|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:22 AM July 28th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"In this part, unless the context unequivocally requires otherwise, ...assistance to victims of domestic violence... shall be construed to cover grants that provide assistance to female victims, male victims, or both."
In the State of CA, it's just written into law that valid programs for women like domestic violence shelters cannot be challenged so how did we have a major success again? It sounds to me like they're just going to continue discriminating against men like they've always done, only they're going to write language to clearly deny male victims of domestic violence - just like the denied hearing testimony from (or about) male victims at last week's Judiciary Committee hearings.
This looks like no success at all to me.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:20 PM July 28th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray is right.
All they've done is create a loophole so it sounds like they are not going to discriminate.
Nothing will change with this language. Not a thing.
To get real change will require rewriting the title, creating an office for males (just like the women), removing all of the hundreds of references to women only, and much more.
This is a joke and they are laughing at us.
The Marxist-Feminists are very bright when it comes to creating this gaping loophole.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:49 PM July 28th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The feminism can do NOTHING honestly or honorably...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 03:28 PM July 28th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
" ... unless the context unequivocally requires otherwise..."
This is another masterful use of language to conceal, deceive, and dodge the actual mechanisms of power imbedded in VAWA '05.
This language totally and intentionally omits any mention of what constitutes "context," which criteria merit a definition of "unequivocality,"
and most importantly --- WHO gets to decide that an exemption from gender-neutrality in providing programs and services is warranted.
The language is subjective, vague, imprecise, and intentionally so.
Looks like a phrase inserted to permit politicians who will vote to re-authorize VAWA to do a typical "C.Y.A." maneuver to allege that "they supported gender-neutral language and inclusivity..."
In my simple view, this waffly "loop-hole" language allows for the continuation of feminist total control of VAWA's implementation.
What does this language COMPEL?
What changes in implementation are MANDATED?
The pol-shills for VAWA may be registering some MRA dissention on their Radar screens; but they're doing what they always do first when confronted with an inconvenient decision ---
craft language that allows them to appease both sides without actually taking a stand that could harm their own political futures.
Smoke and mirrors.... bread and circuses...
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:08 PM July 28th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I too believe, sadly, that it is of no significance whatsoever to true sex neutrality in the interpretation of the Bill.
I believe it is intended to cover homosexual male victims, who are presently outside the scope of the legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whilst the wording is challenged . . what it does say is . . Grants should be available for men . . so someone needs to test this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:50 PM July 28th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
The wording may not satisfy the radical extremist MRAs--pardon me, I mean the more uncompromising MRAs. however, to get this kind of political recognition at all is significant. The phrase works to the advantage of MRAs in two ways:
the standard for determining which contexts could conceivably "unequivocally" be construed "otherwise" (than to be gender neutral) could be high indeed;
the political climate is cynically conservative enough that this sly wording might have been slipped in not just as a concession to MRAs, but to other political groups, such as the religious right and the Gays, Guns and God constituency, who are concerned about the excesses of VAWA for their own reasons.
So don't sweat it. I suggest reading Machiavelli instead. Or take a page from Turd Blossom's notebook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:52 PM July 28th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not opening a beer yet, but I'm glad to see this and I'm especially thankful to those who are working like crazy to on the very fierce front lines to make changes, even small ones like this. This will set the stage for more. It's miniscule in comparison to its beastly host, and to what justice would actually look like, but in light of the political realities, it's a significant start, and I believe in more ways than not it will help in the long run. The VAWA battle is never over. There's a whole other house to deal with this year, and many battlefields ahead. This is a step, and it matters.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:20 PM July 28th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, Marc. We can't drop the ball here. We need to use this -- to use the HELL out of this -- and bring it up while we ask for federal funding of men's shelters around the country. If they try to use it as a loophole to bar men's shelters from money, we must claim it as our own as a way to prevent them from doing so.
Boy Genteel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:35 PM July 29th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not opening a beer yet, but I'm glad to see this and I'm especially thankful to those who are working like crazy to on the very fierce front lines to make changes, even small ones like this. This will set the stage for more.
This is the voice of political clarity. While I'll agree that, as Marc A and Warble point out, that it's "miniscule in comparison to its beastly host," it is a start. The anti-male interpretation of the bill that Warble provided is an interpretation based on current practice: much of what Warble points out is not, strictly, semantically speaking, in the language of the bill, per se, though there are some troubling portions that appear to violate due process, such as the presence of victim advocates, it has to be inferred, since the bill is called "VAWA" and not "MAWA" that the victim advocate represents women.
I'll happilly admit that my statement wasn't terribly bright and informed--whatever. Nevertheless, my dim, uninformed point won't go away (which is why Warble spent so much time taking umbrage at the phrase uncompromsing MRAs): it is a sign of radicalism, as opposed to hard-nosed realism, to despise small successes. That doesn't invalidate the situation as Warble paints it. It's simply a waste of energy to be so bitter about a small success, given the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:55 AM July 29th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"...the political climate is cynically conservative enough that this sly wording might have been slipped in not just as a concession to MRAs, but to other political groups,"
Okay, I'll try to be optimistic. I'm afraid life's experience have tainted my innocence, corrupted my naivitee', and left me also, ever so slightly cynical, especially when it comes to government helping male victims of domestic violence.
I recall the words of the wise old Indian Chief from the movie the Outlaw Josey Wales, who related that he once visited DC and recieved advice from his elected Rep, who told him, "Endeavor to persevere."
VAWA can you spare a dime?
Click "View Larger" Stats on the back
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:22 PM July 29th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
AU writes, " The wording may not satisfy the radical extremist MRAs--pardon me, I mean the more uncompromising MRAs. however, to get this kind of political recognition at all is significant."
This is not an exactly bright and informed statement. Lets quote the actual massive VAWA upgrade to see what is really implied...even with the smoke screens in place:
1) `(2) CHILD MALTREATMENT- The term `child maltreatment' means the physical or psychological abuse or neglect of a child or youth, including sexual assault and abuse."
What this really means is that if a father were to get angry with a child, do something like call the child stupid, that the male would be subject to arrest and/or the child will be removed from the home.
Hell. A guy at work sent a photo to all of us with naked pictures of his daughter. Now with the new version, I can have him arrested for child abuse….I can most likely do that now under CA law.
2) `(5) DATING PARTNER- The term `dating partner' refers to a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the abuser, and existence of such a relationship based on a consideration of--
`(A) the length of the relationship;
`(B) the type of relationship; and
`(C) the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.
Under this provision, if a male and female were making out, the male touched the female’s breasts, the female later had remorse or buyers regret, the male would be arrested and prosecuted under VAWA. No such provisions are made for the male.
In addition, there is no responsibility of the female to turn down such sexual advances. What we get is more false arrests and criminalization of males.
3)`(21) STALKING- The term `stalking' means engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to--
`(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others; or
`(B) suffer substantial emotional distress.
So. A woman is called a vile name say four to five times. Now she is afraid of the man and "fear for his or her safety or the safety of others..."
Worse, somebody else (a.k.a. a Marxist-Feminist) overhears the vile language and 911’s the male. He goes to jail on her word. Then the lovely mandatory prosecution provisions and funding incentives kick in so there is no possibility of overturning an accusation....
Guilt by accusation. How nice.
Oh. But I’m a radical MRA…..
This represents an outright major and radical of lowering of the standard to claim that a person is in fear for their safety. It is 100% subjective and has no foundation in an objective reality. Simply name-calling or swearing is sufficient for an arrest.
4) 30) VICTIM ADVOCATE- The term `victim advocate' means a person, whether paid or serving as a volunteer, who provides services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, or dating violence under the auspices or supervision of a victim services program.
First, what in the hell is any government funded politically motivated "victim advocate" doing in the legal process? Where is the government funded "accused advocate?" Guilt by government funded advocate accusation.
Nice.
Also, notice the complete absence of any qualifications for a “victim advocate.” What this does is lower the standard for a Marxist-Feminist volunteers to criminalize any man or male child. It politicizes accusations against males and lowers the standards of evidence for sending an innocent male to jail.
Next, the standard for recognizing a person as a mandated reporter is also dramatically lowered in this language. Such people get instant credibility to make any allegation without any proof and send a male to jail.
It will no longer even matter if the allegations have merit.
5) `(13) LEGAL ASSISTANCE- The term `legal assistance' includes assistance to adult and youth victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking in--
`(A) family, tribal, territorial, immigration, employment, administrative agency, housing matters, campus administrative or protection or stay away order proceedings, and other similar matters; and
`(B) criminal justice investigations, prosecutions and post-trial matters (including sentencing, parole, and probation) that impact the victim's safety and privacy.
Obviously, free legal assistance is being dramatically expanded to the female segment of the population. Think that it will applies to males? That is just stupid sloppy thinking.
-------------------------------------------------- -
The above is only what was added to the bill after the Senate Committee of Judiciary got their hands on it. It represents a radical expansion of the original bill. There are also massive billion dollar increases in spending to massively expand the power of the government to manage ALL GENDER interactions.
But as an MRA I'm being radical for pointing out that fact.
In sec 102 we find the following:
"SEC. 102. GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE ARREST AND ENFORCE PROTECTION ORDERS IMPROVEMENTS...."
`(9) To develop State, territorial, or local policies, procedures, and protocols, and to develop effective methods for identifying the pattern and history of abuse that indicates which party is the actual perpetrator of abuse. "
This is absurd on the face of it. We all KNOW that there are instances of mutual violence. The clear intent of this phrase is to assign the pattern to the male simply because it will be assumed that the male is physically stronger and therefore the dominate aggressor.
Damn. The communist and conservative chauvinists were extremely evil in crafting that language. This tops the entire damn cake! With this language and some liberal/conservative chauvinist judge making a ruling all males will be formally defined as the only possible dominate aggressor (w/ few exceptions).
But...again...I'm a RADICAL MRA because I don't believe the government, police forces, Marxist-Feminists activists, and others have any business in interfering with my family unless there is actual violence instead of this moral relativistic crap that includes arresting the male for a woman’s medical problems, accidents resulting in physical injury, or whatever.
It's all about creating a database for sending a man to jail based on a woman and the victim advocates testimony.
But….again I’m radical for point out that fact. To continue:
"`(10) To plan, develop and establish comprehensive victim service and support centers, such as family justice centers, designed to bring together victim advocates from non-profit, non-governmental victim services organizations, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, probation officers, governmental victim assistants, forensic medical professionals, civil legal attorneys, chaplains, legal advocates, representatives from community-based organizations and other relevant public or private agencies or organizations into one centralized location, in order to improve safety, access to services, and confidentiality for victims and families."
There is no way this will include males. Period. Gad. It represents a MASSIVE expansion of government and community power to intrude into, control, and terrorize family members.
Do we really want over 12 dozen organizations interfering with our families and regulating our interactions so that can get government money??!!
Hell no!
`(11) To develop and implement policies and training for police, prosecutors, and the judiciary in recognizing, investigating, and prosecuting instances of sexual assault, with an emphasis on recognizing the threat to the community for repeat crime perpetration by such individuals...."
So now we get an almost complete loss of any right to a trial-by-jury, the presumption of innocence, and get a new system of "....family justice centers, designed to bring together victim advocates from non-profit, non-governmental victim services organizations...."
This means that as a man that if you are accused of DV then the entire Marxist-Feminist and Conservative Chauvinist mechanisms of male hate will be arrayed against you to send you to jail and/or to force the male to admit guilt without a trial. We already see this in Colorado and Canada.
Gees. Then there is the following:
"`(a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED- The Attorney General, through the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women, may award grants, which may be used for--"
Where is the "Director of the Office on Violence Against Men created?" It isn't. Nor will it be.
So, I’m supposed to count over 20 ways in which men will be more easily criminalized and compare this to a Marxist-Feminist revision in the house bill and say “this is progress.”
No way. That is denial. This is a huge step backwards for us.
It does not represent any significant compromise on the part of the Marxists or the Conservatives. Compromise involves give-n-take. There is no significant give here.
There is almost nothing but take, and the more liberal criminalization of men on a massively expanded scale. Our prisons will no doubt triple in size by the year 2010 when this bill passes.
I see what has really happened here. The male hating conservative chauvinists have written all of the language into this bill so that they can intrude into and control gender relationships in their way using churches and their NGO's.
Then the male hating Marxist-Feminists got all of their language added to the bill. They are using the police forces, advocates, and others to intrude in their way to control gender relationships.
The rest of us are being ignored and called "uncompromising MRAs".
Bull shit.
These people are clearly mentally damaged. They are insane.
There is no use in being angry, bitter, or frustrated. They are in power.
This is no need for this bill at all. All of the current laws cover every single provision that is listed.
We just need judges that will enforce the law that are on the books.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 03:59 PM July 29th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble did a great job above of reading and interpreting the actual language in the VAWA bill.
The main conclusion anyone can draw from actually reading the bill is that it will provoke even greater intrusions by the State into family/private affairs.
Another obvious goal is to further diminish due process of law in the so-called Family Courts, and to enforce female subjectivity as the "standard of reasonableness." An accusation by a female will have to be UNproven, not proved, and this constitutes a new common legal premise of "guilty-if-male until proven innocent."
The primary but unstated objective of VAWA is just to maintain and increase the flow of taxpayer dollars into the Domestic Violence Industry and all of its franchises and beneficiaries. (These include police, lawyers, judges, women's advocates, DV treatment services, college women's programs, feminist academics, and a whole host of lesser parasites who feed upon the multi-billion dollar racket.)
Believing that the language of VAWA has been changed to recognize male DV victims is a gross self-deception...
It's like a Dixie-era plantation slave celebrating that the "massa" has reduced the penalty for picking too little cotton from forty lashes to only thirty.
Indeed, a Dixie plantation was more democratic than what we witnessed in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.
At least the "massa" had to listen to the drums all night long....
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:19 PM July 29th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's like a Dixie-era plantation slave celebrating that the "massa" has reduced the penalty for picking too little cotton from forty lashes to only thirty."
Ya. Thirty lashes with a sledge hammer instead of a whip. Great victory for the slave.
Warb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:28 AM August 2nd, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Roy (the famous Replicant?) rote:
Warble did a great job above of reading and interpreting the actual language in the VAWA bill [. . .]
Believing that the language of VAWA has been changed to recognize male DV victims is a gross self-deception...
It's like a Dixie-era plantation slave celebrating that the "massa" has reduced the penalty for picking too little cotton from forty lashes to only thirty.
Indeed, a Dixie plantation was more democratic than what we witnessed in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.
At least the "massa" had to listen to the drums all night long....
***** oh, those drums are still beating, roy, and be assured that both Massa and Missus hear them, and toss 'n moan in their sleep ...
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
yah, but us plantation boys best get used to it, unless, as you and warble imply, we start getting MUCH more informed and realistic about who opposes us, and how we should use the (very) limited resources we have
no doubt whoever is lobbying Congress on behalf of men against the VAWA are diligent and bright folks
but understanding the federal codes, parliamentary procedure, or the subtleties of the Legislative Calendar is a far far cry from understanding the tactics of engagement, confrontation, and dissemination in an almost-instantaneous, mass-comm age
we must change mass-consciousness -- not the intractable, fossilized, greedy, and self-interested noggins of legislators -- most of whom can't even stand up to their wives, much less N.O.W. or the matriarchal establishment
the battle can never be won by begging pharaoh and his wife for table-scraps!
years ago -- on this very board -- we had this exact discussion (yah, it shore DOES fell like the Twilight Zone in here)
it was during the famous "Boulder Library Penis-a-thon" Incident, in which the library dangled stringers of ceramic severed penises from their ceiling under cover of an "art exhibit"
it was an absolutely made-to-order Media Event just waiting for a few men's movement guys to hustle over to Boulder, make a little fuss 'n fun, and splash Severed Ceramic Penises all over the wires, cables, and satellite transmitters of this once-fine nation
the kind of opportunity a men's activist DREAMS of!
the next night, some moron barfly stole the penises (i.e., the only thing a news camera/team would be interested in shooting) and became a five-minute hero on this board
and as an extremist, i was ushered off the board by leechtrolls and others who should have known better, including a prominent activist who inferred i was a KKK sympathizer
not very fraternal!
and worse, much worse: not productive for the movement . . . look what the feminist silencing and marginalizing of folks has done to the country . . .
basically, my rant back then was that the movement desperately needed a small, mobile "strike team" available to demonstrate, non-violently and with humor, whenever the next anti-male public incident occurred -- and as we all know, in the intervening years, MANY such incidents have occurred
the cost of maintaining such a team would be infinitesimal compared to what's spent on lawsuits, constitutional challenges, etc
after -- and ONLY after -- you have the Full Attention of the Powers-That-Be, do you move to secondary tactics like code-changes, commissions, shelter funding, etc etc
why after? because if you try Step 2 before Step 1, you will be ignored and/or bamboozled, because you have no entry into the national mass consciousness, and therefore have no "stick"
you will also be laughed-at behind the scenes in the evening by the very legislators, judges, officials etc you met with in the morning
how do i know? well, because i've worked (and drank!) with those legislators, judges, and officials
pharaoh ain't lettin' his slaveboy go unless he gets paid off or whupped, get it? and the men's movement doesn't have the money for a pisspot, much less to pay established lobbyists to make the necessary payoffs and "contributions"
that is how the real world works
the matriarchal system doesn't HAVE to listen or accomodate you, and the movement keeps expecting that it's going to because it's the "right thing to do"
LOL!!
if you really want to be free of the matriarchy, you'll have to whup it -- or have a big enough Stick that it will choose accomodation
but, of course, what could a nasty, bitter Extremist like me know about mass consciousness, protest tactics, and old pharaoh?
so the movement went the route of lobbying and letter-writing and trying to establish (funded!) commissions etc etc -- essentially, it relied, and relies still, upon the established american institutions, especially the law, to remove the yoke from american males
but the yoke keeps getting tighter...
in the intervening years, it has been frustrating (though also somewhat satisfying) to have watched F4J adopt the tactics i recommeded all those years back, and to accomplish more with a few stunts that the american men's (non) movement has accomplished in its entire existence
that doesn't mean that F4J's tactics are exactly replicable in the US -- they are not -- but it IS validation that if men want to shed their collective subjugated status in America, polite appeals to Orrin Hatch, Hilary Clinton, the court system, and the director of your local Women's Shelter, etc etc, will not work
you don't ASK pharaoh and his wife to remove your bonds . . . you get in his face and TELL him that he WILL remove your bonds, or you will turn his precious land upside-down and shake the living shit out of it
does the men's movement have the moral and spiritual authority to make that demand?
it absolutely does -- and has for some time now -- for the disenfranchisement and subjugation of the american male is, unfortunately, very real
but it will take a sublimation of egos on the part of individuals and orgs to do it, and the first step in that sublimation is to STOP marginalizing dissenters from the "game plan" as "extremists"
for example, i have no idea who "warble" is, but i'd be willing to bet he's at least 40 years old, maybe closer to 50
why do i think that? because his opinion above shows not merely intelligence, but EXPERIENCE in the world
jeez, people, look: any tribe, kinship group, society or movement that attempted to put its young men in charge of hunting, warfare, or spirituality wouldn't have lasted a generation on this planet
yet somehow the men's movement imagines it will be the first in history!
or prehistory!
LOL!!
i certainly admire the tenacity of many indivduals and orgs in the movement, and appreciate their passion and diligence
but baby, if you don't know which way the wind blows, it don't matter how big 'n pretty your sail is, y'know?
ok, well, that oughta piss a fair amount of folks off
my work here is done
:O)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:01 AM August 2nd, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
AU writes, " The wording may not satisfy the radical extremist MRAs--pardon me, I mean the more uncompromising MRAs. however, to get this kind of political recognition at all is significant."
[warble]
>This is not an exactly bright and informed >statement.
no it's not, but unfortunately, it's a depressingly typical and consistent one from "men's advocates" and men's orgs -- so quick to marginalize as a "radical" or "extremist" anyone disagreeing with them
this is a great post by warble, and a reality-check for perhaps well-intentioned -- but naive and inexperienced -- activists who imagine that they have somehow "succeeded" in overturning the essential language, syntax, and most importantly, implementation and enforcement of the VAWA
the tactics of the "mainstream men's movement" and its orgs and leaders -- to attempt orthodox lobbying, legal, and administrative remedies to the mass disenfranchisement of american boys and men -- is doomed to failure
it may keep a few activists employed, maybe pay off some college loans, but it's not gonna make a mosquito-dent in the feminist juggernaught that is still crushing us
warble's analysis of the collusion between "left" and "right" is also astute and desperately needed -- the ideo-political right, in particular, has been an attractive and deadly trap for the men's movement over the past decade
the VAWA will pass Congress unaltered in function, if not in appearance
you boys have been bamboozled, again
could it be time to set pride aside and re-think your motivations, tactics, and especially approaches to dissenting "extremists"?
or is hubric failure -- and the feminist domination of the next generation of boys and men -- preferable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:28 AM August 2nd, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
no it's not, but unfortunately, it's a depressingly typical and consistent one from "men's advocates" and men's orgs -- so quick to marginalize as a "radical" or "extremist" anyone disagreeing with them
Nonsense. This is radically misconceived and hypocritical, since it seeks to marginalize anyone who makes a trenchant point about a whiner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:41 AM August 2nd, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"Nonsense. This is radically misconceived and hypocritical, since it seeks to marginalize anyone who makes a trenchant point about a whiner."
you have confirmed my point, "whiner" being the favorite tool of feminists and "moderates" attempting to silence/censor dissenting men's activists
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:49 AM August 2nd, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
you have confirmed my point, "whiner" being the favorite tool of feminists and "moderates" attempting to silence/censor dissenting men's activists
No one is being "silenced"--how silly! The fact of having this wording in the VAWA bill is not a "complete failure," contrary to the subject line. It's a far cry from equality, admittedly, but it's not a complete failure: no wording at all would be a "complete failure." Your point isn't proved at all. Just keep up the good work, and stop being so bitter and dramatic about it. Jesus, get a grip!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:33 AM August 2nd, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
No one is being "silenced"--how silly! The fact of having this wording in the VAWA bill is not a "complete failure," contrary to the subject line. It's a far cry from equality, admittedly, but it's not a complete failure: no wording at all would be a "complete failure." Your point isn't proved at all. Just keep up the good work, and stop being so bitter and dramatic about it. Jesus, get a grip!
uh, mr silly, do you have any response of actual substance to make about my post, or is this just a series of opportunities to toss in ad-homs of "whiner" and "bitter" and "dramatic," while pretending to manly rationalism?
as for the VAWA's success or failure, it rests not in the legislative language, but in the funding and implementation of the bill -- and just like the feds' "non-discrimination" code sections, the funding and implementation will be used to benefit females and discriminate against males
and that IS failure
and if jesus ever gets that "grip" you desire, i'm not sure you'd ask for it again -- at least not so flippantly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:33 AM August 2nd, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
as for the VAWA's success or failure, it rests not in the legislative language, but in the funding and implementation of the bill -- and just like the feds' "non-discrimination" code sections, the funding and implementation will be used to benefit females and discriminate against males
and that IS failure
For whatever reason you aren't directly addressing the point that the included language will enable MRAs to gain a foothold on the problem of institutional discrimination against men through the implementation of VAWA; you seem to want to insist that the addition of the wording won't make the slightest difference. Time will tell whether this steadfast negativity is warranted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:23 PM August 3rd, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
"Time will tell whether this steadfast negativity is warranted."
um hmm
and while those years slowly crawl by, the matriarchy will continue to consolidate its power, and the status and treatment of boys and men in america will continue to deteriorate exponentially
but, have it your way: put your faith in the u.s. congress reversing 40 years of mass disenfranchisement, demonization, and criminalization of boys and men, based upon unenforceable added clause in one code section of a feminist charter
if you imagine that language will be interpreted to enforce "equality" (i.e., fairness for males) pls contact me about Prime Swampland Lots available at bargain prices, ASAP!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:48 PM August 3rd, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
if you imagine that language will be interpreted to enforce "equality" (i.e., fairness for males) pls contact me about Prime Swampland Lots available at bargain prices, ASAP!!
This can fairly be called fatuous. The point was, as Marc A. points out, that the response from legislators indicates a willingness to listen to MRAs and that it is a start--a start not "nothing" and not "victory." To continue denying there is any difference between including the language and not, and to continue to despise small successes, given the magnitude of the task ahead suggests cognitive and psychological difficulties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:45 AM August 4th, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
"To continue denying there is any difference between including the language and not, and to continue to despise small successes, given the magnitude of the task ahead suggests cognitive and psychological difficulties."
this board never changes, eh?
anyone who disagrees with the Group is an "extremist" or a "radical"
now you've ramped it up to anyone dissenting being mentally ill -- this reminds me of my last visit here, when angelucci connected me to the KKK
yes, indeed, very mature and rational!
the Very Picture of Good Mental Health!
LOL!!
are your egos really invested in your tactics so completely that anyone who sees things differently must be associated with derangement and burning crosses?
maybe you need to clean off your bathroom mirrors and take a good look in them, boys
character-assassination of other m.r.a.s doesn't help the cause
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:40 PM August 4th, 2005 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
anyone who disagrees with the Group is an "extremist" or a "radical" now you've ramped it up to anyone dissenting being mentally ill
The issue is whether there is a difference between the inclusion of the language, and not. You have insisted there is no difference. Factually, there there is a difference between the inclusion of the language, and not, and since the facts aren't up for debate, to insist otherwise is irrational. If you had said, the language is mere lip service, and will have no effect whatsoever, then there should be evidence to support that statement, such as, "I know the legislators involved, and behind closed doors they agreed to include the language to get the MRAs off their backs, but they have no intention of honoring it." If this is an inference based on the history of the implementation, well, that's more plausible, but it's not a certainty. It's speculation. On the other hand, it's also possible, and likely, that MRAs were acknowledged, and the little that could be done politically was done, and that this could be seen as a starting point. But in either case, time will tell. The inability to acknowledge that things could play out either way suggests a failure of rationality..
-- this reminds me of my last visit here, when angelucci connected me to the KKK
Ah, so you have a history of irrational negativity. This admission is good. You didn't have to make it. So on some level you recognize a problem. Excellent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:06 PM August 6th, 2005 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
our matriarchy imprisons one-quarter of the incarcerated people (overwhelmingly MALES) on the planet
that is extremism
our matriarchy passes and enforces laws which assign males fourth-class citizenship in all areas of the culture
that is extremism
our matriarchy bombs other nations to "preserve our way of life" (read: matriarchy), then sends in "good cop" Queen Laura to "suggest" Female Empowerment to other countries
that is extremism
and on and on it goes
suggesting that u.s. citizens, especially "men's activists," engage in direct protest of our feminist-dominated culture is not extremism
it is common sense
expecting the very persons, institutions, and forces that have been crushing the life out of boys and men for decades to reverse that stomping, based merely on their goodwill and the righteous arguments of a few men's advocates, is extremist in its naivete and inexperience
that tack demonstrates either an ignorance, or a callous disregard, for the plain reality we see before our faces each day in femamerica
WOMAN is the most powerful "lobby" in these disunited states, and you can "take meetings" with legislative aides about code-language tweaks until the cows explode, but you will never out-lobby the American Woman, nor make a dent in the oppression of american males
Woman IS the system, and when you capitulate to that system, you capitualte to her
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:17 PM August 6th, 2005 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
WOMAN is the most powerful "lobby" in these disunited states, and you can "take meetings" with legislative aides about code-language tweaks until the cows explode, but you will never out-lobby the American Woman, nor make a dent in the oppression of american males
Never? What happened to your vaunted common sense?
...you will never...make a dent in the oppression of american males
is extremism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:04 PM August 1st, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
This news is a good step and a credit to MRA groups.
However, the reality is that 10 years of VAWA has institutionalized misandry on all matters relating to Domestic Violence. The police, the judges and the countless advocates that control and monitor DV issues are already in place, and the prevailing paradigm without exception is that men abuse women to maintain patriarchal control over them.
It does not matter if a women was violent to a man as long as she lays claim to abuse. The system makes any statement made by a women a fact that can be used as prosecution to ruin a man’s life very easily.
The point is, even with these small changes, the DV machine of attacking heterosexual men is already standardized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:17 AM August 2nd, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
This news is a good step and a credit to MRA groups.
Not if you believe the nattering nabobs of negativity here. But I agree that its a means for MRAs to gain a foothold on the problem of institutionalized discrimination against men through the implementation of VAWA.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
After months of hard work, our VAWA campaign has registered a major success. On Wednesday the House Judiciary Committee did its mark-up of the Violence Against Women Act and added this language to make the House bill male-inclusive.