Violence Against Women Act gets only gets 7 Republican Senators supporting it versus 53 Democrat.
165 replies, posted
How the Bill is doing in the Senate:
[QUOTE]The seven Republicans who have joined 53 Democrats in support of the legislation are Sens. Kelly Ayotte (NH), Susan Collins (ME), Mike Crapo (ID), Dean Heller (NV), Mark Kirk (IL), Jerry Moran (KS) and Lisa Murkowski (AK).[/QUOTE]
How the Bill is doing in the House of Representatives:
[QUOTE]House Republicans opposed any increase in [the number of u-visas] and sought to end the current ability of U-visa holders to apply for permanent residency after three years, [B]a move that would have eliminated an important incentive for frightened victims to contact law enforcement and assist in prosecutions.[/B] (They also noted that there was a procedural problem with having a U-visa fee in the original Senate bill.) [B]The new bill also incorporates steps to reduce the inexcusable national backlog of untested rape kits.[/B] These changes might make it easier to push this legislation through the House.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Their bill cleared the Senate last April in a 68-to-31 vote, but it was blocked in the Republican-led House largely over provisions that would expand protections against abuse for gay and immigrant victims.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/opinion/violence-against-women-act-is-reintroduced.html?_r=0[/url]
[url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/60-senate-votes-violence-against-women-act.php[/url]
"Equality"
edit: I just don't like the name, anyways I don't see why it should have to be expanded to "Gays, Illegal Immigrants, college students and Native Americans". I think it should apply to everyone, Equally, It shouldn't have language that only protects specific people based on gender or ethnicity (Or sexual orientation). I also believe it should be Broadened and renamed.
I'm actually sick of us having to both listen to things not being "Equal" enough, and sit here and watch as legislation gets put through that re-prioritizes laws to help specific people, as opposed to helping them all.
Haha, one of the senators' names is Mike Crapo
Don't know if I can consider this a party agenda or the fact of most republicans just being outright stupid.
America! Land of the free!*
[SUB]*If you're a straight white male.[/SUB]
Destroy the Tea party. Burn it to the ground and sow salt over the ashaes so nothing can ever grow back.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39446179]America! Land of the free!*
[SUB]*If you're a straight white male.[/SUB][/QUOTE]
Uh, I don't know about you but it seems that the only thing being a "straight white male" legally gives you is less legal protection and the inability to apply for many scholarship based on race/gender.
must be so tough being a straight white male in america
Women are disproportionately the victim of the things that VAWA addresses so its goals make sense, and expanding it to other minority groups is a good idea
That's not to say there shouldn't be more services available for male victims, but you can't claim that VAWA is actively oppressing men or anything, it just has an unfortunate name that makes idiots not read what it does
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39446210]Uh, I don't know about you but it seems that the only thing being a "straight white male" legally gives you is less legal protection and the inability to apply for many scholarship based on race/gender.[/QUOTE]
scholarships are the only situation where being a straight white guy doesn't give you massive benefits.
go back to /r/mensrights or whatever
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;39446220]must be so tough being a straight white male in america[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry I had no idea that my gender or ethnicity automatically gave me a job and puts gas in my car.
does being a female also automatically make you a victim?
does throwing an insult at a colored person automatically make you a racist?
You're the problem with this country, you boil down issues to "Lol we shouldn't have to help them they have it great, we only have to help the colored pplz". People shouldn't be prioritized because of their gender or ethnicity, that's not how equality works, and it's not how you set up a "fair" system.
I'm not saying we shouldn't give help to areas that are poorer because they're mostly colored, or filled with "gangsters" and the like, quite the opposite. I just think that it undermines their efforts if they include language in their policies that specifically targets the "Latino" community in an area. I'm saying it shouldn't include language that specifically singles them out, I'm proposing that the language is MORE equal.
I also won't deny that males have the privilege of being male, but I'll laugh in your face if you deny that being a women comes with it's own privileges, I'm not going to argue whether those advantages are equal because then you're just arguing semantics and it'll go on forever and solve nothing. People aren't "equal" period, You'll never find two people that are completely "equal" to each other, that doesn't mean we can't treat them equally.
Also I think the VAWA has done great things, I just don't like the fact that the title itself makes it seem like it's predisposed to protect women over men, whether or not that's the actual case in the actual wording. I also think that the language shouldn't be so "Specific" so as to exclude people by default, based on gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
edit:
[QUOTE=NightmareXx;39446244]scholarships are the only situation where being a straight white guy doesn't give you massive benefits.[/QUOTE]
Divorce Courts.
Also I never said that straight white males don't have benefits, or "privilege", I just think that it shouldn't be a valid reason to exclude them from services designed to help people. It's like reverse racism/sexism, in a way.
Goddamnit, you fucking bigoted pricks. Get out of the party, you're fucking it up for the rest of us.
Once again, US politics fail at giving right to people by defining what it means to be 'human'.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39446296]Also I never said that straight white males don't have benefits, or "privilege", I just think that it shouldn't be a valid reason to exclude them from services designed to help people. It's like reverse racism/sexism, in a way.[/QUOTE]
First of all, it's not 'reverse' racism or sexism in any sense, that sort of term does a disservice to the issue of prejudice itself. Second, there's a reason white people aren't excluded from welfare or social programs, it's because poor white people need them just as much as poor hispanics, or poor black americans, or poor asian americans.
However, when you have a program specifically created to even out inequalities of opportunity or justice, that likely have resulted because of racial or sexual prejudice, that itself is not prejudiced against white men, whatever MRA groups might claim. To call it prejudice defeats the meaning of the word entirely.
I'll gladly concede that it's not really racism, but you do understand where I'm coming from, that in a way it's prioritizing people above others in such a way that it's favoring one group over another based on assumptions.
These assumptions are not universily true, but I can accept that they're true enough that I don't wish to see them done away with, just expanded in such a way that people who truly need support or help aren't denied it because it's assumed that they're in a better position based on something unrelated (gender/skin color).
edit:
I do however wish to see (or more accurately, no longer see )"wage gap" fallacies and the like that over-simplify complex "problems" with raw data ($100:$77 men:women fallacy) go away. They are used to inaccurately present a broad issue in such a way that it prompts unneeded or completely uncalled for, and mostly ineffective, legislation to "equalize" the playing field (See: [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Cb_6v-JQ13Q#t=241s]Warren Farrel[/url] ).
divorce courts, wage gap myths, warren farrell
you're just copying and pasting content from mra blogs at this point
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39446210]Uh, I don't know about you but it seems that the only thing being a "straight white male" legally gives you is less legal protection and the inability to apply for many scholarship based on race/gender.[/QUOTE]
Zeke129 literally posted in another active thread here (the black guy shooting 3 girls one) that majority of scholarships go to whites
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39446538]I'll gladly concede that it's not really racism, but you do understand where I'm coming from, that in a way it's prioritizing people above others in such a way that it's favoring one group over another based on assumptions.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it sucks to be disadvantaged. Sorry that it might happen to you when applying for scholarships or whatever, but these people deal with it every day of their lives so I think you can put up with it in the very rare cases it happens to you.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Baconator;39446658]Zeke129 literally posted in another active thread here (the black guy shooting 3 girls one) that majority of scholarships go to whites[/QUOTE]
but some don't ;-;
who is Warren Farrel anyways, according to his wikipedia article he is a 2nd wave feminism supporter or something, but his page is a wall/avalanche of text so tl;dr please
where is the violence against straight, christian conservative male with family values act?
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;39446643]divorce courts, wage gap myths, warren farrell
you're just copying and pasting content from mra blogs at this point[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry for using relevant examples? They'll stop being relevant when people stop using them as excuses to push legislation.
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/is-the-united-states-behind-on-wage-equality_n_2599811.html[/url]
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/women-pay-gap-student-debt_n_2008484.html[/url]
[url]http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/2013/01/gender-wage-gap-men-women-massachusetts/[/url]
[url]http://blogs.bostonmagazine.com/boston_daily/2013/01/31/boston-menino-wage-gap-women/[/url]
[url]http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/543416/Casey--Gender-pay-gap-hurting-families.html?nav=5003[/url]
Divorce courts still have a huge tendency to favor mothers over fathers, and warren farrell is a brilliant man who supports equality, but doesn't go so far as to blindly push ideas without looking into their cause.
The problem with the "wage gap" is that they refuse to acknowledge the actual cause of the pay gap, and will continue to pass legislation trying to force "equal" pay, and it won't change anything because they're still not going to make the actual decisions, or do the actual work, that will close it. Until they make the hard decisions, or work the dangerous jobs, work the tiring hours, they're not going to get payed as much, plain and simple. They also refuse to get down into real statistics and continue to push "Well she gets paid this much a week, and he gets paid this much!", never acknowledging the hours, overtime, or actual work done.
I'm literally shocked that a thread on violence against women has turned into a men's rights jerk
You're just repeating the same old tired mra talking points in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with men
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;39446876]I'm literally shocked that a thread on violence against women has turned into a men's rights jerk[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I wonder why.
[img]http://puu.sh/1Wgic[/img]
[img]http://puu.sh/1Wgiy[/img]
Well duh, who would want to vote for violence against women. Stupid liberals.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39446911]Yeah, I wonder why.
[img]http://puu.sh/1Wgic[/img]
[img]http://puu.sh/1Wgiy[/img][/QUOTE]
Good job conveniently skipping over your first two posts
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;39446670][IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FZLChf2Cwyc/UN0pMqAsnII/AAAAAAAAMTs/0hIgiw4LyPU/s1600/2035_10151196413036275_1408173545_n.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
i saw this pic posted on a conservative blog once with the caption "LOL so true! Taking away from others just so the little guy can have fun.."
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39446811]The problem with the "wage gap" is that they refuse to acknowledge the actual cause of the pay gap, and will continue to pass legislation trying to force "equal" pay, and it won't change anything because they're still not going to make the actual decisions, or do the actual work, that will close it. Until they make the hard decisions, or work the dangerous jobs, work the tiring hours, they're not going to get payed as much, plain and simple. They also refuse to get down into real statistics and continue to push "Well she gets paid this much a week, and he gets paid this much!", never acknowledging the hours, overtime, or actual work done.[/QUOTE]
aight for real head back to r/mensrights. your entire argument regarding the wage gap is inherently flawed because its [B]false[/B]. the studies that support the wage gap between men and women already account for career choice, race, sexuality, family background, etc.. ie they control for literally every factor possible other than gender. so this idea that the wage gap is caused by women just being lazier than men is not only inherently sexist but false
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;39446920]Good job conveniently skipping over your first two posts[/QUOTE]
The first of which I said that I think legislation designed to help people should be more broad so as to apply to more people by default, instead of turning everything into an issue of "Well do they really need it though?"
And the second in which I was replying to someone else making the implication that being a straight white male makes everything a piece of cake and that everything becomes super easy?
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39446933]The first of which I said that I think legislation designed to help people should be more broad so as to apply to more people by default, instead of turning everything into an issue of "Well do they really need it though?"
[B]And the second in which I was replying to someone else making the implication that being a straight white male makes everything a piece of cake and that everything becomes super easy?[/B][/QUOTE]
nobody ever implied this you just have a persecution complex so you think "straight white males have advantages" means "ALL WHITE PEOPLE HAVE PRIVATE LIMO DRIVERS AND THEY DONT HAVE TO PAY RENT"
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39446933]And the second in which I was replying to someone else making the implication that being a straight white male makes everything a piece of cake and that everything becomes super easy?[/QUOTE]
Except literally nobody implied that. Straight, white males just aren't disadvantaged for being straight, white males. Nobody's saying straight white men automatically have it easy, they're just way more likely to have it easy for who they are
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.