|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Indiana Jones on 06:10 PM June 18th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Um.........Isn't it ironic that the story right below this aritle is about a biased steorotyptical view of DV?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:07 AM June 19th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah after all the success men have been having maybe it's finally time to launch REDASS, (Respecting Equal Domestic Abuse System Services).
Is that another man standing outside the door of the domestic violence shelter, locked out, and with his wife's shoe stuck in his butt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:44 PM June 19th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"There was a time when "Christian" wasn't nearly synonymous with "conservative" when it came to politics. Liberal and not-super-conservative Christians used to be very active and organized in the civil rights movement - but that movement accomplished it's goals in fighting institutionalized racism, and so it dispersed.
My analysis will offer a somewhat different perspective than the view from the left that you present.
IMHO, the main reason it seems to you that Christians are conservative is because the Democrat party has moved so far left. Many Christians have stayed conservatively where they were (or moved somewhat right) with the exception of Unitarians (always leaning far left), a large liberal split off of Presbyterians, a large liberal split off of Lutherans (ELCA) and other Christians who've moved to the far left.
We certainly can't overlook the recent child sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church. Where, for years, leftist liberals advocated for homosexuals in the priesthood. In the recent scandal, 80% of the sexual abuse was homosexual (male/male). For years, the left advocated for gays in the priesthood, but as soon as the scandal broke liberals where all over the Catholic Church for having sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Gender feminists have had a field day bashing the male dominated hierarchy (Patriarchy) of the Catholic Church as being violent, sexually perverse, and abusive of power and trust. Hmmmm?
Liberal influences working their way into the church have forced the remaining groups to clarify their positions. Even now domestic violence law worms its way into the church, attacking the "Patriarchy," that is so reviled by gender feminists and considered as "the source" of violence and abuse against women.
"Politically correct" Christians, claim to be tolerant and embrace a concept known as moral relativism, a theory that there is no right or wrong, just subjective truth. Ironically, the "politically correct" left is, hypocritically, completely intolerant of anyone who does not lock step with their interpretation of moral relativism. People who still believe in moral absolutes are judged as intolerant by people on the liberal left who claim they are tolerant, but alas, they are tolerant only of those who follow their strict liberal leftist interpretation of morality. It's all the same deceptive, passionate smoke and mirrors that the gender feminists use, and a lot of people have been horribly harmed by the viciousness of the liberal lefts abuses of tolerance and traditional Christian morality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by scudsucker on 08:55 PM June 21st, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
My analysis will offer a somewhat different perspective than the view from the left that you present.
What was remotely "left" about any "views" that I presented? Once a goal is accomplished, the reason for a cause is reduced or eliminated, and people lose their motivation to stay involved. This applies to any cause, anywhere.
IMHO, the main reason it seems to you that Christians are conservative is because the Democrat party has moved so far left.
Okay, name me a single issue on which the Democratic party has moved to the left. At all. Over the last ten years. The last twenty years. The last thirty years. Go back fourty years and you find the civil rights movement, but I don't see how civil rights was either a "left" or "right" issue.
Where, for years, leftist liberals advocated for homosexuals in the priesthood.
Name some. In any case, homosexuality has NOTHING to do with child molestation, any more than Christianity is responsible for child molestation. You hateful bigot.
Liberal influences working their way into the church have forced the remaining groups to clarify their positions.
Which ones would those be? The Moral Majortiy, the Christian Coalition, and the Southern Babtists are all political giants: they send out tens of millions of flyers and voter guides every year, and constantly swing elections. Name me a single "liberal" church group that has a fraction of the influence that just one of those organizations posseses.
Aside from not having a real platform, one problem Democrats have had is not standing up to nonsense like yours.
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by warble
(activistwarble@yahoo.com)
on 04:11 PM June 19th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
RADAR writes, "...But now we face a new challenge: a VAWA bill that callously ignores the hundreds of thousands of male victims of DV – a bill that, if passed in its current form – will continue to subsidize the stereotype of men as batterers and abusers. ...."
It seems incredibly arrogant to me that RADAR would be "advising" the MRA's on how the VAWA should be modified to include “…hundreds of thousands of male victims of DV…” The only way that you can get to those numbers is by embracing Marxist-Feminist statistics that have massive inflation.
Many of us believe that the VAWA needs to be reversed. For example, having battered women's shelters is fine for a "real live battered" woman or male, but there are only a couple of hundred thousand of those victims. Not the massive numbers that are indicated.
Further, by demanding the inclusion of such numbers it would mean that MRA’s are asking for another billion dollars to be added to the bill. That won’t happen because it is simply impossible. If you must ask why then go away. You don’t get it.
In reality, woman’s shelters are socialist reeducation camps that have redefined the actual meaning of an actual "battered woman." This means that a woman who is shoved during an argument is currently considered a battered woman. Now they want to inflate the demand for shelters by further broadening the definition of a battered woman. So, any time the male is 911'd he goes to jail and the woman is given battered woman's shelter information with the option of massive free services.
We should in fact be all over the legislators to educate them that a battered woman's shelter should be only for an actual "battered woman."
It should not be a feel good stop and reeducation camp for women.
I agree that we should also be pointing out that these shelters should be opened to men, but the Marxist-Feminists will be arguing that there are insufficient funds for all the battered women. This of course is a massive lie. The drive for funds is the force behind why the Marxist-Feminists have redefined the meaning of the term "battered woman" to include any woman that feels some sort of fear no matter what the cause.
By so loosely defining the term of a "battered woman" the Marxist were able to argue for massive increases in funding while ignoring males.
I strongly suggest that RADAR should also be pointing out the agenda of Marxist-Feminist to use shelters to destroy the family unit by getting the police state involved in every minor domestic argument. In fact, the state has no business responding to minor situations between domestic couples. It simply isn't their business.
In other words, if a female shoves a male then she should not be arrested. Nor should the male. Yet this is the very practice that the Marxist-Feminists are encouraging. Now I'm reading that RADAR wants to support the Marxist-Feminist in a sick and twisted manner.
No. I will not support that. I will oppose any strategy that aligns MRA's with the Marxist-Feminists.
Well thought out strategy would involve the following goals:
1) Take control of the issue by defining the "battered woman" and discrediting the current definitions. This is the same strategy that the Marxists will use against MRA's and it is a well-proven strategy. The current climate will likely permit this to at least be heard. It the past MRA’s have not even attempted to define the issue. This is the key to any winning strategy.
2) Demonstrate how the family is being destroyed by absurd definitions of the "battered woman" and turn the definitions into gender-neutral terms. For example, a battered person would be defined to be a person that has suffered repeated (three or more) moderate instances of violence or in severe cases one severe instance of violence.
Crap like psychological abuse, pushing, shoving, accidental injury due arising from an argument (like tripping on the edge of a carpet), minor slapping, and etc. would be excluded from the definition of the terms necessary to define a person as actually battered. While these issues are serious it is absurd to jail a person on this basis. At the most a ticket should be issued.
3) Demonstrate that by having more reasonable and narrowly scoped definitions of domestic violence that more funds will be available to treat ALL serious instances of battery. Funding for the destruction of the family where help can be sought through personal insurance programs should be stopped. For example, many companies have family counseling benefits available. These programs can be used to reduce the funding requirements of the VAWA.
5) Reject tiered studies that classify degrees of domestic violence. They are absurd and they have not helped. Only situations where there is a weapon used to inflict serious injury or either person suffers serious injury by kicking or hitting should be considered.
6) Play on the need to privatize health care. Point out that America does not support-socialized health care and that minor domestic arguments are a health issue that should not involve the police powers to destroy the family. What the Marxist-Feminists want is to use the police as a sledgehammer to interfere with every minor domestic argument for the purpose of the destruction of the family unit. Prove this trend and fact. Discredit these communists.
7) Point out that conflict in healthy families is normal and important to the development of the children. If children do not learn from their parents how to resolve conflict then they will fail to confront, tolerate, and resolve conflict as adults.
8) Point out the immaturity of self-centered individuals who, having experienced transitory periods of unhappiness in their marriage, act to destroy the lives of their family and cause their children to be the product of a broken family. Prove that is mostly women and how it harms children.
9) Do not attempt to obtain major evolutionary and radical changes in the VAWA. Remember the principles of incrementalism. They are proven and work. That means that whoever is going to lobby Congress will need to have a fundamental understanding of the last VAWA. The best you'll be able to do is reverse some of the legislation that it introduced. Doing that would be a wild success. Point out how radical the new provisions are and how they will conspire to further destroy the family unit and thus lead to massive increases in crime. For example, most every prisoner is from a broken home.
I could go on, but everybody that has spent time lobbying a legislative body will understand the validity of this strategy.
This other strategy of seeking to have males at exact parity with women under the new version of the VAWA is a loser’s strategy. It is the strategy of armatures.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:15 PM June 19th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
When I think about tactics for gradually rolling back VAWA, I generally agree with warble(above),
and I've argued that an incremental strategy is really all that's available.
I basically support any/all tactics that would force the media and politicians to closely scrutinize the actual proposals in VAWA 2005.
But behind VAWA is a more sinister agenda, that of the inside-the-beltway radical feminists.
VAWA is not fundamentally about providing services for abused women.
It is the main ideological hammer that allows for the continued demonizing of men and boys; it is a cultural weapon; it is the Unholy Grail of Feminism, which must, to survive, prop up and continually reinvent its mythologies of the Evil Patriarchy.
Since gender discrimination in the public employment & educational sectors has been eliminated (and there's good statistical evidence that it's now just the reverse ... i.e. discrimination against men and boys) the feminazi agenda has to shift from the public assault against maleness to the private/family sphere.
The DV Industry, funded largely by VAWA, is the weapon of choice.
It allows the feminists to make every individual couple, relationship, adolescent date, family, and marriage the new battlegrounds for prosecuting masculinity.
The Gender War has now moved from the public arena of laws (because the feminazis won) to the private sphere of relationships.
In fact, feminism's greatest genius is that they have succeeded in erasing the private ... entirely.
When a woman can dial 911 and simply say "I'm afraid of him" and the gestapo arrives instantly, even the most idealistic man cannot believe he has any "private life" left.
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:33 AM June 20th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Roy writes, "...It allows the feminists to make every individual couple, relationship, adolescent date, family, and marriage the new battlegrounds for prosecuting masculinity.
The Gender War has now moved from the public arena of laws (because the feminazis won) to the private sphere of relationships.
In fact, feminism's greatest genius is that they have succeeded in erasing the private ... entirely.
When a woman can dial 911 and simply say "I'm afraid of him" and the gestapo arrives instantly, even the most idealistic man cannot believe he has any "private life" left...."
Exactly. All that must happen is that a male be 911'd for ANY reason, and under the new terms of the VAWA the male looses control over their life, their relationships become regulated, the children are now controlled by the state, and the costs are sufficient to bankrupt the average family. Everybody, including women, looses.
Very well stated Roy.
I also appreciate how Roy has explained this weapon and is explaination for the Marxist-Feminist motivations to create such a weapon against the male gender.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by starzabuv on 03:04 PM June 20th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I lurk for long periods before I feel compelled to post, and I think it's too late for RADAR, or anyone else to make much difference in this fashion. It's still overdue for a masive male walk-out on all of corporate and private america. It may take a few years to develop a following for such an extreme act, but how many more extreme acts against maleness have we already put up with? Maybe they will imprison us all, except for the pussy-male feminists, and we can die laughing in our cells watching them screw it all up without us. Let the wymin finish the Iraq war and all other terrorist threats. I'ld be willing to if all others were, but I know they are not for that now. I would not do this alone either. A lone voice is soon forgotten amongst the lack of any permanent rally of an incredible number of men. The only way it will change is to walk away completely. Call me insane, but mark my words. Greetings to all, by the way.:-)
Disclaimer: Everything I post is of course my own opinion. If it seems harsh, Feminazis just piss me off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Five months ago RADAR set out to do what some considered the impossible: to convince the mainstream media to report the domestic violence issue in a balanced and objective manner.