Are feminists fighting for equal treatment or special interests?

Question

Are feminists actually fighting for special interests or for equal treatment?

If feminists are honestly interested in equal treatment, why haven't they fought the sexist language in VAWA (they’ve had 13 years), just as they would surely have it if it were reversed?

What if the “Violence Against WOMEN Act” (VAWA) was renamed the “Violence Against MEN Act” and the thousands (literally) of references to "women" and "girls" were replaced by "men" and "boys?"

Would feminists have decried it as discrimination and unequal treatment of women?

(Adding a statement to say that men are covered too does not make it gender-neutral.)

Why are they silent in this case, when the inequality seems to be in their favor?

wendy g: I HAVE read it; hence, the question above.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/...

Use this link to the text version and copy it to an editor. Then, replace the word "women" with "men" and see if it sounds gender-neutral (except for when the word "pregnant" precedes "women").


I only have space for one example of the language that is throughout:

``SEC. 41302. <> PURPOSE.

``The purpose of this subtitle is to--
``(1) prevent crimes involving violence against WOMEN, children, and youth;
``(2) increase the resources and services available to prevent violence against WOMEN, children, and youth;
and . . .
``(6) encourage collaboration among community-based organizations and governmental agencies . . . to prevent violence against WOMEN
and children.

tehabwa: you state : "

(Authorities that prosecute violence against men ignore violence against women.)"

Not sure where you live, but apparently not in the US. VAWA is a US law.

And, authorities here certainly do not ignore violence against women in favor of men. If anything, the reverse is true. Which, is the reason I brought this subject up.

wendy g: READ this newly ADDED section SEC. 41305 of VAWA.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:5:./temp/~c1095i2QIr:e211181:

It DEFINES the victims as ALWAYS girls and women and the victimizers are ALWAYS men and boys.

Is this gender-neutral?

After reading this section, explain how feminist promotion and support of this legislation is about equality and not special interests.

Sorry, the link doesn't work when linked to directly. But, just go to section 41305 and read it wherever you can get to it.

Answer 1

special, particular interests

Answer 2

Steve, the votes are in. The feminists can't even agree on how to answer this one.

Here's what we look like at this point:

waswisgirl1: 'We're just a few helpless feminists, there's nothing we can do!'

Jett Girl: 'The language is NOT gender-neutral. And should not be. Women NEVER hit men. Men are evil murders.'

wendy g: 'No, Jett Girl, the language IS gender-neutral, see! We really are fair to EVERYONE.' (wendy g: take your own advice and actually read VAWA)

Baba Yaga: only insults, as usual. (Her 'cut and paste' function must be broken).

It is well known and this once again establishes that feminism is NOT about equal rights for all.

Feminists (as you pointed out) are just another special interest group that is ONLY interested in advancing the interests of women, with no concern for men and little concern for children.

Answer 3

Good point wendy_g!!

If I can find an excerpt from VAWA that uses a gender neutral term like 'victim', then that means VAWA is gender neutral.

If someone can nevertheless find many excerpts which are decidedly not gender neutral, it doesn't count because I found one that is.

See the logic? There is no discrimination here and the notion that feminism is about equality is in fact vindicated rather than utterly annihilated.

And you didn't just get caught out lying in an attempt to justify an inequality or anything.

Answer 4

purely placed i've got had sufficient of femenism, maximum feminists i've got spoken too are aweful human beings, aside from some, and alot of the objectives that many feminist agencies have i disagree with. Im inquisitive approximately women folk persons getting equality and men getting equality, which presently neither intercourse has the two sexs have factors the place they're discriminated against. yet im no longer for lots of the failings femenism needs. possibly those people who i've got spoken to are in line with danger purely femenists to a intense and not the norm however the final public of them have been like that it kind of feels too be the minority that's smart and somewhat knows what equality is. i think too lots recently femenist and sexism in direction of women persons has substitute right into a overused and missued in circumstances while its no longer relivant, purely as is accomplished with the term racism, or the term nazi that's overused and utilized while its no longer the best term. they actually dont help themselves in line with danger in the event that they have been too handle the folk who they say are extremists and dont characterize the final public of their organistation then human beings may be extra trusting, like the mps did with the price scandal they have been given rid of anybody who had cheated the device to attempt and earnings the have faith of the regular public back and coach that they dont settle for that kind of behaviour. in the event that they kicked out all of the extremists then i might have much less of a topic with them i've got seen lots of information that are made too be purposefully deceptive or downright incorrect and that i dont like being lied too, in the event that they were extra measured and undemanding i might in line with danger of supported em

Answer 5

Amen!

Feminism is about females, that is what the fem- prefix is for. Unfortunately, in lots of cases this overpowers the rights of anyone else. Feminists defend this by saying 'but it's about equality'

No equality movement is named after, participated solely in, and only sympathetic to one gender, while biased to the other. It's like a socialist saying he cares about the rich as much as the poor. It's rubbish.

Of course, criticising feminism is not allowed, because then you are a women-hating, sexist pig.

Seriously, the movement is a joke. And don't forget the clear sexism that is shown in every major feminist publication.

TO JETGIRL: Actually, 75% of all violence is commited against men, and men have made up 100% of the cannon fodder in every war. Domestic violence is split evenly between men and women (despite what the feminists have us believe), boys are more likely to be abused as children (70% of child abuse perpetrated by women, btw) and men are punished more for the same crimes.

HOW exactly are women persecuted under systematic violence??

Answer 6

Well, this seems like a question of personal pride, on both sides. I think that women definitely behave like idiots in a lot of ways for sure, and that's why after 1000 years they're STILL fighting for equality. But they don't usually like to volunteer information about being beaten, I've been there myself, and trust me, it's not something you like to broadcast.
As for protesting against an organization that gave the same care and services for the men, well, women have a much higher sense of sympathy for someone suffering, and we are not competitive like men are, so I don't see why a problem would arise in this situation, because women just don't think like that.
I agree with you that many men get unnecessarily beaten by their spouses as well, and if you ask me that's even worse.
A man's ego is so huge that to be beaten in any way by anything or anyone is taken as a personal failure, and one too many, and that man ceases to respect himself, and fear becomes his autopilot.
I once knew a man who got mixed up accidently in a situation with the Hells Angels here in BC. They beat him to within an inch of his life, broken ribs, collapsed lung, several stitches in his face. After that he was never the same. He found it hard to go outside in public and insisted on wearing a hooded sweatshirt to hide his face in case they were still looking for him. I've never seen anyone so unhappy. For a man his confidence is everything because he NEEDS to approve of himself.
So, even tho these things go one all the time, all over the world, not many men are willing to admit he'd been beaten to anyone, and certainly not a group, he's too busy trying to convince himself he's still a worthy useful human being.

It's fear and pride that keep them quiet. If these emotions would cease to exist, well, so would all the fights.

Answer 7

Women are subjected to more violence than men, and in many, many places have no recourse.

(Authorities that prosecute violence against men ignore violence against women.)

Thus, it's a bigger problem and tends to be more ignored, and needs more attention.

That a particular action is focusing on a part of a problem (the general problem being violence), doesn't mean people are seeking "special" protection.

For too long and in too many places crimes against women just aren't considered crimes, or are considered the victim's fault.

Nothing wrong in trying to combat those views.

They aren't advocating violence against men, they just aren't addressing it.

Answer 8

Both.

If you begin to study history, you learn man's injustice treatment of fellow men - in the name of greed.
Man's inhumanity to man - can be studied in the history of any country worldwide.

Then start with the constitution - which was designed to control men.
Women were still considered property and did not even have the right to vote until 1920 - amazing huh - since the 1776 time frame until 1920.

The blessings of our constitution are the amendments where we find that we must be flexible and education is the key to success.

This still is the greatest country in the world - and I've lived in foreign countries.

GOD bless us always.
MBA-Boston Univ.

Answer 9

The language of the VAWA is not sexist because it deals with violence against one specific group (women) and therefore will exclude all others. Men's rights have always been assumed and men do not experience systematic violence against them based solely on the presumed inferiority of their gender, so there has never been a need to create a specific law dealing with that.

Complaining about something that does not cater to the whims of men shows your immaturity and male entitlement.

When women abuse men in the same numbers that men abuse women, then you can complain. When men are murdered by their female partners in the same numbers that women are murdered by their male partners, then you can complain.

Until men stop being so violent, laws like the VAWA are necessary.

Answer 10

Actually, if you read the actual laws in the VAWA, the wording IS gender neutral. The title is not, but it's the content that matters. Here's an excerpt:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3402enr.txt.pdf

"Domestic Violence"-The term 'Domestic Violence' includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a former or current SPOUSE, by a PERSON with whom the VICTIM shares a child in common, by a PERSON who is cohabitatating with or has cohabited with the VICTIM as a spouse...etc.
"Dating Partner"-The term 'Datig Partner' refers to a Person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the ABUSER...
"Dating Violence'-The term 'Dating Violence" means violence committed by a PERSON...(emphasis my own).

Click on the link and read it all for yourself. As you can see, the wording of the act IS gender neutral, and there are parts about child abuse as well, so EVERYONE is protected by it. NO WHERE in the act does it say "women, men, him, her...etc. I understand that the name implies it only protects women, but READ IT... the actual text defines abuse in terms of "victim" and "abuser", not "women" and "men". And it is the text, and the actual wording itself, that matters when laws are created. It protects everyone.

EDIT--I couldn't open the link. I don't know what you are reading (because I couldn't read it) but the sections that I found that DEFINE domestic violence, do so using gender neutral language.What you wrote appears to state the purpose, but the wording of the act and the definitions are what will determine laws.

EDIT--I scrolled through the link that I posted. That particular section discusses grants that will be given for the purpose of educating men and youth in the prevention of domestic abuse. There ARE sections that are gender specific (so, yes, my earlier statement was innacurate), but these pertain to specifics, such as statistics, shelters, grants for particular programs, etc. It was gender specific only when necessary. What is important in this, in my opinion, is that domestic violence is defined and described in gender neutral terms. These are the sections that will affect state and local laws.
And I appreciate that this hasn't devolved into a childish pissing match. Thanks for keeping it open minded and respectful.

Answer 11

Women don't like how they were treated as if they were beneath men many many many many many (etc) years ago so they're trying to make it up by going extreme during the present day. But one point I do have to argue with is that more women are more likely to be violated and experience more "violence" more men.