Violence Against Women Act - Who Voted Against It?

[davjohns 1]

Yeah. At one point, I was Major Johnson. That was a popular topic when I was marching in a parade in New Orleans at Mardi Gras.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

If it's a lesbian couple, the police grab a bag of popcorn and watch? (If they are hot and in bra and panties fighting that is...)

Well, yeah.

[davjohns 1]

I was a cop. The lesbians who have domestic disturbances are never 'hot'. But the strippers...

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

I was a cop. The lesbians who have domestic disturbances are never 'hot'. But the strippers...

I was a strip club DJ for a couple years.....IME at least half the strippers ARE lesbians!

Those would have to be the best calls.

Hot lesbian strippers fighting in sexy outfits. Id let them work it out.

[deltron80 0]

Quote

to eliminate the long-standing open season on women in "domestic" cases.

Care to elaborate on this? In what way is it "open season" on women in "domestic" cases? Usually women are given favoritism over men in these cases under the law.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

to eliminate the long-standing open season on women in "domestic" cases.

Care to elaborate on this? In what way is it "open season" on women in "domestic" cases? Usually women are given favoritism over men in these cases under the law.

I did, in post #8.

[deltron80 0]

Quote

the long, long chronic problem of a man beating up a woman, but when the police arrived they did essentially nothing, because it was just "a domestic matter."

This happens to men all the time, but if you're suggesting this still happens to women I'd request you share whatever it is you're smoking with the rest of us.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

the long, long chronic problem of a man beating up a woman, but when the police arrived they did essentially nothing, because it was just "a domestic matter."

This happens to men all the time, but if you're suggesting this still happens to women I'd request you share whatever it is you're smoking with the rest of us.

Look, let's raise the level of discussion here. It's not black-or-white. Oftentimes societal attitudes, laws on the books, and non-statutory policies (such as a police dept's field procedures) all evolve closely in parallel, in both time and substance, constantly cross-influencing each other, and thus often resembling each other. As society began to recognize the problem, some dealt with it via letters to the editor and editorials, some by writing to or lobbying their govt representatives, some legislators drafted bills to mandate change, and some police departments were astute enough to evolve their field procedures on their own initiative.

The result is that to some degree, even without new laws, some police departments - some, perhaps many, but not all - have evolved their field procedures to where their officers' handling of these really tough situations has become more even-handed and gender-neutral. But anyone who thinks it doesn't still happen in some locations, or with some officers, is just as wrong as someone who thinks it still happens everywhere.

All things in balance, Grasshopper.

[deltron80 0]

Actually I would argue that domestic violence law has swung so far in women's favor over the past century that it actually is discriminatory towards men. If anything we need a "violence against men act."

But why do we need to specify the gender at all? Why do we only want to protect women? It's pure and blatant sexism in its simplest form. Quite black and white.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

But why do we need to specify the gender at all?

Ideally, we shouldn't, IMO.

Quote

Why do we only want to protect women?

I don't think we do, or at least we shouldn't. But at the same time, let's acknowledge, and not ignore, the simple fact of most adult men's greater physical strength than most adult females. The discrepancy is real, and it does make a difference in a fight (absent weapons, etc.); nobody would deny that. Policy-makers are not doing the whole job if they close their eyes to it.

[deltron80 0]

Quote

I don't think we do, or at least we shouldn't. But at the same time, let's acknowledge, and not ignore, the simple fact of most adult men's greater physical strength than most adult females. The discrepancy is real, and it does make a difference in a fight (absent weapons, etc.); nobody would deny that. Policy-makers are not doing the whole job if they close their eyes to it.

So you're appealing to the fact that men are stronger...that's a bit weak if you look at the facts.

Around 40% of domestic violence victims are men and there is literally zero awareness of this fact. Despite men's "greater strength" they don't report their abuse because they will either be ridiculed or arrested. They can't even use their strength to defend themselves from attack or they will be the ones that are arrested. Women initiate domestic violence just as much as men, but only the men get arrested. Not only that, but women use weapons more often to make up for their "lack of strength." They also have much more sympathy under the law and even have a unique legal defense they can use that is not available to men: "Battered women syndrome." Comes in quite handy when you murder your husband and don't want to go to jail. But we need to protect these delicate snowflakes! They are naturally weak and always the victims of big bad men of course. Don't be so afraid of men. We're people too.

[wmw999 2,534]

Well, actually then, most "domestic violence" is probably perpetrated against children. Only many people are OK with that, because it's how they've always done it.

The criteria for child abuse is normally that it leaves a mark that lasts for more than an hour; I believe that something like that also applies to inter-partner domestic violence.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that domestic violence against men is under-reported. However, I'm also willing to believe that more of it is unlikely to pass the lasting-mark test as well. It'd be interesting to see some actual data on that.

Yeah, I know -- I'm prejudiced because I'm an evil woman

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

So you're appealing to the fact that men are stronger.

Sigh. I'm not "appealing" to it; I'm identifying it as one of several existing factors.
I've made my point.

[deltron80 0]

Quote

Well, actually then, most "domestic violence" is probably perpetrated against children. Only many people are OK with that, because it's how they've always done it.

The criteria for child abuse is normally that it leaves a mark that lasts for more than an hour; I believe that something like that also applies to inter-partner domestic violence.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that domestic violence against men is under-reported. However, I'm also willing to believe that more of it is unlikely to pass the lasting-mark test as well. It'd be interesting to see some actual data on that.

Yeah, I know -- I'm prejudiced because I'm an evil woman

Wendy P.

Speaking of child abuse, women commit more of that than men also, but most people don't grab their kids when a woman walks by on the street.

And no, I don't think all women are evil, I'm just tired of everyone saying all men are evil as this bill does.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Around 40% of domestic violence victims are men and there is literally zero awareness of this fact. Despite men's "greater strength" they don't report their abuse because they will either be ridiculed or arrested. .

Indeed. I work as a social worker. I have had at least two men that have been targets of abuse from their significant other. The local domestic violence center basically said they did not have any help available to my clients. The only service they had available that men could avail themselves of was the "abusers" class.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[randompoints 0]

i guess i'm just curious as to the point of your original post. You like this Act, i think it has the real potential to go to far. I understand most of your points and I understand what you hope to avoid. At the same time you acknowledge some of my points, and maybe some of the other counter points.

So why post a list of senators who voted no, do you really have an issue with them? I mean the process worked in your favor almost 70% agreed this was a good Act. and it passed. Why make a list of evil senators who opposed. Isn't it likely they saw it as some others that maybe this wasn't the way to address your concerns. For this particular act i wouldn't say anyone was right or wrong for either vote, its just such a gray area and i just hope i'm wrong with how i think it will be implemented

[Andy9o8 2]

Because I want citizens who care about these issues, and might be swing voters in the states represented by these Republican men (and they're all Republican men), to be aware of these Senators' votes, and flag the issue for further investigation, to decide whether or not it will influence how they (the citizens) might vote when these guys are up for re-election.

[deltron80 0]

You still haven't given a reason why we need a special bill to protect women and vilify men.

I never thought I'd find myself defending people like the men on your list, but at least they're not blatantly pandering to the 52% of voters that are women.

[randompoints 0]

fair enough, I still think its a bad act tho and i do care about domestic Violence, seen way to much of it. This just doesn't address the issues properly IMO

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

fair enough, I still think its a bad act tho and i do care about domestic Violence, seen way to much of it. This just doesn't address the issues properly IMO

(context - Bart and Lisa are running for school council against each other - here's a clip from the debate. it really does show political reality)

Bart: I just think our veterans deserve a little recognition.
Lisa: That's what Veterans Day is for, Bart.
Bart: But is that really enough to honor our brave soldiers?
Lisa: They also have Memorial Day!
Bart: Oh, Lisa, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, the important thing is that veterans deserve a day to honor them!
Lisa: They have two!
Bart: Well, maybe they should have three. I'm Bart Simpson.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

vilify men.

Yeah. Please see the opening sentence to my post #33. With that, we're done here.