|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 09:22 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 09:50 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent article. That one case with the man who wouldn't leave work because he was afraid to go home was heartbreaking. I wonder what would have happened if just one person had called the cops. Maybe the wrong person would have been arrested, or maybe, just maybe, the woman would have been forced to admit what was going on. Maybe with all the neighbors and co-workers testimonies his death might have been avoided. She should have been left to rot in prison.
The thing that pisses me off is that if he had killed her in self defense, maybe burning down the trailer after drugging her, he would have been labeled as a DV perp and murderer.
Cases like this are just the tip of the iceberg. I hope everyone here wrote their representatives, etc.
The Bisciut Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:06 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen:
Thanks. We're going to be meeting with some d.v. people on their turf, and we are going to graphicly let them know this is old news, "as can be proven by the words of Erin Pizzy" so why all the denial???
"There are as many violent women as men, but there's a lot of money in hating men, particularly in the United States - - - millions of dollars. It isn't a politically good idea to threaten the huge budgets for women's refuges by saying that some of the women who go into them aren't total victims".
and
"I define a 'violence prone' woman as a woman who, while complaining that she is the innocent victim of the malice and aggression of all other relationships in her life, is in fact a victim of her own violence and aggression.”
“I have come to recognize that there are women involved in emotionally and/or physically violent relationships who express and enact disturbance beyond the expected (and acceptable) scope of distress. Such individuals, spurred on by deep feelings of vengefulness, vindictiveness, and animosity, behave in a manner that is singularly destructive; destructive to themselves as well as to some or all of the other family members, making an already bad family situation worse. These women I have found it useful to describe as 'family terrorists.'"
Prone to Violence, Erin Pizzy, 1982
and from the Clara Harris trial,
"We can't excuse ourselves because we're women... That's not a ticket to escape the consequences. We can't be considered to weak to follow the law."
Houston Attorney Valeri Davenport comments on the Clara Harris case.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 10:31 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote my congressman and senators complaining about VAWA.
You can too:
www.senate.gov
www.house.gov
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:32 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I respect all the efforts by RADAR and the thousands of individuals who have faxed, phoned, e-mailed, and written their representatives to reform VAWA.
My suspicion all along, given the glaring absence of a high-profile feminist media campaign in support of VAWA, is that the rails were greased from the very beginning to pass it through "stealth" tactics.
The reform language in H.R. 3402 is so ambiguous that it basically allows the Office for Violence Against Women to decide case-by-case funding for all grant applications.
Declaring VAWA 2005 "gender neutral" is no victory if the money is still controlled by feminist gatekeepers in OVAW.
That the Senate bill 1197 has not yet incorporated the reform language is telling, and reinforces the "stealth" conspiracy paranoia.
And, let's face it, Mother Nature appears to be conspiring on behalf of her sistren.
The major mass media will be preoccupied throughout Sept.- Oct. with the aftermath of Katrina, the Iraq constitution referendum,and the future of The Supremes via Robert's confirmation and now Renquist's successor.
VAWA 2005 just doesn't have enough "firepower" to make page one or even page 15 in competition with these sexier telegenic stories.
I'll continue to write my pols, but I'm sure they see passing VAWA as a minor matter on their radar screens right now.
Pervasive discrimination against men may be creating social devastation that rivals Katrina, but it just ain't sexy enough for the MMM.
BTW, none of my reps have bothered to reply directly to my letters, all brief and polite.
(Roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 10:46 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"The reform language in H.R. 3402 is so ambiguous that it basically allows the Office for Violence Against Women to decide case-by-case funding for all grant applications."
We all know about that one phrase in it that can be used as a loophole. The trick is to keep the heat on. If the government tries to deny funding to men's shelters based on that loophole, we pounce, and point out the inequity and that common sense dictates that the clause would be grossly misused if used as such a loophole.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:32 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the loophole language (from memory) says -- "unless the context unequivocally requires" --- gender-based funding.
VAWA 2005 is like a big sluice gate for billions of dollars.
Once it is passed, the actual allocation of funds occurs through thousands of individual grants, controlled by the Office for Violence Against Women.
Anyone can read the guidelines for the grants.
They all virtually guarantee that any funding for men will be denied "due to the context" of the grant's requirements.
This VAWA reform effort is starting to resemble a nice game of three-card monty on 42nd Avenue in Times Square!
No "mark" ever wins this rigged contest.
But the "shill" usually gives him a free ticket for the next game around the corner!
Language means nothing unless it compels where the money goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 04:41 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
What I meant is that, every time this loophole is used to deny funding to male victims, we should raise holy hell. Our charges of discrimination might be denied the first time, or the first five times, but, eventually, we will find people with courage and common sense, just as we now see so many police departments with courage and common sense arrest women when they are indeed the perpetrators of violence.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:36 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Roy, we are not going away, not in September, not in October (domestic violence awareness month), and not anytime after that. Hang in there brother. I suspect even the mainstream media wil have trouble ignoring men's issues as MRA's continue make the effort.
Very Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:34 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey bro', I'm not going away either!
But I have concerns about what will happen to the MRA momentum that's been building WHEN some version of VAWA 2005 passes in the next few weeks.
I liked a poster's comment above that said the strategy needs to shift to monitoring where the money actually goes, assuming some weak "gender-neutral" language in the final bill makes it appear that men's services can be funded.
Monitoring funding awards is a huge undertaking, given the closed & secret accounting at OVAW.
One fact that might be worth considering is that about 90% of all VAWA funding requested in the '05 bills is simply to continue existing feminist programs.
Despite the proposed enhancements to "serving" tribal women and indoctrinating young boys about their innate male perversity, there's really not much new money in the bill.
So, unless the final language addresses mandatory funding for men's services, you can expect little actual redirection of focus or resourcing.
I am looking at the VAWA 2005 reform campaign as a learning experience for MRAs.
You know the old saying about wanting to play with the big dogs and how it means getting off the porch?
Well, the feminists own the porch, and the front yard now.
So maybe MRAs need to find the back door and create new tactics to outflank the overconfident opposition.
What would that mean?
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:38 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"I am looking at the VAWA 2005 reform campaign as a learning experience for MRAs."
"Who could be against domestic violence services for abused women?" That has been a common question frequently trotted out by people in the domestic violence industry. They have used that question to defray arguements brought by anyone against VAWA.
I think that the present effort has brought very badly needed attention to the vast corruption inherent in the domestic violence industry. Our efforts have made it more acceptable for people to question all the corruption that is going on. Helping abused women as much as anything has been a huge cover used to advance the radical gender feminist agenda at any price.
I hope, if nothing else, that our scrutiny has started a snowball rolling down a giant hill that will allow all the men, children, and families defrauded, abused, and tortured by VAWA to come forward more easily, and ask:
# Why is this evil law, that is suppossed to help women and men, not helping men?
# Why is this evil law allowed to harm so many innocent people - more it appears than it helps?
# Why is such evil scamming promoted by elected officials?
# Why are billions of tax-payer dollars stolen from the voters without accountabiltiy for the theives who premeditate and ruthlessly commit the crime known as VAWA?
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:09 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray,
You are an expert on this subject.
But that expertise has not yet percolated into the mainstream....
It really has not gone too far beyond the "man bad, woman good" level of consciousness.
Any indivdual, female or male, who has been targeted by the Domestic Violence Industry, knows otherwise.
There is growing and credible evidence that women and children are harmed and victimized by "must arrest and no drop" policies that destroy marriages and run middle-class families into poverty.
We all know this.
VAWA is both an ideology and a major business.
In present day America, it is easy to dismiss an ideology; but very difficult to attack a business.
It kinda funny that the feminists all started out as Marxists, and now they represent the pinnacle of capitalist achievement!
They have purchased a monopoly on virtue....
very smart!
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:00 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey bro', I'm not going away either!
But I have concerns about what will happen to the MRA momentum that's been building WHEN some version of VAWA 2005 passes in the next few weeks.
I liked a poster's comment above that said the strategy needs to shift to monitoring where the money actually goes, assuming some weak "gender-neutral" language in the final bill makes it appear that men's services can be funded.
Monitoring funding awards is a huge undertaking, given the closed & secret accounting at OVAW.
***** it's not a huge, but an impossible, undertaking -- especially for an activist movement with extremely limited resorces (human and financial)
a hundred men's orgs working full-time won't be able to follow the money-trail after the v.a.w.a. passes (essentially unchanged, despite radar's "victory")
the influence and power in such legislation is in the funding and enforcement mechanisms -- and those will remain dominated by feminism and the men (legislators, judges, fed/state employees, etc.) that serve females at the expense of males
One fact that might be worth considering is that about 90% of all VAWA funding requested in the '05 bills is simply to continue existing feminist programs.
***** that's a fact that would have been worth considering last year, when activist strategy was formulated -- it only helps now in context of "don't get fooled again"
Despite the proposed enhancements to "serving" tribal women and indoctrinating young boys about their innate male perversity, there's really not much new money in the bill.
So, unless the final language addresses mandatory funding for men's services, you can expect little actual redirection of focus or resourcing.
I am looking at the VAWA 2005 reform campaign as a learning experience for MRAs.
***** it is, but for various reasons we aren't learning quickly enough, and each year we flounder around, the matriarchy expands here and abroad
You know the old saying about wanting to play with the big dogs and how it means getting off the porch?
Well, the feminists own the porch, and the front yard now.
***** they own the pound, too, and we are in it
So maybe MRAs need to find the back door and create new tactics to outflank the overconfident opposition.
What would that mean?
(roy)
***** your analysis of the VAWA is v good, and i think your question is sincere, but you're asking the question few established m.r.a.s want answered, much less asked
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Over the last nine months, efforts to stop domestic violence bias against men have logged four major accomplishments.