0
   

Women of A2K, have you seen this ?

 
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 03:02 pm
Sofia wrote " Gee, I'm being discussed so much here. (Guess we need more conservative females.)

angie-- I don't even know you. Puzzling why you seek my opinion so diligently... I don't mind bumping into you once on a while on different subjects--but it's rather odd to be the object of such continued focus.

As we all do, I'll comment when the topic provides sufficient interest. "



You are the only "conservative" female to show up here, hence the attention. Nothing "odd" about it.

(FYI, I consider myself "moderate", having voted both parties, voted W last election, bought the lies, won't happen again, ... but I digress.)


And you still won't comment on the content of the quotes I listed. So, you're not interested enough ?

You know what? I think you're interested enough. Could it be that you actually do not agree with the contents of some or all of the quotes ? Could it be that you may not be very proud or supportive of these particular Bush appointments? Could it be that you support Bush in spite of these appointments, or any appointments, or any actions or behavoir, making you a no accountability partisan ?

Alas, we shall never know. You're just not interested enough to tell us.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 03:29 pm
OK, angie.

We'll see how badly you want my answers.

Bad enough to give one of yours? You posted your screed with NO knowledge of the Violence Against Women's Act. I didn't tease you about it... But, your continued baiting for me to perform a lot of work to run down each of these items IN CONTEXT, evaluate the whole schlemiel, and spit it back out here for your edification--while you don't even know the details of the VAWA and how it does or doesn't contrast with the standing laws is really laughable. I fully expect to laugh any moment.

You want the answers? You can't handle the answers!

(But, for every well argued reason why you back one of these items, I'll give you one.)

Why is the VAWA needed in addition to standing laws?
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 03:36 pm
Sofia wrote:
OK, angie.

We'll see how badly you want my answers.

Bad enough to give one of yours? You posted your screed with NO knowledge of the Violence Against Women's Act. I didn't tease you about it... But, your continued baiting for me to perform a lot of work to run down each of these items IN CONTEXT, evaluate the whole schlemiel, and spit it back out here for your edification--while you don't even know the details of the VAWA and how it does or doesn't contrast with the standing laws is really laughable. I fully expect to laugh any moment.

You want the answers? You can't handle the answers!

(But, for every well argued reason why you back one of these items, I'll give you one.)

Why is the VAWA needed in addition to standing laws?


One, VAWA provides funding for battered women's shelter.

Two, VAWA provides funding for law enforcement for assaults on women.

BTW sofia has yet to provdie one reason why VAWA is, in his words, "bad."
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 03:43 pm
Whenever you feel like taking it up, angie.

But, genuine reasons. I'm not reading all that crap for,...say...a couple of inane sentences, or anything.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 03:50 pm
Sofia wrote:
Whenever you feel like taking it up, angie.

But, genuine reasons. I'm not reading all that crap for,...say...a couple of inane sentences, or anything.


Sofia runs away from the other threads, his arguments are rebutted by other posters and he has the gall to demand replies from angie?
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 03:52 pm
I looked up VAWA from the official government site.

Here is the link and an excerpt, of many I found, that explains why most of us find it almost obscene in its discrimination against unmarried women not to mention other wedges into what most women consider their rights to privacy, right to counseling without worrying whether it might be used in court, etc.

VAWA Violence Against Women Act

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo/laws/vawa/vawa.htm

Quote:
What are the Basic Requirements?

The self-petitioning spouse,

Must be legally married to the U.S. citizen or

lawful permanent resident batterer. A

self-petition may be filed if the marriage was

terminated by the abusive spouse's death within

the two years prior to filing. A self-petition may

also be filed if the marriage to the abusive

spouse was terminated, within the two years prior

to filing, by divorce related to the abuse.


Must have been battered in the United States

unless the abusive spouse is an employee of the

United States government or a member of the

uniformed services of the United States.


Must have been battered or subjected to extreme

cruelty during the marriage, or must be the parent

of a child who was battered or subjected to

extreme cruelty by the U.S. citizen or lawful

permanent resident spouse during the marriage.


Is required to be a person of good moral

character.


Must have entered into the marriage in good faith,

not solely for the purpose of obtaining

immigration benefits.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 04:14 pm
Thanks, Diane. The VAWA gets even worse(!), but I'm not going to do a nimh-job, unless angie defends the VAWA in a detailed manner.

angie--
As for the other items on the list--some do appear gross at first glance--and as I said several pages back--I expect one or two of the items may have at least some substance, but I also expect to find IN CONTEXT, such as has been proven with this one (VAWA); they are misleading spin.

PS-- I may actually never do a nimh-job, but may eek out a marginally related facsimile.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 05:02 pm
The problem with the VAWA of 1994 is that it doesn't go far enough, the VAWA goes farther:

Patrica Ireland then with NOW

I am pleased to be here today in support of the Violence Against Women Act of 1998 and I want to thank Representatives Conyers, Morella and Schumer for their hard work on behalf of women who suffer from domestic violence and sexual assault. It is our fervent hope that the legislation will be passed by Congress this year because we are confident that it will be even more effective than the first act in reducing and preventing abuse. The justification for a new bill re-authorizing successful programs from the first Violence Against Women Act and launching other new initiatives is provided by numerous studies and government reports. Their findings indicate that we have just begun the task of stopping domestic violence and sexual assault. They demonstrate that violence against women is far more prevalent than previously thought; that the problem is highly complex; and, its many impacts ripple throughout our communities.

A few of the tragic facts about violence that we have recently learned:

* On average between 1992 and 1996, about one million women and girls over 12 each year experienced violent victimizations, including rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault by a current or former intimate partner. [National Crime Victimization Survey]
* Of the 1.4 million hospital emergency department admissions in 1994, about one-quarter were treatments for injuries sustained in an assault by an intimate partner or a family member. [Bureau of Justice Statistics]
* More than half of the women who received welfare assistance report being battered or sexually assaulted and as many as 92% of homeless women report having been seriously abused at some point in their lives. [Taylor Institute and the Better Homes Fund]
* One out of every 12 women and one out of every 45 men has experienced stalking in their lifetimes. [National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]
* One in five teen-agers who had sex before age 14 were raped and more than half of that group (54%) will have been forced to have sex at some point during their adolescence. [Child Trends, Inc.]
* Over a quarter-million women are victims of violent crime in the workplace each year and homicide is the leading cause of death for women on the job. [U.S. Department of Justice]

When one stops to consider that battering constitutes between 30 and 40 percent of police emergency calls, it becomes difficult not to describe domestic violence as a national epidemic. There can be no doubt that the programs and funding provided in the first Violence Against Women Act are vitally needed and that we must continue to provide communities with these important tools.

The 1994 law encouraged women to come forward and seek help; it made domestic violence no longer "a dirty little secret." Thousands of women have found a way to break out of the isolation and fear: an average of 7,600 calls for help are received each month by the National Domestic Violence Hotline. This legislation offers additional funding for the highly successful Hotline.

This outpouring has revealed that special groups need help; these include older women, disabled women and battered immigrant women. Because violence against women in these groups is more difficult to identify, it is imperative that we address their differing requirements. The new bill proposes to provide necessary screening, safety, counseling and shelter services.

The single most vital provision in the new bill is authorization of a billion dollars for more space at battered women's shelters. Each month, thousands of women and children are turned away from shelters filled to capacity. The increased funding will mean that no one be sent back out into the cold or, worse, forced to return to their batterer.

Most importantly, the Violence Against Women Act of 1998 proposes a host of workplace initiatives that reflect the reality of women in danger where they are employed. Many of the proposals are designed to encourage employers to take steps to reduce that danger through heightened security measures and flexible job policies. The influx of women moving from welfare to work means that some will face threats on the job; we can help assure these women safety and success by better protecting them. And we want to make sure that other benefits available to workers -- such as unemployment insurance and life or health insurance coverage -- are not denied them because of experiences with battering. The bill provides tax credits and grants to develop and disseminate model programs to provide education and training for employers.

The special problem of hate crimes in our society is recognized in the proposed legislation. The National Organization for Women has long known that many of the most heinous crimes against women are a reflection of hatred and the desire to control them through fear and intimidation. Therefore, we are asking for inclusion in federal criminal civil rights statutes the additional categories of sex-based, sexual orientation-based and disability-based bias motivated crimes. We know from a recent study by the Southern Poverty Law Center that the number of hate groups operating in the United States rose significantly in 1997 -- 20 percent more than in the previous year. The number of hate sites on the Internet is proliferating. Statistics pertaining to rape and murder, serial battering, and threat and intimidation of lesbians underscore the need for enhanced federal prohibitions.

Crime on campus is a special concern. The legislation includes grant programs to reduce violent crimes against women on college and university campuses and lays out new requirements in reporting those crimes. Education is the best avenue to prevention and the new bill mandates programs for students in primary schools about domestic violence and sexual assault.

Again, as with the first act, we request that funds be made available for the training of judicial personnel. Too often we hear from women who have been not only battered by partners, but also abused by judges who ignore reports of domestic violence and child abuse.

Continuation of the highly effective STOP grants for law enforcement is made, with the addition of increased funding and revised distribution formulas. States, local governments and Indian tribes will be required to distribute at least 25% of their funding to improve law enforcement, prosecution and victim services. Funding is also made available to continue to encourage pro-arrest policies which save lives. Incentives are provided to states to assure that protective orders issued in other states are given Full Faith and Credit -- especially critical to preserve the safety of women fleeing batterers accross state lines.

Law enforcement is not the only solution. A vast array of educational, intervention, training and research programs is necessary to effectively address the multi-faceted social problems of domestic violence and sexual assault. In our bill a National Resource Center on Sexual Assault to collect and disseminate information to frontline providers is proposed; also, a National Workplace Clearinghouse on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault would be established to aid businesses and employees in danger; and, a National Summit on Sports and Violence is urged to bring together sports figures, media leaders and anti-violence experts.

Polling tells us time and again that violence is a top concern for women. Across the board. women of all ages, races, economic class and political persuasion do not feel safe to walk the streets at night and hundreds of thousands live in fear in their own homes. The Violence Against Women Act of 1998 represents a stronger commitment of this country to put a stop to endemic violence. It is a vital next step which must be taken now.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2004 10:10 am
Hey Sofia,

You are STILL avoiding the question I posed, and I have not avoided yours. Go back and check the posts. I have already stated that if the VAWA is redundent, then it is not necessary. This thread is not intended to debate tha VAWA.

The MAIN POINT of this thread was to make people aware of the sentiments/philosophical leanings of specific Bush appointees.

And I have clearly stated that I am appalled by tha appointment of someone who would state :

"the battered women's program gas outlived its useful beginnings"
"chldren without married parents should be last in line for Head Start"
"women should be subservient to men"

Did you get that ? Regardless of what the VAWA does or does not do, I am appalled by the sentiments expressed above.

I am appalled.

And you are STILL avoiding any comment on those sentiments.

While I can understand why, (what could you possibly say in defense of such sentiments), it is getting a bit tiring reminding you of your avoidance. Perhaps it is YOU who cannot handle the truth. (jeez, I hate cliches!)


You have chosen not to address the main point of this thread, and, as you may or may not know, I am pro-choice all around, and you may choose to continue not addressing the topic, but I am choosing not to continue responding to your avoidance of this thread's intention.

For others who do choose to respond appropriately, I will definitely check in and engage in what I hope will be meaningful dialogue.



Oh, and by the way all, GO RED SOX !!!!!

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2004 09:07 pm
Harper, I tried t send you a personal message, but it wouldn't go through. Any idea why ?

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2004 09:08 pm
PM system in general is skunked -- ehBeth has a thread about it on Forum Help.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2004 09:20 pm
It just keeps getting worse and worse. I can't hardly believe that anyone actually says this stuff and is in any kind of authoritive position much less that anyone defends those positions. Sofia wanted to laugh, personally I want to cry at the direction our country is descending.

I don't know about the details of the programs. It don't matter. The sentiments expressed by those in charge of sensitive issues such as battered women and the children of unmarried women says it all.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 10:10 am
revel wrote: "The sentiments expressed by those in charge of sensitive issues such as battered women and the children of unmarried women says it all."

Thanks, revel. That's exactly what I was saying.

The point of this thread was to elicit reaction TO THOSE SENTIMENTS. I'm pretty sure everyone who posted here knew that; some, for whatever reasons, chose to dance around that intention, perhaps because those sentiments are clearly indefensible and she well knew that.

Why do you suppose the "liberal media" has not put notice of these appointments all over the TV and airwaves? I intend to forward a printout of the list to every member of the US Congress and to as many media persons as possible. I even intend to forward it along to a few people who just "play a media person on TV", lke O'Reilly and Hannity.

They'll probably ignore it, too.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 10:15 pm
Angie, the list you posted of The Bush administrations positions and present or potential appointments is undeniably horrendous. As this thread has progressed, other issues have been explored that aren't really on topic but are important for the future of women's safety and protection.

As an Independent, I find both sides are too easily manipulated by the politics of legislation rather than the real needs that are being addressed, which is why I oppose WAVA and many other pieces of legislation that are based on the best ideals.

Look at it: marriage is a requirement: a person of good morals must be the one applying for help, etc. If a girl is date-raped but has a bad reputation, is she to be denied any legal recourse?

I'm so tired of compromise, even though I realize that it is necessary in most cases, if any legislation is to be accomplished. But have we become so used to compromise that we "settle" for far less than is needed?

It has become so rampant that i refuse to support watered down bills anymore if there are already laws that would accomplish the same thing if only they were enforced.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 09:04 am
Here's a quote that you might be missing if you don't read my posting of Mr.Piffka's quotes, Angie. This is what women like me HATE about the Republican agenda. From 1992!?!???!

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."
Pat Robertson (1930- ), fundraising letter, 1992
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 12:25 pm
Pat Robertson speaks out on women's issues .... now there's a draw!

I, too, am an independent, one who voted for Bush in 2000, but it is because of his alignment with exremists across the board that I am now (originally posted as "not", an horrific typo) so completely opposed to him and the radical agenda he has revealed through his govetning.

As I said, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the VAWA, I still stand in strong opposition of the woman who stated "the battered women's movement has outlived its useful beginnings".

Of course, I agree with you that the VAWA ought not discriminate against any woman.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 02:47 pm
Angie -- Do you mean "now" so completely opposed...
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 02:51 pm
Pifka !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a difference one single letter can make !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course I meant "now".
I will go bacl and edit out the horrific typo immediately!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 03:23 pm
Very Happy Whew!
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 04:16 pm
Angie, I too absolutely oppose her statement which is an excuse to water down vital legislation; just as partial birth abortion is being used as an inroad to weaken abortion rights in general. All I ask is that just a few brave souls come out and say that they refuse to give in to the worst parts of our government in order to get a little protection.

Of course, some protection is better than none; it's hard to fight that rationale, but I wonder what would happen if women kept fighting and pointing out the blatant discrepancies in the wording that conservatives try to impose--the harm that wording does when a less than perfect woman desparately needs help. Where are the real liberals? Have they all died off?

One thing I've learned in my life of fighting for people with developmental disabilities is that the fight never ends. It is never possible to sit back and say, "Finally, we won, we can relax." The fight goes on and some get so tired that they would rather compromise than have to make another trip to the State capitol or to Washington.

Maybe I'm just feeling depressed by the possibilitiy that we might have four more years of Bush. I'm also tired--really feeling my age--but I still don't want to compromise.
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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 09:44:56