|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you know the republicans and democrats aren't going to do anything different.
same crap shoved down our throats day after day.....for years.
If you want real change, put your mouth where your finger is......vote for the Libertarian or Constitution partyman of your choice.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Fidelbogen on 07:05 PM December 19th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
"you know the republicans and democrats aren't going to do anything different. "
Er...yes. I must say, I've never voted any sort of party ticket it my life. Certainly, the people who hold power, whatever their ideologies, are remarkably similar as far as the peons miles below the mountaintop are concerned.
Now, about VAWA: If the language has indeed been gender-neutered as claimed, then it is a MAJOR victory for which we ought to feel celebratory!
The struggle against feminism is largely a propaganda battle, and this gender-neutralization would count as a propaganda victory of the first order -- although it is subtle, and might take some time to trickle into the realm of everyday felt experience. Still, it is a victory -- feminism's power apparatus has been structurally weakened. Enough weakenings of that kind, and it will begin to crumble....
So we reached for Jupiter and got Mars. Hey, that's not so bad! Let's relax on Mars for a few days, gather our wits, and go for Jupitier in round two.
-Fidelbogen-
"Feminism has a rap sheet."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:28 PM December 19th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
An updated post at the MND blog link below confirms that absolutely nothing legally enforceable was achieved in the so-called gender-neutrality of VAWA 2005 legislation.
All the funding authority will continue to reside with DOJ's Office for Violence Against Women, and the law as forwarded to the White House specifically prohibits funding for DV services or research that "focuses" on men and boys.
The pols of course can "honestly" say they voted for a bill that "included" men within its scope.
-----
"VAWA gender-neutral text clarification
I'd like to thank David Burroughs, of Safe Homes For Children and Families Coalition for clearing up the confusion about the gender-neutral text in VAWA. He states:
[W]e did get the GAO language verbatim ( the Section 512 language now Title 1 Subtitle K Subsection.4105 SEC. 119) as I had submitted it to my contacts in the House.
However, the Section 2005 language providing for gender neutral eligibility for grants did not survive and instead the watered down Senate version of that section was substituted. That language is not as strong as the original House language. It only provides that male victims can not be denied services.
This is critical because the DOJ has consistently said while men can not be denied services, programs "focused" on male victims are ineligible. This is obviously a disappointment HOWEVER, it is still movement forward. For the first time the Congress made explicit reference to male victims and made it clear they were to receive services. We will still attempt to use this as a basis for insisting the DOJ make grants available but beyond that we will initiate a campaign to challenge every Federal recipient shelter/service provider who turns away men saying " We don't shelter men" "
Link at (scroll a way down the page to VAWA header...) --
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/feminist4fathers/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:38 PM December 19th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and since the bill does not even define let alone require that "services" for male victims of domestic violence be equivalent to those funded for women, I invite you to suggest what "services for men" will consist of...
Perhaps ---
* a quarter for a cup of coffee?
* a courtesy limo ride in the squad to jail?
* a one-night voucher for a flop house hotel?
* an autographed photograph of Andrea Dworkin?
* a free ticket to Oprah's show?
* a referral to a batterer's treatment program?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:40 PM December 19th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
(From the always excited Allison at NNEDV... gosh only eight exclamation points!!!!!!!!)
Do feminists recruit at high school cheerleader camps now? I just know that Allison dots her "i" in her signature with a "heart...."
----
"The Violence Against Women Act, HR 3402, has finally passed both the House and Senate! It now only awaits the President's signature to become law!
VAWA passed in the Senate Friday (12/16) night by unanimous consent, and in the House on Saturday (12/17) afternoon by voice vote.
This is a tremendous victory for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking everywhere in this country!!!
It is also an amazing victory for YOU -- the national organizations, the state coalitions, the local programs, and the individual victims and supporters who made calls, wrote letters, and sent emails.
Please know that it truly was your voices and your work that made VAWA happen.
The final bill includes a comprehensive package of grant programs and legal changes to help victims of domestic violence. We will have an analysis of the bill posted on our website at www.nnedv.org in a few days.
Now we just have to make sure we get funding in next year's budget for these exciting new programs -- we'll keep you posted on that. :)
In a few days, the text of the final legislation will be available at http://thomas.loc.gov. Enter the bill number -- HR 3402 -- into the box and click "bill number" to search for the most recent text. There will be several versions -- you'll want the very last version, HR 3402 as passed by BOTH the House and Senate.
THANKS AGAIN FOR EVERYTHING YOU HAVE DONE THIS YEAR!!!"
Allison
Allison Randall
Public Policy Specialist
National Network to End Domestic Violence
660 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 303
Washington, DC 20003
202-543-5566 (phone)
202-543-5626 (fax)
arandall@nnedv.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I invite you to suggest what "services for men" will consist of...
Perhaps ---
...
* a one-night voucher for a flop house hotel?
...
More like a shovel to dig your own ditch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MR on 03:17 AM December 20th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"I invite you to suggest what "services for men" will consist of..."
Every service that women are entitled too and not one iota less.
MR - as in Men's Rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 09:49 PM December 19th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Even though this is a small step forward it is still a step forward in men's rights. Do not lose heart in this fight. If we had not contacted our reps with e-mails, letters, faxes and phone calls we would not even have this!
Time and history is on OUR SIDE! No nation can stand having 50% of the population by law a pampered class while the other 50% don't have the civil rights of hogs.
MEN'S RIGHTS IS A POLITICAL ISSUE NOW!
I have informed my legislators that as a men's rights voter I am not interested in what the hell happens in Iraq, a long promised tax break, another endless education bill or other non-issues that the jaded media says are issues men voters are interested in.
I am totally focused on elevating men from their second class citizen status a vital foundation support of the Social-Marxist quagmire the rad-feminists lunatics have gotten this country and the rest of the West into over the last 30 years.
The real battle against tyranny is HERE! not over in Iraq!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:06 PM December 19th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree with you that equality is a serious, and definitive subject. But our government doesn't want equality. If they had equality we would have a strong Family unit amongst the working class. That would never do, as strong Family units are harder to manipulate. It is not only the radical feminists that we are at war with, it is the government it self, how do you think the radicals gained control?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:24 PM December 19th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
The 911 report came out and told everyone that read the book that the doj is violating the Constitutional Rights of all Americans, what makes anyone think that by changing the language that they will listen? It was also documented that fbi offices were not following the directives of the fbi. Who the hell is going to police the police? While we languish under the dictatorial actions of a government run amuck? Oh, since we are at war I may have just said something that is currently un American, but highly Constitutional!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Masculiste on 11:06 PM December 19th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Until they rename it the "Violence Against the Family Act," I'm still not buying it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 11:06 AM December 20th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid I feel the same way.
I won't buy it either unless it's not only called something other than the "Violence Against Women Act", and when I see it actually put into practice. Because, actually, they can CALL it what ever they want, but it may just be the same thing only called a different name.
This whole thing keeps reminding me of the treaties the U.S. government made with my people. (American Indians) And we all know how THAT turns out...
They offered us all kinds of platitudes and made all kinds of assurances and promises to us. But in the end they BROKE EVERY one of those, over 300, treaties.
Maybe that's why I'm skeptical, I don't know.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:00 PM December 20th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Thundercloud,
Consider -- at least when your people were trying to negotiate with the Great White Father in Washington, you had actual MEN representing your tribes!
Men today have a wussie-poopie Congress full of castrated representatives who will NEVER vote against any bill with a title like "Violence Against Women Act..."
Can you imagine what would happen at a Congressional hearing if the likes of Sitting Bull, Gall, or Crazy Horse appeared and spoke?
Hell, even the Lakota women had more balls than any given U.S. Congressman! (My personal favorites are Antelope Woman, who rode around the Little Big Horn battelfield singing war songs, and Calf Trail Woman, who actually took up a gun, going against all tribal gender codes.)
I've come to the conclusion that women are the least of MRA's enemies.... the real culprits masquearade as men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 12:31 PM December 21st, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. I couldn't agree more.
thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by frank h on 02:21 PM December 20th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't read the language; I'll trust (for now) the other folks who have to have given me sufficient background to make this statements:
If the language is, indeed, gender-neutral, then there is absolutely no reason that the 14th Amendment should not apply. Further, one could probably make the case in federal court, that the language change in the re-authorization constitutes a sufficient sea-change such that the overt discrimination embedded in the current practice ought to be discontinuted immediately.
I'm not in a position to do it, but might I suggest that someone go through the motions of applying for funding in some state (like Massachusetts?), getting rejected, and then asking for an immediate injunction against the state prohibiting them from dispensing ANY funds until the issue can be resolved?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Roy writes "An MND blogger reports that the Senate/House conference committee yesterday passed a version of VAWA 2005 that includes "gender-neutral" language. Problem is, nothing in this language actually mandates any spending or support for male DV services, nor does it reform the biased funding authority of the Office Against Violence for Women that distributes the five billion. "Today VAWA passed through the Senate/House Conference Committee with the entire gender-neutral text that we asked for. David Burroughs who wrote the text said ... 'Through the hard work and support of many dedicated supporters of equality we have succeeded in having language inserted in the VAWA that makes it clear to the DOJ [Department Of Justice] VAWO [Violence Against Women Office] that it can no longer circumvent the original intent of Congress that this legislation provide shelter and services to all victims of domestic violence regardless of their gender.' " Link at --