What part of VAWA do you think is unconstitutional? More importantly, what part of VAWA do you think discriminates against men?
Here is more on the Debate surrounding the Violence Against Women Act:
Debate and legal standing
The American Civil Liberties Union had originally expressed concerns about the Act, saying that the increased penalties were rash, that the increased pretrial detention was "repugnant" to the U.S. Constitution, that the mandatory HIV testing of those only charged but not convicted was an infringement of a citizen’s right to privacy, and that the edict for automatic payment of full restitution was non-judicious (see their paper: "Analysis of Major Civil Liberties Abuses in the Crime Bill Conference Report as Passed by the House and the Senate", dated September 29, 1994). The ACLU has, however, supported reauthorization of VAWA on the condition that the "unconstitutional DNA provision" be removed.
The ACLU, in its July 27, 2005 'Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, S. 1197' stated that "VAWA is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided critical services necessary to support women in their struggle to overcome abusive situations".
Some activists oppose the bill. Janice Shaw Course, a senior fellow at Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute called the Act a "boondoggle" which "ends up creating a climate of suspicion where all men are feared or viewed as violent and all women are viewed as victims". She described the Act as creating a "climate of false accusations, rush to judgment and hidden agendas" and criticized it for failing to address the factors identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as leading to violent, abusive behavior. Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly denounced VAWA as a tool to "fill feminist coffers" and argued that the Act promoted "divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men".
In 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States held part of VAWA unconstitutional in United States v. Morrison on federalism grounds. In that decision, only the civil rights remedy of VAWA was struck down. The provisions providing program funding were unaffected.
In 2011, the law expired. In 2012 the law was up for reauthorization in Congress. Different versions of the legislation have been passed along party lines in the Senate and House, with the Republican-sponsored House version favoring the reduction of services to undocumented immigrants and LGBT individuals. Another area of contention is the provison of the law giving Native American tribal authorities jurisdiction over sex crimes involving non-native Americans on tribal lands. This provision is considered to have constitutional implications, as non-tribes people are under the jurisdiction of the United States federal government and are granted the protections of the U.S. Constitution, protections that tribal courts do not often have. The two bills were pending reconciliation, and a final bill did not reach the President's desk before the end of the year, temporarily ending the coverage of the Act after 18 years, as the 112th Congress adjourned.
Telling women you have a choice between shaving and not shaving = controlling people
Shaming women into shaving =/= controlling people
Bandar, my dear, all the childish reactions and the hoopla you see in this thread is about nothing but control. You guys aren't upset about some hair. The hair is just a symbol. You guys are upset that women are making choices for themselves without caring about your reaction or approval. You perceive it (rightly) as a loss of control, and you interpret it (wrongly) as a form of oppression against men.
Don't worry, dear, women aren't going to turn into big bad monsters and attack you or anything Even the "hairy" ones are still wearing nail polish lol
It's pretty obvious that God created two sexes who both have body hair, and if God thought that body hair was a hindrance to mutual attraction and, hence, reproduction, there would be no point in doing that. In other words, misogynists think they are smarter than God.
1) Misogynist posts such as yours are the epitome of hatefulness. Not research about patriarchy.
2) Instead of hating on women (and pro-feminist men) in academia, apply for your own grants to research topics of interest to you, and do something useful.
3) Yes, there are people who don't understand the value of hard work. Hard work is going to your job everyday, then coming home and taking care of your family and doing most of the housework while the men around you complain about how oppressed they are.
4) You're right, there is no such thing as a free lunch, so get in the kitchen and make your own damn sandwich.
5) Feminists don't pay taxes in Bandarland. On wait, doesn't Bandar live in Lebanon? Who pays taxes in Lebanon?
How is "modern marxism and feminism obsessed with controlling people and a society of degenerates"?
Care to give some examples? Because like your friend Convergence, all you are doing is making a claim and a conclusion, while you skip the most important part: the argument.
Furthermore, it is clear from your post that your knowledge about gender roles is subpar. Gender is NOT determined at birth (nor is it determined by whatever mythical deity you espouse to believe in). Sex is what's determined at birth, while gender is not. Gender reflects social and cultural beliefs about the behavior of men and women in their respective societies.
I find it hilarious that you propagate inequality based on a myth.
Muki, there is no need to play lawyer. Everyone including you states their opinions without full justifications all the time. I could tell you the burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim that women are oppressed if I wanted to play lawyer as well
I am only asking your opinion, no justifications needed: Do you believe women in first world countries are oppressed to the benefit of men?
If you want a serious discussion on the topic I suggest making a thread about it because this is big topic.
The way it is being applied.
The way law enforcement is using it. The way the legal system leverages it. and the way some women abuse it.
Read some of whats written in that site... The issue here is far from black and white.
I am not saying there is no problem in violence against women, I am saying that laws that were intended to protect women, are making it easy to unfairly target men and strip them from their own protection under the law.
Some argue that the letter of this law are not gender specific, but read its title! and you can study the biases through which it is being applied.
Oppressed is not an accurate description.
Women are discriminated against in first world countries, and men have privilege. For example, women get paid less for performing the same job that a man does.
I haven't made a claim yet.
You, however, did and did not provide an argument for your claim.
I'm asking you to support your argument so I can gain a better understanding of your position on the subject matter.
There is a thread about feminism already.
joseph_lubnan, why did you go and teach Indie the art of guerrilla posting? She ran when her initiating of aggressive speech and attempt to police men's opinions/tastes was put on the spotlight
Indie, my dear, all the childish reactions and the hoopla you see in this thread is about nothing but control. You girls aren't upset about attraction to lack of some hair. The hair is just a symbol. Yougirls are upset that men are making choices for themselves about what they find attractive without caring about your reaction or approval. You perceive it (wrongly) as a loss of choice, and you interpret it (wrongly) as a form of oppression against women.
Doesn't the first choice include the second?In other news, I'm debating between entering a convent, turning gay,
I can't let you do that. You will later wrongfully sue me for paternity.and using a sperm donor.
Go for the first choice. You get two for one.Any opinions?