Stop the Presses: Rep. Poe Calls for Gender-Neutral VAWA

Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2011-07-21 23:40

Via email:

This news just hit the street...Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) has just called for making the Violence Against Women Act gender neutral.

According to a Washington Times article, Congressman Poe "says he would now support re-writing the legislation as gender neutral....I'm open to changing the name. Domestic Violence Act. I like that phrase."

The article goes on to note, "Mr. Poe also supports replacing the word 'woman' in the legislation to a non-gender specific term like 'person' or 'men and women' or 'men or women.'"

We urge each person reading this Elert to contact Rep. Poe's office right away at 202-225-6565 and express your support for making VAWA gender-inclusive.

SAVE's Partner Violence Reducation Act calls for all provisions of VAWA, including its name, to be made sex-neutral. Rep. Poe is the first national lawmaker to speak out publicly in support of such a change.

The full Washington Times article can be seen here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/jul/21/picket-vawa-supporter-capitol-hill-looks-have-law-/

Sincerely,

Teri

Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

https://poe.house.gov/Contact/ContactForm.htm

As follows:

Dear Congressman:

I just saw http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/jul/21/picket-vawa-supporter-capitol-hill-looks-have-law-/ and may I say I support 100% the making of VAWA into a gender-neutral piece of legislation. Male victims of DV are far more plentiful than most people realize with many "run of the mill" instances of it being overlooked routinely. It is time not just for these types of behaviors to be checked but that there be legal and moral redress available to all victims of DV, not just female ones. Making VAWA gender-neutral would not only be of great help to many male victims of DV but also make it much easier to get it passed without as much resistance, precisely because the language isn't gender-neutral.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2011-07-22 00:04

From The Times reference:

"Ms. Schlafly also points out in her article that the the term "domestic violence" could mean any number of circumstances under the law these days:

      Currently used definitions of domestic violence that are unacceptably trivial include calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing "annoyance" or "emotional distress," or just not doing what your partner wants. The law's revision should use an accurate definition of domestic violence that includes violence, such as: "any act or threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention of an individual, which results or threatens to result in physical injury."

      Women who make domestic violence accusations are not required to produce evidence and are never prosecuted for perjury if they lie. Accused men are not accorded fundamental protections of due process, not considered innocent until proven guilty, and in many cases, are not afforded the right to confront their accusers.

Congressman Poe agrees with Ms. Schlafly, and he wants to see more clarification in the law as to what exactly domestic violence is defined as."

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2011-07-22 00:08

Did Hell just freeze over?????

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Luek on Fri, 2011-07-22 02:26

It's a very big deal so people need to know about it. I will leave this and the The Talk thread at the top of all stories through the day Monday (so phone calls can be made to the Congressman's office successfully) and then "de-sticky-ify" them. ("Stickiness" is the term used for when you make a story stay at the top of a listing of stories, at least when using this bulletin board software).

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2011-07-22 22:21

all the old timers here know how tricky feminists are,

so notice the 'and vs or' wording. if they say men and women, then to be true $$ must go to both,
with the amounts t.b.d.

if is says men or women, then they could still continue spending 100% of the $$ on women,
and it would still be a true statement.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Sat, 2011-07-23 00:13

The change of wording would form the basis for suing states that failed to use the money for men as well as women. It's a start. The enemy of progress is perfection. When Jefferson couldn't get slavery abolished with the Declaration of Independence, he was incensed. But he had to be told that without the declaration first, slaves stood little or no chance of being freed any time soon. First independence, then freedom for slaves. Progress. Getting the VAWA wording changed to include men would be a *huge* step forward. We need this.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2011-07-23 01:07

This is great. Wow, with Poe here together with Ron Paul, Texas doesn't look like such a bad place anymore! I'm from Canada, but I'll send him a support note too.

I just hope he can get enough support for the bill.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Sheldon on Sat, 2011-07-23 06:24

That whole Violence Against Women thing looks pretty rediculous, with Gaddafi deploying 500 new trained female killers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R12hbmv27RU&feature=relmfu

With women threatening to cut off our dicks, I'd say it's time to change the gendered language and acknowledge women are every bit as violent as men. PLUS, they are by nature expert emotional/psychological abusers.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by cwondermagic1 on Sat, 2011-07-23 23:58