Category: Punditry
Posted by George Bullard on Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:41 PMNeeded: Tougher laws to protect men from violent women
"You've helped so many women step out of the darkness."
Vice President Joe Biden, talking to women celebrating the 15th anniversary of the federal Violence Against Women Act.
Sadly, however, the country has not caught up with the times and also passed a comparable Violence Against Men Act. There's no specific federal protection for men.
I raise the point because, a number of years ago, the Detroit News reported a substantial numbers of police reports on domestic violence were filed by men against pushyv, iolent women. I forget the exact number. But men filed somewhere just under 20 percent of domestic violence complaints, in The News' survey.
Plus, The News, reported, none of the Metro Detroit domestic abuse shelters accepted men who were beaten up. The shelters had taken federal money and, by doing so, were mandated not to discriminate on the basis of gender. But they did anyway.
Having a gender-specific violence law is not all that logical, in the first place. If you get punched, you deserve the same level of protection, no matter what gender ye be. As it stands, women are getting a higher level of protection and redress if they are hit or otherwise abused.
Here for story.
Comments
| Jump to bottom |
Fighting fire with gasoline
"As a matter of of logic, feminism contributed to unemployment be putting more workers in the job market. Right or wrong, more workers means more people vying for "x" number of jobs, therefore higher unemployment."
You can call it logic if you think the world is flat. The idea that women entering the marketplace led to higher unemployment is laughable. First, it assumes that all men are entitled to jobs and women are not and that women only get those jobs by taking them from men. Second, it assumes that the job market is static, which it's not. By Bullard logic, we should have all starved to death by now because as more people have been born each year, there was only "x" amount of food to feed us. Somehow we're all still living.
Fighting fire with gasoline
What a clever idea. Let's make some more laws. Why not a protection of bloggers act, which would provide special protection against comments which assert the blogger's inanity? Or a protection of readers act, to provide protection against especially foolish or poorly written editorials or blogs published in the newspaper?
Regardless of the foolishness of the Violence Against Women Act, one whose true purpose was political, the remedy surely is not to install some absurd Violence Against Men act. Unless the object, as it appears to be with the Violence Against Women Act, is to sever relationships.
Or did you forget that your mother taught you that two wrongs do not make a right?
The overarching point of the blog: Gender specific laws, as well as hate crime laws, are to no point other than political posturing.
For years, money has been pumped into getting women into college and the workplace. Now women are the majority of students in U.S. higher education and are on track to become the majority of Americans with jobs.
You can bet there will be no program to balance the books by attracting more men to school or to the workplace.
As a matter of of logic, feminism contributed to unemployment be putting more workers in the job market. Right or wrong, more workers means more people vying for "x" number of jobs, therefore higher unemployment.
--Bullard
| Jump to top |
