|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Roy on 02:14 PM June 14th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to RADAR for publishing its site's excellent and growing resources about VAWA 2005.
In the post the question is asked whether to mobilize support for (1) VAWA's repeal or (2) VAWA's reform in the direction of true gender-neutrality.
In pondering this tactical issue, my fundamental assumptions are (a)most people will do nothing (b)repealing VAWA outright is currently a political impossibility (c) advocating repeal would be spun by the major media as a condemnation of the father's and men's rights movement. (Imagine the headlines -- "Father's Groups Seek to Kill Women's Rights"...)
On the other hand, a debate about making VAWA gender-neutral and mandating funding for DV services for male victims has the potential to crack open the feminist Lace Curtain and force some close scrutiny of the actual bill.
An attentive reading of the full S.1197 bill is scarier than any Stephen King novel, and full of more fiction and sleight-of-hand to boot!
If MRA's advocate making VAWA something like the "Family Anti-Violence Act," with significant changes to the funding provisions, there's a chance that will force the media to actually look at the contents of the bill, which would reveal truly frightening programs that are anti-men, anti-family, anti-children, racist, sexist, and in fact anti-women.
My other assumption all along has been that Feminazi Inc. and its media organs have been attempting a "stealth" reauthorization by introducing the bill at the last minute in order to curtail public awareness, debate, and resistance.
Of course, the N.O.W. girlies and other rad-fems will attack even modification of the bill as a blatant anti-women's rights assault by MRAs.
That's unavoidable.
But condemning an appeal for gender-neutrality, some tiny degree of funding-parity, and the mere recognition that family violence is not a gender-issue --- might place feminists on the defensive for a change, and force them to publicly justify the vileness of VAWA 2005 in its current form.
Unlike VAWA's proponents, I and all the MRAs I've read posting on multiple sites invite other points of view, criticisms, and strategic ideas of all stripes.
(And note that my sig line is gender-inclusive...)
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 01:26 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
You make some good poins here.
Another question to ask when debating between
1) Trying to end VAWA and
2) Trying to make it gender-neutral
is which would benefit us the most? Would eliminating this one form of government funding for feminist propaganda centers help us more than getting government funding for groups like RADAR?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by frank h on 03:19 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Which is the most benefit? Or which is the most achievable?
Returning almost a billion dollars per year to the taxpayer is, in my estimation, the most benefit. Let those who believe that all these shelters are necessary contribute their own funds.
However, it may be more politically expedient merely to re-direct the intent of the program, that is, to make it accountable and distribute the funds without discrimination, and to change its name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SacredNaCl on 07:43 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Defeating it outright is more effective, and should be the ultimate goal. Anything else and I'll tell you what will happen...
The first is, they have full time lobbyist to steer it, so any modifications will be trivial at best, or at worst severely harmful. If they do set up "programs for men" they will be the most punitive and harmful programs you can imagine, and when we try to challenge them suddenly it will be "Well, see, we have these programs for men, the problem is being taken care of". Do you really want the same kinds of people that run the womens shelters now with their horrendously antimale views in charge of those programs for men? Does anyone else see why this is a clearly bad idea?
They already have their system set up, so you can know where the money will go and the kind of people who will run it... I know you all are thinking you can turn this into something good, but I don't think you can. With a seperate bill and your own committee handpicked to spend it wisely you could, perhaps, achieve those things. But otherwise its just going to make it worse.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:10 PM June 16th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
There is one and only one way to truly fight this maddness.. trust me, anything else will just be fodder for the feminist..
Ever notice how now the feministas don't demand the ERA anymore? When they do pay it lip service, they always include something like "an ERA - properly interpreted - is a good thing.."
That's because an ERA that is truly an ERA would set them back! They know that, to be equal in the eyes of the law would be a step down. Google it - they don't really want true equality because they are afraid such a law could be used in custody matters, in DV laws, in the draft, criminal sentencing etc. They don't hide this fear. Imagine the law suits MRAs could bring, that have no chance even under "equal protection".
If we as MRAs actually fight for a TRUE ERA
and there were a true constituational amendment that left NO ROOM for interpretation - men and woman MUST be treated equally in all things by the law - that would immediatly make the VAWA illegal.
It would open the door for joint custody - elimination of VAWA, and everything else MRAs really want. Don't MRA's see that?
We will never get anywhere thiking we can legislate our way or poke holes in sexist legislation, as long as the supreme court can strike down equal protection cases by always saying that men and women are not "similarly situated" in custody, DV laws, etc... we will ALWAYS ALWAYS lose. Females will always be "more equal" and "protected". It is always up to interpretation by either a staunch feminist, or the chivalry of men.
We will never go back to the 50s.. our only chance to ever get out of this mess is to give the Feminists what they once said they wanted - lets push BIG TIME for an ERA. But NOT one that is open for interpretation.
It's the same as was done in California for Affirmative Action. Make the amendment so simple it is not open to interpretation. Men and Women MUST be treated and judged equally by the government and by judges - it is that simple...
Really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:13 AM June 15th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.angryharry.com/esTheProsecutionList.htm
If it is legitimate to kill and maim thousands of people on the grounds that one has a suspicion that this might reduce the future likelihood of a WMD attack on one's own people, then it follows that it must also be legitimate to kill Tony Blair and his cabinet colleagues for the very same reason! - i.e. to reduce the likelihood of a future WMD attack on one's own people.
And given that we know that handing the head of Tony Blair and his cabinet colleagues on a plate to those Arabs who now hate us will surely reduce the likelihood that they will attack us one day with WMD - i.e. they might forgive us - there seems to be no legitimate reason why we should not, one day, do exactly this.
Indeed, given that many people - possibly millions - are far more likely to see many of their own loved ones maimed or killed in the future as a result of terrorist attacks (e.g. see AH's Eight Horrible Facts ) and/or see their lives severely damaged in some way, it will surely not be long before the people decide that it is in the best interests of those whom they love if they do, indeed, hand over the head of Tony Blair and his cabinet colleagues to those who have been hurt and harmed, and who might soon have the wherewithal to retaliate horribly.
5. Blair and his cabinet colleagues will clearly persecute, prosecute and even kill people without having any evidence against them to suggest that they are intent on causing harm to others.
But, surely, two can play at that game?
In other words, and generally speaking, Blair and his cabinet colleagues do not have a moral leg to stand on.
For example, if you were to go up and put a bullet into Blair's head you could legitimately claim that you were merely trying to protect the country by reducing the likelihood that it would be attacked by WMD in the future.
(And it would most certainly be in 'the best interests of our children' to do this.)
Similarly, if you were to arrest, prosecute and punish Blair merely on the testimony of an accuser - without any objective evidence - then you would be doing no more than what he has done - and continues to do - to thousands of his own countrymen; e.g. in sex-assault and domestic violence cases.
And with respect to cases such as these, the same would also apply to all those government officials who have been carriying out Blair's policies against men.
My general point, therefore, is this.
As the men's movement grows, and as the people begin to understand what scumbags are Blair and his colleagues, and as men become more angry as they realise what he and his officials have been doing to them, they are very likely indeed to engage in direct activism against both Blair and his cronies, as well as against those officials who have mistreated them so.
And the prosecution lists are merely a way of keeping tabs on the details of those officials who will be targeted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:02 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Based on his own writings, Angry Harry seems to be saying that any strategies not based on threatening the politicians with a loss of power will fail.
(From his web site) -
"... men and fathers are going to achieve precious little in their various battles against their ongoing demonisation and discrimination because the forces that militate against them are nowadays just too great ...
... unless, that is, they take heed of George Orwell's sentiments.
"It is no use appealing to their sense of honour or justice. The only thing that they respond to is the threat of losing some of their own power."
I have watched the various antics of the feminists, the women's groups and their associated comrades in government, academia and the media very closely for some ten years now.
And I can assure you that these groups have lied, and lied, and lied, and lied on just about every issue which they address. Their belief is that the end justifies the means.
Lying, deceiving, distorting, exaggerating - always with the aim of demonising men and breaking up their relationships - and so empowering themselves - are activities that they engage in without limit, without conscience and without concern.
...
And so it is that the leaders of men and fathers groups also need to understand that they are not likely to be dealing with honest or honourable people when they seek for men to be treated fairly in matters to do with their families or their relationships.
On the contrary, they are most likely to be dealing with what can best be described as devious parasites who thrive on the breaking down of men and the stirring up of hatred towards them."
http://www.angryharry.com/esFatherGroupsMissThe
BigPicture.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by scudsucker on 05:23 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:59 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
The actual bill, VAWA 2005 is listed on the Thomas.gov web site as S. 1197.
It was introduced to the Senate by twelve members who are all listed at the very top of the bill ---
Mr. BIDEN (D-DE) (for himself), Mr. HATCH (R-UT), Mr. SPECTER (R-PA), Mr. LEAHY (D-VT), Mr. DEWINE (R-OH), Mr. KOHL (D- WI), Mr. GRASSLEY (R- IA), Mr. KENNEDY (D-MA), Mrs. BOXER (D-CA), Ms. STABENOW (D- MI), Mr. SCHUMER (D – NY), and Mrs. MURRAY (D – WA) -- introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (June 8, 2005)
Not that it matters when making fine distinctions among gender-terrorists, but the tally is 8 DEMOS and 4 REPUBS.
Do you really believe there's an ounce of difference among these fellow travellers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last I checked there is no opposition to VAWA in the house or the senate. None. They are all either misandrists or completely ignorant. Well there is one other option...they are afraid of the wrath of the feminasties who will label them as woman haters if they question this bill. Someone posted a while back that when the bill originally was introduced the fems accused each male legislator of being a potential batterer! LOL anyone who might show any question about the bill was then put at risk of seeming to be a potential batterer! What a freaking scam. What a bunch of cowards. Do what is right.
Join us July 15-16 in Wash. DC Glenn Sacks, Warren Farrell, Scott Garman, J Kamme
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:42 AM June 16th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I errored with the earlier listing of VAWA 2005 co-sponsors. Only twelve names appeared at the top of S. 1197, but a complete listing of all 18 Senate co-sponsors is available on Thomas.gov.
They are -
Sen Bayh, Evan [D-IN]
Sen Boxer, Barbara [D-CA]
Sen Cantwell, Maria [D -WA]
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY]
Sen Crapo, Mike [R-ID]
Sen DeWine, Mike [R-OH]
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [D-CT] - 6/14/2005
Sen Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT]
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [D-HI]
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA]
Sen Kohl, Herb [D-WI]
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ]
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT]
Sen Murray, Patty [D-WA]
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY]
Sen Specter, Arlen [R-PA]
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [D-MI]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:59 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
If the summary of the language is correct then what we have is an all out attack (the final attack) against male freedoms. It is a piece of hate legislation unlike anything ever crafted in human history.
For example, all that will need to happen is for there to be a mere allegation by a female of a male calling a domestic partner a name and then the male would be sent to jail.
The police will be happy to cart off the males because it will mean more arrests and promotions. The politicians will love the arrests because it will mean that the Marxist-Feminists will be pleased and vote them back into power.
It is clear that both Democrats and Republicans (libs and conservatives) support this draconian language. Also, it is clear that both parties consider males to be immune to DV.
So, I do not believe that neither proposed approach will work.
What we really need to do is side with the MRA's. Then we need to actually help the Marxist-Feminist craft more severe language.
After that the MRA's need to duck for cover and hide. The MRA's will need to be completely silent while males are carted off to jail in droves. The resulting chaos that will follow should be unimaginable.
It will mean that the police are arresting male police, there will be a rapid increase in a female only police force, the firemen will be arrested (female only fire force), there will be a massive drop in military recruitment of males as they are arrested in high school, and more.
The entire police and political system will be flooded and overloaded.
The exception to the massive male only arrests will of course be where we educate males on how to avoid arrest and prosecution. At first, the men will continue to disbelieve just like now. Then they will finally get it and organize. That is the only way to fight these bitches and their neutered male allies.
That is the only strategy that will get men to organize at a sufficiently large scale to overturn the gains of the Marxist-Feminists. It will take balls.
Nothing short of that will work.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:17 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble -- "If the summary of the language is correct then what we have is an all out attack (the final attack) against male freedoms."
VAWA 2005 is far from the final attack.
That will involve mandatory in-utero abortion of male fetuses, feminist sperm-donor camps for the few unauthorized male babies conceived illegally, and euthanasia parlors for all men with birthdates before the Great Awakening!
Just kidding....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:29 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Great. Just when I thought it couldn't get worse.....
Somebody with more imagination describes the worse scenario...
Unfortunately, that scenario isn't so far removed as AU may believe.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:12 AM June 16th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Why kid?
http://www.gynarchy.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:05 PM June 16th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
AU writes, "That will involve mandatory in-utero abortion of male fetuses, feminist sperm-donor camps for the few unauthorized male babies conceived illegally, and euthanasia parlors for all men with birthdates before the Great Awakening!
Just kidding...."
Actually, after thinking of how close America is to realizing this scenario I recalled the following article:
Europes plan on criminalizing 3 year old boys
The article notes that the secret plan states, "Children [read boys] as young as 3 can be labeled as potential criminals, the report's writers claim, if the exhibit bullying behavior in nursery school or if there is a history of criminality in the immediate family. "
In this plan for boys, your natural boyish or family behavioral history can get you the label of "potential offender," and that label will be in every major document that follows the males for life.
Clearly, it is only a small step to screen newborn boys for a family "genetic" history of violence. What follows has already been done in Europe.
So AU thinks the ovens are impossible in America? What? AU thinks it’s some kind of joke that Marxist-Feminists will never adopt in America?
Ask where all the Marxist-Feminists look for their inspiration? Answer….Europe and other socialist countries.
So yes. The ovens for infant boys are being planned by feminists decades in advance of when we'll see them. Don’t think for an instant that feminists are not in secret negotiations to get funding for their anti-male eugenics program.
The Marxist-Feminists followed the same multi-decade strategy to get VAWA and won without a fight.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:51 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"It is clear that both Democrats and Republicans (libs and conservatives) support this draconian language. Also, it is clear that both parties consider males to be immune to DV."
On the one hand it may be the gender feminists under the Democrats who have laid the ground work and concieved women's industries like women's commissions (the 1st women's commission was formed in the Kennedy Administration) and domestic violence law (VAWA) during the Clinton Administration, but it is certain now that Republicans are taking the war on men to new proportions. We see VAWA going forward at a time when Republicans have the strength in the House and Senate, and they have the Presidency.
One the one hand we see two Republicans signing on with Democrat Biden on VAWA, and on the other we see, "Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has co-sponsored an amendment to the 2006 Defense Authorization Bill that would prevent top Army officials from unilaterally changing regulations that exempt female soldiers from having to serve in land combat-collocated support units. " See: Support Amendment to Uphold Ban on Women in Combat
Just yesterday I was at a rally where I heard a "liberal" woman say, "Men cause all the wars." Of course it's only a short step from there to, "Men are responsible for all violence against women."
One the one hand men have the responsibility to fight the wars, and suffer that influence of violence in their lives, and on the other hand when they experience violence from women they have no relief, are falsely accused of being responsible for all violence. Why Blame Only Men for Violence Then Send So Many Men To Combat . Not only that, accepted stereotyping of men as violent in our society, and all men are easy marks for false accusations of d.v. Many men's lives have been ruined by just such hate crimes committed in the name of d.v. law. Specter (R) and Hatch (R) really, really need to just admit they're man-hating bigots, and unfit for public service - Joe Biden too.
I suspect we will see a lot more men going off the deep end as the Summer progresses in America. After all both major parties in America are doing everything they can to make men's lives a living hell through the governments systematic hate war on men.
In the eyes of elected representatives dog rigths come before men's rights. Given the present deaths rates of men, and proposed VAWA legislation, evidently men's lives are only something to be exploited and discarded.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:34 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
When you are reviled by all of your heroes....
Where do you go?
What lies can you believe?
Who can you trust?
This is precisely where every man is today.
Caught between lethal choices.
So?
Time for some deep introspection and truth-telling, yes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by canaryguy
(nospam.canaryguy@nospam.stealthfool.com)
on 10:53 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
What we really need to do is side with the MRA's. Then we need to actually help the Marxist-Feminist craft more severe language.
After that the MRA's need to duck for cover and hide. The MRA's will need to be completely silent while males are carted off to jail in droves. The resulting chaos that will follow should be unimaginable.
What I think would happen is you'll see much more selective enforcement than the drug war could ever have hoped for.
VAWA must be fought every step of the way. Light must be shown on this evil bill at every opportunity.
We need to find a person to blame for VAWA -- and then picket them wherever they speak. Perhaps Senator Biden would be a good target.
And of course anything that can be done to accelerate the destruction of the democratic party would be good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I poked around a little bit and found out that when VAWA was re-authorized in 2000 it passed in the Senate by a vote of 95-0. No opposition. NONE. With legislation as costly and controversial as this having no oppostion is more than a red flag. Remind anyone else of the Star Wars Senate? In the House it passed 415-3. Of the three courageous "nay" votes only one remains in office.
His name is John Hostettler, a republican from Indiana and in my book he gets a freaking medal. I do wonder why he voted against it. Do we have an ally here?
Join us July 15-16 in Wash. DC Glenn Sacks, Warren Farrell, Scott Garman, J Kamme
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:12 PM June 17th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
If you've overlooked this editorial blog, (Silly Seattle)give it a look.
http://sillyseattle.blogspot.com/2005/06/vawa-con- dios-biden.html
(an excerpt follows) ---
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 08, 2005
VAWA Con Dios, Biden
"The public needs to know that the topic of domestic violence was hijacked by radical feminists in the mid-1990s when they were running out of causes and losing relevance in a society that long ago opened opportunities to women.
Men need to know that the Republicans they too often vote for are complicit, even some of the chief promoters, of painting them as violent mongrels in need of social reeducation.
The public also needs to know that gender feminists, who clearly run the VAWA show, do not care about helping those, not even women, that are trapped in violent relationships.
They do not care about the fact that their domestic violence perpetrator 'treatment' gulags, which are based on the Duluth model of patriarchal control over women, do nothing to prevent domestic violence.
They do not care that false claims of domestic violence are as frequent as tears on an Oprah Winfry show and are the number one tactic in divorce proceedings.
Their only objective is to force as many men as possible into anti-patriarchy reeducation.
Ultimately, they want to force men and fathers into a position of insecurity and, ideally, to abandon the idea of marriage altogether."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 09:36 PM June 17th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.numbersusa.com/index
The address above is for Numbersusa which is an organization that is for controlled immigration. They have an action board where you can fax an immigration message you Senator, Representative and even Dubya himself for free. And they even supply an example letter for you to send if you don't want to compose one yourself.
It seems very effective in stopping Congressional acts that tend to promote illegal immigration.
If we had one like this to communicate our opposition to VAWA it would be good aid in stopping VAWA's renewal for years to come!
Any techies out there reading this?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
This past Thursday Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) introduced the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 in the Senate. A similar bill is expected to be introduced in the House of Representatives in the next few days.