Thread: GOP Opposes Renewal of the Violence Against Women Act

Originally Posted by PatrickT

As with class warfare, and race warfare, the gender warfare must be perpetuated by the Democrats at all costs.

Repubs are so good at projection.

Originally Posted by Polly Minx

The part where we still have excellent credit by world standards,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...IxI_story.html

most certainly are not broke,

Not as long as we have printing presses and ink, anyway. We are out of money...hadn't you heard?

and, far more importantly, where basic human safely is a little more important than whether or not we accumulate a marginal amount of debt anyway.

Marginal debt? So long credibility.

Writing this up as a money issue is the most ridiculous and callous argument I've ever heard in my life, bar none. We both know way better than that!

I don't find this primarily a matter of money, but your incredible state of willful economic denial in the face of reality leads me to wonder what else you simply refuse to acknowledge because it clashes with your partisan perceptions.

Originally Posted by Polly Minx

The part where we still have excellent credit by world standards, most certainly are not broke, and, far more importantly, where basic human safely is a little more important than whether or not we accumulate a marginal amount of debt anyway. Writing this up as a money issue is the most ridiculous and callous argument I've ever heard in my life, bar none. We both know way better than that!

Still dodging my question I see.

Are women truly the weaker sex and in need of special protection under the law?

Mac-7 wrote:
Still dodging my question I see.

Are women truly the weaker sex and in need of special protection under the law?

Unlike many other people here, I do not have definite opinions on the question of who is the "stronger sex" and who is the "weaker sex". It has been made clear that women can perform any type of work that men can. But nevertheless, most continue to work in fields essentially similar to their traditional work, often involving some form of child care, house work, communications-oriented work, etc., with the difference that now, unlike before, they tend to get paid and do a lot of this work away from home. So yes, women have the ability to do the heavy-lifting, manual labor type jobs (e.g. the kinds one often stereotypes as being in fields like manufacturing and construction), but do most have the desire to? And is that really our definition of strength anyway? Or should strength be more accurately defined in terms of our collective impact on the socio-economic life of this country and of the world more broadly, in which case women are actually the stronger sex, since, between work that's paid and work that's not, we do most of the work according to the United Nations? The latter theory, which I tend to lean toward (without officially subscribing to), contends that men have less ability to survive without women than women do without men. Men are more parasitic and dependent since, in every country, they contribute less work and receive greater material reward. Therefore women are, if anything, the stronger sex. Society simply doesn't tend to place as much value on the work that women do. The 23% gap between the typical guy's income and the typical woman's testifies to that fact. But that too is changing with the protracted decimation of our manufacturing base and the replacement of so many of the workers in these fields with machines. The new service economy, unlike the old industrial economy, is becoming more and more indifferent to men's upper body strength.

I tend to avoid such debates though, as most people find them insulting. Moreover, I find that Republicans tend to use the same arguments toward everyone anymore: the argument that measures strength in terms of one's present social status and degree of commitment to individualism. And so it follows that you figure battered women should just tough it out or whatever, lest they prove themselves weaker and inferior as a sex. You'd probably give men the same advice. Leftists, on the other hand, tend to be more sympathetic in general, to both women and men. If compassion is an expression of weakness to you, I'd argue that's a selfish, unhealthy, and elitist attitude.

Okay, I answered your sorry excuse for a relevant question. Now you either respond to the contents of the OP or don't bother posting on this thread again. The next irrelevant, tangent post on your part will be ignored.

Yosh Shmenge wrote:
Apparently this law expired 1n 2011 (according to the OP link) and the democrats are just now trying to gin up election season outrage over this?

Maybe if democrats didn't politicize these issues for their own partisan gain people wouldn't look at them as such scumbags (they have yet to disavow Bill Maher). So excuse me if I don't care much for your crocodile tears.
This is another ploy to manufacture outrage against republicans. Boo frickin' hoo!

Where have people gotten the illusion that I'm a Democrat from? I'm an independent!

Rest assured that I understand perfectly well that this is an election year and that that is, rest assured, the essential reason why leading Democrats have suddenly remembered they care about the plight of women. You'll find that I'm not as gullible and naive as some others here. (And where you've gotten the impression that I've ever been a fan of Bill Maher is beyond me.) At the same time, this issue is one that has recently come to the forefront of national discussion again and it is, in fact, the Republican Party that is blocking the renewal of VAWA. Therefore I figure you who support the Republican Party's position on the matter should try explaining that rather than just trying to pass the blame for the Republican Party's actions.

fascinating how some people on here will attack Islam for its treatment of women, but do not believe that women in their own society deserve to be protected against violence.

some info on violence against women in the US:

The United States was one of the countries identified by a United Nations study with a high rate of domestic violence resulting in death during pregnancy

According to a report by the United States Department of Justice, a survey of 16,000 Americans showed 22.1 percent of women and 7.4 percent of men reported being physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime.[26]
60% of American Indian and Alaska Native women will be physically assaulted in their lifetime.

Dating violence is often a precursor to domestic violence. 22% of high school girls and 32% of college women experienced dating violence in a 2000 study. 20.6% of women experienced two or more types of dating violence and 8.3% of women experienced rape, stalking or physical aggression while dating.[33]

[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti...tes#Statistics

Originally Posted by Polly Minx

The part where we still have excellent credit by world standards

LOL

So we should borrow money until we have no more credit worthiness left.

How American of you.

Originally Posted by Polly Minx

far more importantly, where basic human safely is a little more important than whether or not we accumulate a marginal amount of debt anyway.

Every liberal "program" speaks of rights and how its the highest priority.

Exactly what does this bill provide that wouldn't be provided by healthcare insurance?

Originally Posted by Polly Minx

Writing this up as a money issue is the most ridiculous and callous argument I've ever heard in my life, bar none. We both know way better than that!

I would say the most callous argument would be that that claims that republicans hate women.

Originally Posted by Yosh Shmenge

Apparently this law expired 1n 2011 (according to the OP link) and the democrats are just now trying to gin up election season outrage over this?

Maybe if democrats didn't politicize these issues for their own partisan gain people wouldn't look at them as such scumbags (they have yet to disavow Bill Maher). So excuse me if I don't care much for your crocodile tears.
This is another ploy to manufacture outrage against republicans. Boo frickin' hoo!

wow, I didn't even see that.

This deserves repeating.

All you liberals are simply political pawns in the democrats re-election campaigns.

I'm no expert but why was such an act necessary? The law, prior to the act, should be sufficient to protect all women from criminal violence. What was it the act was correcting?

Originally Posted by cassandrabandra

fascinating how some people on here will attack Islam for its treatment of women, but do not believe that women in their own society deserve to be protected against violence.

some info on violence against women in the US:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti...tes#Statistics

This is not evidence of a lack of legal protection. This is statistical evidence of incidences of violence that occur even when such legal protection is, in fact, more than adequate when the law is properly enforced. Men are still far more likely to be victims of violent crime in general. Why don't we have a violence against men act?

If women are equal why do they need extra legislation? Isn't current legislation sufficient. Not for the left. They need this to demonize the right. This is federal law. It is not up for renewal. It is up for some tweaking on funding it. And seeing as we're doing SOOOOOO well in THAT area thanks to President Obummer....well. good job of faux outrage and you libs especially lib women are so easily worked up and predictable.