Do you want to see VAWA introduced in every country in the world?

Question

Thanks to feminist pressure groups the number of countries that have DV laws has increased from 45 in 2003 to 89 in 2006 http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/violence_against_women/facts_figures.php?page=2 6 months ago I would have thought this was great news and a sign of progress. However since I have learned about how prejudiced DV laws are against men in countries like the US I can only see the uptake of feminist DV laws as a creeping death for men in those places.

If feminists want to protect women from violence - that's great. But why bring in severe and sexist laws such as those seen in the US? Is it to protect women or to punish men?

Answer 1

yes, but let's not confuse domestic discipline with domestic abuse

Answer 2

I want to see domestic violence against everyone ended for good, and every little bit helps. Prove that DV laws in other countries (and even the U.S.) were written to be prejudiced in favour of women, then get back to us.

Answer 3

@rio

The name itself proves it.

Violence Against WOMEN Act.

If it where not sexist, it would be

Violence Against HUMANS Act.

I wonder if you would say that there is no proof if it where called

Violence Against MEN Act.

Leaving women out.

Answer 4

Well, Pakistan and Afghanistan, for starters, could certainly use one. As could most of Africa, if not all. Much of South America, where it's still only a misdemeanor to set your wife on fire if she doesn't vacuum the house properly.

I'm so sorry that increasingly, in some places, men will no longer be able to murder their daughters for having a boyfriend without fearing retribution. Maybe these men can find another hobby, rather than abusing and murdering their female relatives?

David G: the difference between "domestic discipline" and"domestic abuse" is non-existent. They are both perpetrated by inferior, sick-minded people who don't deserve the title of "human."

Answer 5

I have a Q....

I'll agree with the problem with the name should be human or people instead of women...

From what I've seen and read of law it's self it isnt sexist...or have I missed something

Is it the LAW or the NAME your objecting to?

Answer 6

I have the pleasure of knowing a radical feminist who is also a solicitor. she advocates wives push their husbands into shouting and pressing charges for dv once, and holding the power to have her husband sent to jail easily for a second charge.

these people are scum, they pretend that female violence does not exist, they ignore the fact that the majority of serial killers and rapists had domineering abusive mothers.  

the feminist youth, these apologists above and below me are either too brainwashed to see the bigger picture or they are consciously supporting  these pigs and their radical agenda.

TRACEY,  google india + bride burning + mother in law

sorry, im cranky : )

Answer 7

Nope

Stupid law like that need to be shot down.

Answer 8

I don't, but feminists wouldn't mind a bit. For them, it is all about women.

They are more to punish men than to protect women. I remember Renuka Chaudary bleating on about how women were harassed in some CNN interview. She introduced this Act worse than VAWA where a man can be jailed for as little as insulting FORMER girlfriends and wives! If I call the cousin brother of someone who was my GF in 1980 an idiot, I could be in jail. (This Domestic Violence Act is Indian, BTW)

Yet, Indian women are oppressed in rural areas, where there is no law enforcement. If feminists insist on cruel laws instead of proper enforcement of existing ones, am I not supposed to assume they weren't meant for protection but revenge?

Same with VAWA in the USA. Men are beat on just as much as women are in the USA, but they get no protection or support. h**l, they're laughed at when they say their wives hit them. And these laws are also unfair because they need no evidence or trial, just word-of-mouth. If I'm a woman in USA or India, I can punch myself (not even needed in India) lightly, go to the police, and get my man locked up.

Great logic, feminists (that's an oxymoron). My great-grandfathers oppressed your great-grandmothers, so you oppress me.

Conclusion: The purpose of these laws was revenge, not protection. It was counter-discrimination, not equality that feminists had in mind.

EDIT: Untamed Rose, it surprises me to no end that you answer ever question about VAWA I do and yet you claim nothing's wrong. You surely know about the 'must-arrest' clause? It allows women to lock up men without evidence that they did it. Some even punch themselves to get revenge on men, and the cops are none the wiser.

Answer 9

It has been done by a group of elite's who are tying to destroy the family unit, then depopulate the planet by 95%. It is to turn men and women against each other!

Answer 10

I welcome any law that protects women against any violence or abuse, the same goes for any law that protects men from the same things. If there are the same laws for both men and women then I am in full favour of it all over the world.

David G - Women don't need to be disciplined (they are not children), or abused, neither do men.

In India fathers TODAY still put "hits" on their daughters for "dishonouring" the family by falling in love. I recently watched a whole documentary where the father had his daughter murdered and was not even arrested. His daughter is dead and he is pleased about it.

I watch C & I every night - I make a special note of the upbringing of serial killers because that is where my interest lies, most have very loving parents and a very loving upbringing, therefore the excuse of domineering mothers is the biggest cop out ever. They target women because men are harder targets and they can have their sexual ways with women, often returning to the crime scene again and again to rape the corpse full of maggots.

ByTheWay - Starvation and war does not justify women abuse.

ricardox - It is named Violence for Women Act for a reason (men abusing women), not for no reason.

Nikki - It is to protect abused women (like I was).

Maybe I should tell everybody my stories alone, that would be enough to make the hairs stand up on your heads. All the things that happened to me are enough to write a book about. Frankly I'm an authority and witness to how badly a woman can be abused, but I chose to be strong and I overcame without the help of anybody or any Act or organisation. I am not a victim anymore, I am a victor! I made sure of that. But not all women are as strong as I am (many still very young, some still children), these need help from somewhere else.

These acts and laws need our full support, not ridicule or criticism. If we carry on defending perpetrators, then we will end up back in the stone age.

Answer 11

i think women need extra protection in most of these countries > they have less rights and are more vulnerable to begin with

eoghan - it's true that mothers in law are sometimes involved in bride burnings. as are men in the family. it's still violence against women and it's abhorrent. those women (the victims) need protection.

buytheway - you might want to consider how gender equality and education can actually affect issues such as reproductive choices, family size and poverty.

Answer 12

Pakistan and Afghanistan needs other kinds of support, to the children and to the country as a whole to rebuild it and find a decent living.  Once this is done, we can think about pampering women.  

Its idiotic to want VAWA in countries were people die of starvation and war, thousands on a daily basis.