New violence against women act

[nehalem256]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.

Similar or slightly larger numbers of men were subjected to severe force in an incident with their partner, according to the same documents. The figure stood at 48.6% in 2006-07, 48.3% the next year and 37.5% in 2008-09, Home Office statistics show.

You wanted crime survey data...

 

[nehalem256]

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2013743521_domesticviolence26.html

The fact of female abusers and male victims is often lost in the discussion of domestic violence. In fact, women's advocates have used selective statistics — the same federally funded survey that found women are equally as abusive to men — to bolster their plea for funding and services.

That absence of attention to the men's side of the coin has contributed to an imbalance of services for men who are victimized in abusive relationships.

"This is the best-kept secret on family violence," said Murray Straus, a sociologist who led the commissioned survey in 1975, and again in 1985 with the same results. "There is a tremendous effort to suppress and deny these results."

...

"I don't really want to quibble about the particular stats," she said. Instead, Cohen pointed to the "huge number" of female victims she sees in need of assistance each and every day.

"I'm not relying on statistics. I'm relying on 30 years of experience."

...

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last May, Gelles said the law, which is set for reauthorization in 2011, mostly ignores services and resources for male victims of abuse.

Sorry if the facts are against you

 

[waggy]

so if women get arrested as often and commit it as often. why is it a violence against WOMEN act? why not violence against spouse or such act?

 

[ShawnD1]

Because exposing your logical contradictions is not a bannable offense? (Like: "When women were almost always prosecuted for the same violence(usually because it ended up with death)"

Careful now. On some forums, it is a bannable offense to be logical. I recently got banned from a forum because I quoted someone else's post and replaced key words with synonyms meaning the same thing. The person quoted used terms like "set up boundaries" when talking about controlling who a spouse can be friends with. I replaced that with "psychological abuse" to control who a spouse can be friends with, and I bolded the changes. Apparently that counts as "advocating violence" even though I didn't actually change any of the other quoted content. Of course it was a forum run by Christian fundamentalists, so that explains why logic goes out the window.

 

[Wreckem]

Careful now. On some forums, it is a bannable offense to be logical. I recently got banned from a forum because I quoted someone else's post and replaced key words with synonyms meaning the same thing. The person quoted used terms like "set up boundaries" when talking about controlling who a spouse can be friends with. I replaced that with "psychological abuse" to control who a spouse can be friends with, and I bolded the changes. Apparently that counts as "advocating violence" even though I didn't actually change any of the other quoted content. Of course it was a forum run by Christian fundamentalists, so that explains why logic goes out the window.

nelham is far from logical. He is a blatant troll. Nor does anything he say contradict anything I said. Hes just cant read. Women are more likely to kill men in DV situations. The number of men who are victims are fewer than women, based on actually crime data. DV laws don't single out one gender. He also says men just don't report, blah blah blah. Well most women don't report DV either.

He still cannot dispute the fact that men were rarely prosecuted for beating women prior to the push for DV laws. Nor can he. Thats why DV laws were put into place, because men werent being prosecuted.

As for why VAWA is the Violence Agaisnt Women Act, is because women are disproportinately effected by DV. Its obvious if you read the legislative history of the '94 passage. Women have historically and continue to be disproportinately effected by DV.

A woman, who is a homemaker(nelham loves them, infact he thinks all married women should be like that), say she has 2 kids, gets beat by her husband regularly. What are her immediate options for support?

But again, almost everyone in this thread has a thorough misunderstanding of VAWA. Or why it was passed.

Got to thomas.gov and read the bill. Go find the legislative history. Stop making opinions on falsities that you hear spouted by your political compatriots.

The overwhelming populace supports VAWA. This is why VAWA was passed despite the GOPs efforts to not pass it. Thats two times in a Congressional Session that the majority has been forced to bring a minority bill to the floor with subsequent passage. Thats historic and unheard of in modern times.

 

[Lithium381]

What is a mans recourse then? I just think that whatever the statistics are, if it's 50/50 or even 70/30, why not have equal protection undre the law? This is discrimanatory. Men are subjected to DV daily and are supposed to just suck it up in society's eyes?

 

[OverVolt]

If you're smart, time to be gay!

 

[nehalem256]

nelham is far from logical. He is a blatant troll. Nor does anything he say contradict anything I said. Hes just cant read. Women are more likely to kill men in DV situations. The number of men who are victims are fewer than women, based on actually crime data. DV laws don't single out one gender. He also says men just don't report, blah blah blah. Well most women don't report DV either.

I posted actual crime data showing an ~60-40.

Do you really have such a hard time believing that men are less likely to report abuse than women? Especially give the nearly 300 studies supporting equal amounts of violence as well as the the 1975 and 1985 study by Strauss (financed by the US government, see the SeattleTimes article) showing that.

He still cannot dispute the fact that men were rarely prosecuted for beating women prior to the push for DV laws. Nor can he. Thats why DV laws were put into place, because men werent being prosecuted.

Because it is irrelevant to the question of whether men and women are equally likely to be domestically violent.

And given that you appear to think that beating a woman is equal to killing a man I think you may want to rethink your "blatant troll" claim.

As for why VAWA is the Violence Agaisnt Women Act, is because women are disproportinately effected by DV. Its obvious if you read the legislative history of the '94 passage. Women have historically and continue to be disproportinately effected by DV.

This is a lie refuted by nearly 300 studies including ones financed by the US government. The reason it is the violence against women act is because there are a large number of women's groups that advocated for it.

A woman, who is a homemaker(nelham loves them, infact he thinks all married women should be like that), say she has 2 kids, gets beat by her husband regularly. What are her immediate options for support?

Are you suggesting it is common for a man to just start beating his wife after they have 2 kids together? A common enough problem to we worth creating federal government legislation and spend billions of dollars on?

EDIT: Has she no parents, siblings, or friends?

Also I have never said that ALL women should stay at home. In fact I think it is pretty clear that for a minority women that is not the right choice.

The overwhelming populace supports VAWA. This is why VAWA was passed despite the GOPs efforts to not pass it. Thats two times in a Congressional Session that the majority has been forced to bring a minority bill to the floor with subsequent passage. Thats historic and unheard of in modern times.

At one point a large enough populace of the South supported slavery to secede in order to protect it. Doesn't make slavery right.

Also given men's innate desire to protect women as well how easy it is to shame people into supporting it, it is not exactly surprising.

 

[Ausm]

Are rightists in here pissed that their House Republicans finally caved on this?

 

[Doppel]

I love these leading names. After all, who's going to vote against a violence against women act?! I'm not familiar with the act at all, but I think all acts should go by primary sponsor name.

 

[michal1980]

What is a mans recourse then? I just think that whatever the statistics are, if it's 50/50 or even 70/30, why not have equal protection undre the law? This is discrimanatory. Men are subjected to DV daily and are supposed to just suck it up in society's eyes?

because in the liberal mind, man = pure evil scum. (especially if white)

 

[michal1980]

Are rightists in here pissed that their House Republicans finally caved on this?

I am. They caved because of the political stupidity it is to vote against this. not because its the right or wrong thing to do.

liberals should just call tax increases 'keeping minority babies alive acts'

how could anyone vote against that?

 

[waggy]

nelham is far from logical. He is a blatant troll. Nor does anything he say contradict anything I said. Hes just cant read. Women are more likely to kill men in DV situations. The number of men who are victims are fewer than women, based on actually crime data. DV laws don't single out one gender. He also says men just don't report, blah blah blah. Well most women don't report DV either.

He still cannot dispute the fact that men were rarely prosecuted for beating women prior to the push for DV laws. Nor can he. Thats why DV laws were put into place, because men werent being prosecuted.

As for why VAWA is the Violence Agaisnt Women Act, is because women are disproportinately effected by DV. Its obvious if you read the legislative history of the '94 passage. Women have historically and continue to be disproportinately effected by DV.

A woman, who is a homemaker(nelham loves them, infact he thinks all married women should be like that), say she has 2 kids, gets beat by her husband regularly. What are her immediate options for support?

But again, almost everyone in this thread has a thorough misunderstanding of VAWA. Or why it was passed.

Got to thomas.gov and read the bill. Go find the legislative history. Stop making opinions on falsities that you hear spouted by your political compatriots.

The overwhelming populace supports VAWA. This is why VAWA was passed despite the GOPs efforts to not pass it. Thats two times in a Congressional Session that the majority has been forced to bring a minority bill to the floor with subsequent passage. Thats historic and unheard of in modern times.

odd. you seem to be having a hissy fit and going by emotion. he has posted stats and articles.

 

[-Slacker-]

nelham is far from logical. He is a blatant troll.

Sure he is a troll but, in this case, he is a lot more reasonable than you.

 

[Atreus21]

why can't our politians grow a pair and vote against this POS bill?

Because of its title.

 

[Atreus21]

What is a mans recourse then? I just think that whatever the statistics are, if it's 50/50 or even 70/30, why not have equal protection undre the law? This is discrimanatory. Men are subjected to DV daily and are supposed to just suck it up in society's eyes?

Yes, precisely. "Act like a man."

 

[Ausm]

I am. They caved because of the political stupidity it is to vote against this. not because its the right or wrong thing to do.

liberals should just call tax increases 'keeping minority babies alive acts'

how could anyone vote against that?

Please post links of the increase tax Legislation, Thx.

 

[schneiderguy]

Are rightists in here pissed that their House Republicans finally caved on this?

If you were truly a "leftist" you should be outraged over this bill. A law that grants a certain segment of the population privileges not shared with the whole population is fundamentally right wing.

 

[Moonbeam]

All over the world violence against women is the norm and here we have dared to change what has always been even though the Neanderthals protest. Whenever the dominant get toppled from their perch, some of them will cry like babies. None of this was possible without reasonable white men who willingly cede their position in the name of justice. Hurray for reasonable white men. It's always the strongest who can give.

 

[nehalem256]

All over the world violence against women is the norm and here we have dared to change what has always been even though the Neanderthals protest. Whenever the dominant get toppled from their perch, some of them will cry like babies. None of this was possible without reasonable white men who willingly cede their position in the name of justice. Hurray for reasonable white men. It's always the strongest who can give.

To study the potential differences that distinguish homicides involving women as victims or offenders from those involving men, we analyzed Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports data on homicides that occurred in the United States between 1976 and 1987. Only cases that involved victims aged 15 years or older were included. Persons killed during law enforcement activity and cases in which the victim's gender was not recorded were excluded. A total of 215,273 homicides were studied, 77% of which involved male victims and 23% female victims. Although the overall risk of homicide for women was substantially lower than that of men (rate ratio [RR] = 0.27), their risk of being killed by a spouse or intimate acquaintance was higher (RR = 1.23). In contrast to men, the killing of a woman by a stranger was rare (RR = 0.18). More than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance than were murdered by strangers using guns, knives, or any other means. Although women comprise more than half the U.S. population, they committed only 14.7% of the homicides noted during the study interval. In contrast to men, who killed nonintimate acquaintances, strangers, or victims of undetermined relationship in 80% of cases, women killed their spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member in 60% of cases. When men killed with a gun, they most commonly shot a stranger or a non-family acquaintance

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635092

:hmm:

Damn facts getting in the way of the liberal ideology again.

 

[BoberFett]

All over the world violence against women is the norm and here we have dared to change what has always been even though the Neanderthals protest. Whenever the dominant get toppled from their perch, some of them will cry like babies. None of this was possible without reasonable white men who willingly cede their position in the name of justice. Hurray for reasonable white men. It's always the strongest who can give.

So what you're saying is that white men are superior? :hmm:

 

[Moonbeam]

So what you're saying is that white men are superior? :hmm:

No, only that this one is so confident of his own self worth that the cornucopia entrusted to his keeping boundlessly overflows with gifts and that as a white male I had an easier time of arriving at this understanding. I was raised as a king and I believed it. What the fuck happened to you?

 

[Lithium381]

All over the world violence against women is the norm and here we have dared to change what has always been even though the Neanderthals protest. Whenever the dominant get toppled from their perch, some of them will cry like babies. None of this was possible without reasonable white men who willingly cede their position in the name of justice. Hurray for reasonable white men. It's always the strongest who can give.

But why is there inequality then? Why not just the "Stop violence act". . . ?

 

[zsdersw]

Is that reason because women have a uncontrollable attraction to men who beat them?

No.

 

[Moonbeam]

But why is there inequality then? Why not just the "Stop violence act". . . ?

Because for the greatest there is no inequality. No law that protects women can make me feel inferior. I am the cake giver from an endless supply of cake. I never fear any shortage of cake. I am a white male who was king in his mother's eyes. It just makes me feel like returning the favor. Everything is attitude. And the place that's best is the place with the best attitude. We kings know we are kings. The kingdom of heaven is within you.