0
   

Is the Left/Right Alliance Promoting Sex Law Abuse in Trouble?

 
 
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2012 11:40 pm
I have long felt that this go around on the Violence Against Women Act was not going to be the slam dunk that it normally is, given the rise of men's rights advocates and the continuation of the piling up of evidence that American Sex law is a train wreck, but even I did not think that the Right might be willing to abandon the project.

Why Is The GOP Turning Against Anti-Domestic-Violence Legislation
Quote:
The most important thing to remember as Republicans pose as victims of Democrats igniting a culture war over women's rights is this: Republicans are not required to take the bait. They were not required to try to pass legislation restricting women's ability to use their own insurance to cover contraception. They don't have to draft laws allowing your boss to fire you if you use contraception. They're not obligated to think of new and interesting ways to shame women for seeking abortion, nor are they forced to sound like perverts and lechers when discussing these issues. They could always opt out, and simply let women have their rights without fighting us on this.

So when they strike the victim pose with regard to the Violence Against Women Act--accusing Democrats of being meanie bears who make them look like they're against women simply by asking them to vote on a bill that protects women from domestic violence--it's important to remember that no one is holding a gun against Republican heads and telling them to vote against VAWA. As Irin Carmon demonstrates, the excuses for refusing to vote for VAWA, which previously had a great deal of Republican support (just like contraception!), are impressively thin, even for Republican excuses. The claim is that they can't support women and men who suffer from domestic violence because this bill has special provisions for Native Americans and immigrants, and because the bill doesn't seem to go far enough to exclude LGBT victims of domestic violence from receiving help. The "we can't help women because we might accidentally help non-white people and queer people" argument isn't really the winning strategy in trying to convince people that your politics are based in anything but pure mean-spiritedness.

Just as with the contraception issue, the Republican revolt against domestic violence reduction legislation was predictable enough to anyone watching the right carefully, and watching the Republican turn to the right. The far right that opposes contraception, gay rights, and abortion also has opposed VAWA since the beginning. It's seen by the far right as an assault on "the family," i.e., on the absolute authority of straight men over their families. They also oppose it because their misogyny leads them to believe that many to most accusations of domestic violence are lies, and that women make it up so they can get out of marriage. (Even the most polished right winger working this angle can't help but portray marriage as a form of indentured servitude for women. They just simply reject women's right to say no to it, and suggest women would be happier if they would just submit.) Phyllis Schlafly is especially concerned that women might leave and get protection even without getting a sound beating first, and she doesn't even bother to frame constant belittling, screaming, and threats of violence as anything but a man's God-given wife-control rights. As Carmon establishes, the women-should-be-trapped-in-marriage attitude underlies the opposition to VAWA from Concerned Women for America as well, with the group issuing a press release arguing the act offers women a "'tactical advantage'" if they "want out of a marriage for any reason at all." There are lots of accusations from the right that domestic violence legislation somehow strips men of their right to due process; they're presumably referring to the existence of restraining orders that don't actually deprive men of their freedom, but simply require them to stay away from their ex-wives or girlfriends. Unless you believe in an absolute right of men to harass and stalk the woman of their choosing, this argument is something of a stretch.

Because of all this, we can safely assume Republicans are turning against VAWA as part of the larger embrace of extreme right wing views with regard to health care, unions, women's rights, and voting rights. If they're successful, the effects could be devastating. VAWA has had a dramatic impact on lowering rates of domestic violence and especially homicide, but those gains could easily be reversed if the federal support simply vanished

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/03/20/vawa_and_the_republican_hard_turn_to_the_right_.html

Is this a temporary squabble, or is this unholy alliance of the hard line Conservatives and the Feminists to abuse the citizens through unjust sex law in actual trouble?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 845 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 05:10 am
@hawkeye10,
of course they don't like the bill, conservatives like to smack women too

possibly more than anyone, after all the "wifebeater" is practically evening wear in red states Razz
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:24 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

of course they don't like the bill, conservatives like to smack women too

possibly more than anyone, after all the "wifebeater" is practically evening wear in red states Razz


For 20 years the Rebubs have been strong supporters of the VAWA....for 40 years strong supporters of the systematic program of advantaging women through "reforms" of sex law, but you ignore these facts dont you....

And you have ignored the intended point of this thread as well.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 01:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
Your article excerpt pretty much answers your question. The Republicans are against the protection the revision would extend to gay and other minorities. If it weren't for those provisions the act would probably be renewed without the resistance.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 02:11 pm
@hawkeye10,
facts will only get you in trouble, i like to just make **** up as i go along
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 03:25 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Your article excerpt pretty much answers your question. The Republicans are against the protection the revision would extend to gay and other minorities. If it weren't for those provisions the act would probably be renewed without the resistance.


Please provide the quote which indicates that this is the only part of the proposed new mandate that they are opposed to. I watch this debate somewhat closely and I have never heard a repub say that. I for instance have heard some say that the proposed funding leavel is DOA, I have heard some say that the name of the act must change in order for this program to become less insulting towards men.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 03:26 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

facts will only get you in trouble, i like to just make **** up as i go along

Show me.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 04:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
have you read my posts?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 05:14 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

have you read my posts?

All I saw was one undocumented derogatory assertion which is not consistant with decades of behavior of the group you accuse. Do you have anything else?
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 06:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
All I saw was one undocumented derogatory assertion which is not consistant with decades of behavior of the group you accuse. Do you have anything else?


tell you what, i'll see the world the way i want and you, well you can...uh...say, isn't there a women oppressing a man somewhere you should be doing something about Wink
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 07:01 pm
@djjd62,
The trick of course is showing that your opinion conforms to the reality that the rest of us experiance...maybe you are just nuts....
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 07:07 pm
@hawkeye10,
nope, i just see the world the way i want, the rest of the planet is free to do the same, and that my friend is a fact (even if i don't believe in them)
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2012 10:27 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Your article excerpt pretty much answers your question. The Republicans are against the protection the revision would extend to gay and other minorities. If it weren't for those provisions the act would probably be renewed without the resistance.


Please provide the quote which indicates that this is the only part of the proposed new mandate that they are opposed to. I watch this debate somewhat closely and I have never heard a repub say that. I for instance have heard some say that the proposed funding leavel is DOA, I have heard some say that the name of the act must change in order for this program to become less insulting towards men.


I didn't say that this is the only part of the revision that the Republicans are against, but most of them certainly are against these provisions.

From your quote:
Quote:
The claim is that they can't support women and men who suffer from domestic violence because this bill has special provisions for Native Americans and immigrants, and because the bill doesn't seem to go far enough to exclude LGBT victims of domestic violence from receiving help.


What's more:
Quote:
Prior to a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the bill in February, which passed with a solid split along party lines, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said he wants to see the bill extended, but without the new language.

"I wish we could proceed in a consensus fashion again," Grassley said in a statement. "But there are provisions in the bill before us that have never been part of VAWA before. They're not consensus items."

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/03/scott_brown_one_of_few_republi.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is the Left/Right Alliance Promoting Sex Law Abuse in Trouble?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/13/2021 at 05:55:33