injured in the workplace

As many men will be raped each year as women

I ask you men, what is it about your psyche and your own self loathing of your own gender that makes you ignore the inequality directed agaisnt your own gender?!

What is it about your character that makes you think to get a woman you need to subjugate your own genders well being and denigrate your own gender?

Violence is something that disproportionately affects men. You don't send aerial fire fighting planes to Antartica, and you for sure as hell don't deploy resources disproportionate to the needs of both genders.

I urge you to contact all your Senators and tell them that until such time legislation is written that equally protects men from violence and recognizes how men will dispproportionately be the victims of violence, that you will not support the VAWA.

 

[debate_junkie]

You're a liberal....and according to Michael Savage, that's a mental disorder..

Well I don't have very high opinions of Savage.. but I'll refrain from any further comment as to make him APPEAR to be right :2wave:

 

[ShamMol]

Yes and no. Do I think that it, in its current form, shoudl be renewed? No. But do I think that many of the ideas that are in it need to be in place? Hell yes.

 

[cnredd]

Well I don't have very high opinions of Savage.. but I'll refrain from any further comment as to make him APPEAR to be right :2wave:

All part of your long-term strategy, eh?

 

[debate_junkie]

All part of your long-term strategy, eh?

of course, though if you figure out what my strategy is, let me know. Either I'm having a blond year, or I haven't developed one yet

 

[cnredd]

of course, though if you figure out what my strategy is, let me know. Either I'm having a blond year, or I haven't developed one yet

Since I'm part of the evil conservative empire, shouldn't it be my duty to tell you what your strategy should be?

 

[debate_junkie]

Since I'm part of the evil conservative empire, shouldn't it be my duty to tell you what your strategy should be?

uhh yes sir.. uhh no sir.. uhhh errmm maybe sir? :shrug:

 

[Diogenes]

Depends....why is it controversial?

There are some assumptions in there that require the accused to prove innocence, and some really off-the-wall provisions.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath before a federal judge. He was guilty, and did not contest the fine levied by the judge, but IMO the questions were completely illegitimate. The courts have always ruled that Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination do not apply in civil cases, but until Clinton signed VAWA into law the courts would not allow questions that were a fishing expedition into the defendant's past. VAWA made it legitimate for the plaintiff's lawyers to ask questions like "Give the names and dates of every woman with whom you ever had sexual contact while in public office" and Clinton, ironically, became one of the most spectacular victims of the law he signed with ruffles and flourishes. Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, should be forced to testify against themselves like that.

 

[ElGringo17]

Well, women have managed to get passed laws that allow them to remain silent about all their multiple sexual encounters, as long as she is accusing a man of rape....so VAWA is just anothe rin a long list of sexist laws where a mans sexual past is admissable but a woman's is not.....

And you fools remain silent about how you are being screwed over by our feminist matriarchal woman controlled government.

 

[debate_junkie]

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050718-092251-1716r.htm

see the problem with this law is that its evolved into such that men are guilty until proven innocent. Ever since I learned of this law, I thought ok, there seems nothing wrong with it, seems pretty noble. But now, two years later, my uncle is going through a horrible ordeal with his family. Under false accusation from his wife, he has undergone divorce, put under heavy counseling, and due to the nature of the accusations he hasn't been able to see his children for over a year. His wife and kids have moved to canada, and of course receive mandatory financial support from the father.

and there are many more cases like this, and I think they should be addressed in renewing VAWA.

There are many abuses of the law, no doubt. But when I pick up the newspaper nearly everyday and see that a man has killed his wife/girlfriend/ex-wife/ex-girlfriend in a DV situation, it makes me think there ISN'T enough being done to combat this issue.

I've never been a victim of DV, but I have worked with victims of DV. In MOST of the cases I worked with, separation of the family was the ONLY way because the abuse had escalated to the children as well. We want these women to NOT be victims anymore, to stand on their own two feet and support themselves and their children in loving nurturing environments. But you're saying they shouldn't do that until counseling has been sought?

Name me a battered woman that would not fear retribution in offering counseling to her abuser? My clients feared for their lives, and most often the police did NOTHING. The courts made the burden of proof on the victims so great in getting PFA's, that often times after the hearings they immediately went to set up arrangements for the care of their children because they didn't know if they'd survive.

VAWA was a step in the right direction... but it was a first step. Any changes that need made, maybe including services for men... that time is now.

Tougher laws? Absolutely, the law ALWAYS needs improvement in these types of areas. Better trained officers, and more of them? Most definitely. Education... Always needed, until the day we die, in my opinion.

 

[ElGringo17]

Due to the fact that women are just as likely to be perpetrators of domestic violence (Gelles and Straus, et al) despite the male hating propaganda being spewed bythe highly lucrative feminist domestic violence industry, it seems as if you are in error.

VAWA violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Cluase and needs to dumped into the Female Nenanderthal Barrel of Bigotry.

 

[Fantasea]

On the basis of the first paragraphs of the article, the VAWA sounds like an abortion foisted on the public by the NOW in order to marginalize men.

Read it for yourself and see.

Fatal flaws: VAWA 2005
By Gordon E. Finley
July 19, 2005 ​

For the past decade, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a reauthorization hearing today, has been a nearly $ 1 billion-dollar-a-year tax-supported industry based upon fatal flaws in three areas: (A) conception, (B) discrimination, and (C) administration. (a) Conceptually, Domestic Violence (DV) programs are predicated on the false presumption men always are the predatory perpetrators and women always the innocent victims. By contrast, the strongest and most consistent finding in decades of worldwide empirical DV research is that both men and women initiate DV at about equal rates and men are at least one-third of the physically harmed victims. A second conceptual fatal flaw is that the only solution to DV is to break up the family and isolate men rather than provide social and counseling services to reunite families that can be rehabilitated. (B) VAWA operates at such a high level of blatant sex discrimination it could not pass muster under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs. VAWA application forms explicitly state programs providing services for men need not apply. Nor are there requirements that women (who initiate one-half of the disputes) take anger management classes to work out their differences equitably with men.

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050718-092251-1716r.htm

 

[nkgupta80]

You can't deny that women are being abused everyday. But you can't cure the problem by creating another problem. DV can lead to horrible situations, but the statistics women's rights groups come up with now a days are bogus. Women are as likely to be the agressors as men. The statistic that constantly comes up in valid research is 50%. But consider the following situation:

Man and woman are in a fight. (All married couples experience that). Woman who is as likely to throw a fit of anger as a man takes a knife and throws it at her husband. Husband ducks and the knife misses. Husband then goes up to her and slaps her. Intention of damage was done both ways. However woman calls police. They arrest the husband, and blame goes on him. The law is biased towards females. Originally it was in good intent (men being physically stronger tend to do more damage), but it has been abused to extremes.

 

[debate_junkie]

You can't deny that women are being abused everyday. But you can't cure the problem by creating another problem. DV can lead to horrible situations, but the statistics women's rights groups come up with now a days are bogus. Women are as likely to be the agressors as men. The statistic that constantly comes up in valid research is 50%. But consider the following situation:

Man and woman are in a fight. (All married couples experience that). Woman who is as likely to throw a fit of anger as a man takes a knife and throws it at her husband. Husband ducks and the knife misses. Husband then goes up to her and slaps her. Intention of damage was done both ways. However woman calls police. They arrest the husband, and blame goes on him. The law is biased towards females. Originally it was in good intent (men being physically stronger tend to do more damage), but it has been abused to extremes.

True... BUT in the situation you outlined.. the man has a choice not to slap her. Yes I know it would be "unmanly" to not defend oneself.. but if the woman is the aggressor, would slapping her make the situation better? Absolutely not. I agree there is a presumption of guilt towards men, but that exists because it IS predominately men who are the aggressors.. and in answer to the problem society shifted too far to the opposite extreme, as they always do.

A few months ago, there was a murder-suicide on the premises of my husband's employer. The man, unable to face his wife was leaving him, went to where she worked, hid down in the locker room all day, and when she was getting ready to leave, shot her twice in the head, and then killed himself. Situations like these are TOO common in this society. Steps HAVE to be taken.. and like I said before, WAWA may be flawed, but up until WAWA there was very little legislation concerning DV. Baby steps, people, baby steps are better than no steps at all.

 

[nkgupta80]

True... BUT in the situation you outlined.. the man has a choice not to slap her. Yes I know it would be "unmanly" to not defend oneself.. but if the woman is the aggressor, would slapping her make the situation better? Absolutely not. I agree there is a presumption of guilt towards men, but that exists because it IS predominately men who are the aggressors.. and in answer to the problem society shifted too far to the opposite extreme, as they always do.

Of course slapping her wouldn't make it better, but the man is not the aggressor in this case, the woman was. So man shouldn't practice self-defense? And the manly thing would be to take it from a woman. Many men would rather take the aggression from their wives rather than do the unmanly thing and hold her back. If he didn;t slap her, and she slapped him a couple of times, the man has to hold back. If he calls the police, there would be a few laughs and thats all. Of course vice versa, if the guy slaps her around a couple of times, she can call the police and there is mandatory arrest.

Considering that women ARE 50% of the aggressors in a husband-wife argument, shouldnt the case be considered and if deemed nothing serious, both husband and wife be put under anger-management therapy or marriage counseling? the problem is the case sometimes isn't even tried. Under VAWA you assume that the incident wasn't and won't be an isolated incident. And when the case is tried there are policies in many states where women don't have to testify. It's retarded. Each case should be considered individually rather than automatically putting blame on the man.

A few months ago, there was a murder-suicide on the premises of my husband's employer. The man, unable to face his wife was leaving him, went to where she worked, hid down in the locker room all day, and when she was getting ready to leave, shot her twice in the head, and then killed himself. Situations like these are TOO common in this society. Steps HAVE to be taken.. and like I said before, WAWA may be flawed, but up until WAWA there was very little legislation concerning DV. Baby steps, people, baby steps are better than no steps at all.

I never said VAWA shouldn't have been passed, but the form its in is greatly abused and deemed by many unconstitutional. Instead of solely treating the real serious DV cases, it has become an easy tool to use for women who want divorce. Any law that takes the form of "guilty until proven innocent" should have no place in our justice system. Therefore it should be changed before passed, and if it isn't then I say don't renew it.