|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by LSBeene on 03:34 PM June 9th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This makes my skin crawl.
So a woman who will false charges (not all are false, but some are) will now be able to take PAID VACATION from work that won't be counted against her after she 911's her husband out of his home and his kids life.
What-a-joke.
Steven
Guerrilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:27 PM June 9th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, not exactly.
She would be legally entitled to the DV leave...
But in their wisdom, the superficially male Congresspersons endorsing VAWA 2005 have limited this particular "special protection" to no more than ten days "unpaid" leave, which need not be concurrent ... it can be intermittent or on a reduced leave basis as the female "victim" chooses. (She could say "I have DV counseling on Fridays for the next ten weeks ... See ya!")
Of course, the employer actually covers for the absence of a female employee... typically by doubling a male employee's workload.
The specifics are in -- "Sec. 41504. Entitlement to Emergency Leave for Addressing Domestic or Sexual Violence."
The proposed female-only entitlement will be in addition to Family and Medical Leave Act provisions already allowing up to and/or more than six weeks of unpaid workplace leave.
Husbands & boyfriends whose female partners are kicking the crap out of them will just have to "suck it up" and act like men.
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:00 PM June 9th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The sexist misandry machine that funds hate policies on men/fathers is going up for refunding.
Every decent man and women should be involved in stopping this sexist hate act.
There is nothing more important to the men's movement.
WHAT IS GETTING DOEN ABOUT THIS?
Regards,
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:02 PM June 9th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting that the site that publishes the full text of Congressional bills still does not have a web link to VAWA 2005.
The site is called "Thomas" (as in Jefferson).
The Senate bill that Biden introduced is tagged S. 1197.
A search on "our" government's site for the bill produces the following:
"The text of S.1197 has not yet been received from GPO. Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed."
Interesting that our esteemed elected leaders can propose literally billions in taxpayer dollars to fund the gender war against men, but they can't afford a few minimum-wage typists to get the f-ing travesty up on the 'Net in a timely manner.
Eventually the full Senate text of the bill will show up here -
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:95:./ temp/~bdDtiL::
A House bill has yet to be introduced, but is expected within a week or two.
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:10 PM June 9th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
This proposed reauthorization is a kick in the stomach of all males who have been victimized by domestic violence or domestic violence laws. Way to go Biden for contributing to the growing anarchy (lawlessness) that violent women are allowed under the man-hating laws of the United States of America. There is no greater anarchy than VAWA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:25 PM June 10th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
The complete VAWA reauthorization bill was published on the Thomas web site earlier today.
The best way to read it is to retrieve the "printer-friendly" version, and then save it in your word processing app. It's 114 pages.
Interesting that the Thomas server times out your session after about 15 minutes and forces you to repeat the search!
Billions for VAWA and our government can't afford a high end server array?
Link to URL at -
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C c109:./temp/~c109Dw5zxw
(Roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is getting done about this?
Check out this site www.vawa4all.org for a group that is doing something. There is a paypal link there. Donate if you can.
Have a look at the endorsers page where John Archer, Warren Farrell, Richard Gelles, Erin Pizzey, Jan Brown, Martin Feibert and many others are taking a stand and saying that this bill is misandry.
Join us July 15-16 in Wash. DC Glenn Sacks, Warren Farrell, Scott Garman, J Kamme
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 01:08 PM June 11th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I visited the vawa4all.org site briefly.
It appears to be a fledgling (i.e. underfunded) advocacy group with good intentions, actual gender equality principles, sufficiently anti-gender-feminist to be credible...
And trying to change America's Congress by selling t-shirts and bumper stickers.
Let's just calculate how many of these no doubt attractive and fashionable items would have to be sold to counter the MONEY of N.O.W., the largesse of the well-entrenched DV Industry, or the taxpayer extortion of VAWA proposing several Billions in the just-introduced reauthorization bill....
This is like a Mom & Pop storefront trying to defeat Wal-Mart!
That is precisely where the men's movement is today. Can you spell --
u-n-d-e-r-c-a-p-i-t-a-l-i-z-ed?
But I'm optimistic.
Goliath had a crucial weakness.
Hubris.
(Look it up.)
It's priceless. And fatal.
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:28 AM June 10th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
VAWA will be passed in enhanced and more discriminatory form, extending the frontiers of State this year, next year and the year after that. Do not hold your breath. It would be an absurdity for any society grounded in our current base philosophy of life to do otherwise.
A State that implements a Bradely amendment, executes a policy of Extraordinary Renditions, Unilaterally imposes Regime change and whose allies themeselves institute equivalents of the Star Chamber in Family Courts and a Special immigration Appeals Comission for example.
Fascism, Nazism, Apartheid, Slavery, Feminism etc, etc, all these are manifestations of functioning democracies in our time. They were and are political policy positions adopted by allied States in Unison and not alone.
Does the mens movement propose an alternative grounding philosophy of state: Or do we stand for mere inclusion via legislation, in the goods and spoils of corruption from internal and extra national perfidy ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 05:40 AM June 10th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the response I got from by US Representative about VAWA. I doubt if he even read my original letter. This sounds like a canned stock response. I did fax him the letter again so he can have a second chance to "get it."
Thank you for contacting me regarding funding levels for the Violence Against Women Act.
Statistics on crimes of violence against women depict a safety problem that some believe may seriously limit the ability of threatened women to function fully in American society. Such crimes often have devastating consequences for these women personally, as well as for their families and society as a whole. In this light, on October 28, 2000 President Clinton signed the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 into law.
I believe one of the many roles of government is to prosecute individuals who violate another individual's rights and to preserve our system of justice. I favor a strong justice system that punishes criminals as a means to deter crime, protect human rights, and safeguard victims from further acts of crime. I look forward to helping fight sexual assault. I believe, more than ever, that we must act against sexual exploitation and violence. It deeply concerns me whenever I hear reports that women are stalked, raped, or abused.
With that said, President Bush's total FY2006 request to fund the Violence Against Women Act is $363 million. Please keep in mind that this figure may or may not reflect the final budget allocations. Rest assured, I will keep your views in mind as this legislation works its way through the House/Senate conference.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns. Please feel free to contact me again if I can be of further assistance. Also, you may like to know that you can contact me via email at gingrey.ga@mail.house.gov or my website www.house.gov/gingrey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:20 AM June 11th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I have a lot to say. It's a disjointed ramble. Take what you want, leave the rest.
I think that the best angle of attack against VAWA at this moment in time is to label it as "Feminist Pork". Instead of focusing on gender inequity, lets focus on giving good money trail examples of how the money is being used to promote RADICAL Feminist (not just feminist)and RADICAL LEFTIST politics. (The latter might even be better than the former).
Radical feminists are tied into other radical movements, including ones that are sympahetic with terrorists--we could have a contest to brainstorm effective ways to point this out to the public.
We need to point out to the public how seemingly benign civil-rights based feminists are connected to family-hating,America-hating, man-hating organizations (see David Horowitz's network of radical groups chart at his Frontpage Magazine website). Ask the so called moderate feminist why they apologize and minimize the hateful radicals. And if they want good things for our society, why they are not openly condeming the haters in their midst. We need to work out this kind of rhetoric, write a it into a hymnal, and sing it in unison like a choir, day after day, year after year, decade after decade.
With persistence we will win easily over time. Because in truth, most Americans are on our side. This is way Feminists have to lie so much.
Lets have a contest on how many variations on: "They'd like us to think VAWA is about protecting women" "VAWA: Radical Feminist Pork!"
We don't debate with them, we characterize them. We characterize ourself as good and them as bad, while ignoring any retort they may have. Sound familiar? Its what they do. We need to stop congradulating ourselves for winning debate points and instead become effective political warriors and destroy them. I learned this years ago practicing Aikido--ignore what your opponent does--but do what you do--God gave you a life and free will and it is yours to do with what you want--same for them--go your own way and do what you do--avoid the conflict--get them wound up in wanting to fight--you win, without particularly noticing how it happened. Your to busy doing what you do, enjoying your Divine, God-given existence.
Remember Gandhi: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they get angry at you, then they fight you, then YOU WIN!
How about a talking point like this:
The RADICAL FEMINISTS want you to believe that we are against protecting women. NONSENSE! We are against RADICAL FEMINIST pork money that wants to destroy the family because they HATE motherhood.
(this could be a good line for changing the subject in an arguement--which is to say, changing the ground from something unfriendly to you to something that is friendly--you know that annoying thing that feminist activist always do--and which causes us to usually get flustered and demoralized. "I'm totally against violence--but I'm also against hundreds of millions of dollars going to radical family-hating (or filling the blank relative to the context) organizations.
I think that couching our main thrust as an equity for men issue is too exotic a concept for most people right now--especially with all the kidnapped pretty girls and child molesters on the news these days.
We need to cultivate our attack and work at it all the time--not three months before the critical vote. We are probably too late for this time around. We need to spend the next six years (I think its six years) consciouness raising, cultivating our message(s) and identitfying our natural allies (like groups agains govt waste) and working with them as they work with us.
We also have some work to do on our public image as MRAs. We have to decide what we want to/need to look like, and then begin cultivating that image.
Right now, to the average person (esp. average man) we look like, and I mean *look* like, not *are* weak, whiney, losers, unemployed, abused--all the things men are afraid of being.
We want attract men, not scare them away.
Funnily enough, average women see MRAs as: Angry, abusive, hateful, resentful,retrograde,unreliable. All the things that women fear and loathe about men.
We want to attract women, not scare them away.
Lets have a contest--what adjectives would we like to have attached the MRM--then we can plan how we go about becoming in the public eye those things--for example: Men's Rights Represent progress and the future (of say, "The Father Involve Family--that might be a good all purpose image building phrase)
We are only attracting, for the most part, victims of feminist/chivilrous inequity--we need to attract the greater public. We need to be more sympathetic.
I think we should have contests among ourselves to come up with ideas, a fun way of working together.
We have a long, LONG way to go. Although we can NEVER, EVER act in anger or violence, there probably will come a time when violence will be wielded at us (it already has). To suceed we will have to be prepared for this,and to take it with out lashing back in anger (Gandhi:they fight us, we win.) Take a look at the American civil rights movement and MLK, go rent the movie Gandhi. It isn't about you, it is about we and the kind of world we want for our children. I'm fairly flexible about the future, but don't want it to be a FEMINIST FUTURE.
We are not *fighting* for our rights, we are *struggling* (fight implies conflict) for them. To do this requires the acknowledgement and willingness to suffer PAIN, and more pain--and maybe even violence, maybe even death (let alone being fired from you job). We need to comfort and shelter each other--which requires that we know each other (beyond these useful, but distance internet boards). We can't be anonymous to each other. If we are not willing to suffer and risk our lives, lose our jobs (and give each other jobs)we will not suceed.
Our biggest enemy is isolation, alienation and a false sense of hopelessness that comes from not knowing each other. And not listening to each others ideas. Everybody has at least a little carrot or piece of potato to add to the soup pot. Everybody amongst us is valuable.
If we aren't willing (emphasis on WILLING not SUFFER) to work together and suffer together--and I mean really SUFFER if we have to--otherwise, we might as well just give in and, go with the flow--put our butts in the air and say--do me!! Hell, it might feel good--its what most men are doing these days.
Myself, I would prefer not to be a feminist F-toy. It's how I personally want use my God-given free will. Which, because of the times will require that I gracefully, mindfully, suffer some pain.
Maybe even a lot of pain.
--my name is BlueTrigger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:30 PM June 11th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Given the conservative climate of the country right now, it does make a lot of sense to attack VAWA as excessive spending on non-crisis issues and the continuing of an already bloated Feminism, Inc. bureaucracy.
Two obvious problems ---
(1) Male legislators (the majority of co-conspirators) enjoy the dollars they obtain from feminist lobbies. And, if they're "pure" and do not take the pay-offs, they are put on a "hit list." So they are motivated by profit and fear.
And so they roll over and assume the position...
(2)Your (and my) definition of "pork" is a rad-fem's definition of "my $100,000 salary." VAWA is not a cause any longer, it is not even a coherent ideology.... it is a BUSINESS!
Free market gender oppression at it's most creative!
Even Bill Gates knows the score, as about 70% of MicroSoft's recent hires are female!
MRA's can have the lofty principles they enjoy,their dedication to justice and gender-neutrality, but until the tax-payer dollar tap gets installed with a gender-splitter, they're ain't gonna be no payday.... and no prominent men's movement access to powers inside the beltway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:22 PM June 11th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I've always wondered what feminists might have on a lot of these Senators (as in blackmail material).
I'm sure they all well remember and cringe at what happened to Sen. Bob Packwood just before the first VAWA was voted on. Not to mention Clarence Thomas's high tech lynching.
Yeah. Joe Biden seems like the type could have a BDSM mistress or something. With an envelope of full color photos. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 05:20 PM June 11th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Good point.
But intimidating an elected official, if male, does not require evidence.... only allegations.
Works from the local level right on up to the D.C. beltway.
Feminazis have every Congresspersons' testicals in a mayonaisse jar in a tiny exhibit at N.O.W.'s headquarters. (The lesbian Congresspersons have an escrow account....)
This tyranny is ironically just what all these male "wussie-poopies" (thanks Thundercloud for coining the correct label!) have all made the Law of the Land.
What can you say about slaves who have the right to vote, and the power, and special protections, and lifetime taxpayer-paid pensions, and social security not subject to tampering, and to-a-man still vote to be SLAVES?
You can suggest many things.
You might observe that they've been bought and sold.
You might suggest they have forgotten the concept of honor.
You might suggest many other things....
But not ever.... that they are MEN.
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 06:30 PM June 11th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I think that the best angle of attack against VAWA at this moment in time is to label it as "Feminist Pork". Instead of focusing on gender inequity, lets focus on giving good money trail examples of how the money is being used to promote RADICAL Feminist (not just feminist)and RADICAL LEFTIST politics. (The latter might even be better than the former).
I don't know what is the best angle of attack against VAWA, but I know something has to be done or all men will not have the civil rights of hogs in the court system. Unofficially, we really don't have the civil rights of hogs in the court system now but after the VAWA is reaffirmed it will be official!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:41 PM June 12th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, on the positive side...
After VAWA 2005 is passed, the Marriage Strike will grow rapidly.
And men will discover that voluntary celibacy is not fatal.
Then, scorned women will get angry, then confused, then really confused, then really angry, then desperate to understand their confusion....
Then, happily unmarried men will say to them ---
"What was your name ... again? Would you like to buy me a drink?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish it were that easy. The problem is that for every man who is an MRA and actively boycotting marriage there are 100 men out there who are unconscious chivalrous automatons who will be more than happy to snatch that girl that our striking MRA avoided. Then guess who has their seed put into the genetic pool and who snuffs themselves out in the evolutionary chain? Duh.
Join us July 15-16 in Wash. DC Glenn Sacks, Warren Farrell, Scott Garman, J Kamme
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:01 AM June 11th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
We have to stop whining and start taking action. I have contacted Biden and everyone else should!
He cares about votes and the day men are as vocal and organized as women is the day these types of laws will be stopped.
So be persistent and unrenting. Men can effect change if they will act like men!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:35 PM June 11th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"We have to stop whining and start taking action."
A little negative publicity for the wussie-poopie Senators.
"Politicians like Biden stir the pot, ask for billions for VAWA, and call out, “More meat! Enjoy your stew!"
Happy Disenfranchised Father's Day
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Roy writes "A Press Release from Joseph Biden’s (D-DE) office yesterday announces the bill to reauthorize and expand funding for the Violence Against Women Act. Obviously there is no mention in the bill about male victims of DV. In cleverly worded language, the bill seeks to increase funding while "saving money." Special goals include more anti-boy "education" in our schools, mandating DV "home visitations," making employers pay for female’s leave-from-work due to alleged DV, requiring doctor’s to interrogate patients about DV, and expanding the hysteria about the non-existent campus rape crisis. Link at