Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Jan. 28, 2013 | 2 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
It is timely that the Violence Against Women Act was reintroduced into Congress the same week that Nevada Assembly Speaker-elect Marilyn Kirkpatrick was reportedly threatened. According to the Violence Policy Center, Nevada has the dubious honor of ranking first in the nation for the past three years in the rate of women killed by men.
Most women are not killed in relation to another felony crime, and firearms are the most common weapon used by men to murder women. Hostile gun displays are even more common. It is unconscionable that women and girls continue to be threatened, harmed and killed by men with guns. Aside from loss of life and the pain and suffering of victims and their families, violent threats and intimidation seek to silence women’s voices in the home and in the public sphere.
Nevada women serving their communities in public office deserve to have their voices heard, not be threatened by disgruntled, armed men. In support of Kirkpatrick, women in Nevada — and the men who love them — should send a loud message to their representatives to support the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
In reply to Amanda Ireland; maybe you should take one of those gender specific walks on the beach while rethinking your letter to the editor.
What was uncanny timing was that the Violence Against Women Act was reintroduced to Congress the virtual same time that Leon Panetta and the Obama administration lifted the ban of women serving in combat.
So, Amanda Ireland, I'm quite curious to know, what are your thoughts on this subject? Should the training standards remain significantly lighter for so-called women combatants than the typical male soldier?
Now, let's move to the core of your purposely unmindful letter to the letter, Amanda Ireland. I quote you as writing, "It is unconscionable that women and girls continue to be threatened, harmed and killed by men." Yes, you are right, Amanda, violence against females is unacceptable and needs to be firmly dealt with. However, the fact is, female violence against their male partners has grown to severe levels. National crime records prove that men's violence towards women have decreased, while the rate of violent assaults by women on men have increased by no less than six percent, annually.
You fail to address this, Amanda. I have to wonder, are you of the female mindset that legitimizes violence against men as an acceptable practice? What is it that the militant type women say concerning this issue? It's okay to slap the male, "expletive".
What do you prefer to do here Amanda Ireland? Are you going to make a statement and make clarifications, or just allow reasonable assumptions to remain intact?
What does the VAMA actually do to decrease violence against women? Nobody who is intent on assaulting or killing a woman cares a whit whether there is a "law" in force or not. I support the Act, but to me, it is a "feel good" piece of legislation that will do little to prevent what it is intended to.
OOps, I meant VAWA. Freudian slip?
I too would like to know what the VAW act does to reduce violent acts against women. We should all be against any violent act against older, middle-aged, younger, female and male.
By the way Ms. Ireland; didn't I read in the Las Vegas Sun that it was only political colleagues of Mr. Brooks that had begun to notice so-called erratic behavior on the part of Mr. Brooks in caucus meetings. Who are these witnesses? Why are Mr. Brooks's accusers being held in confidence?
Secondly, Ms. Kirkpatrick has never accused Mr. Brooks of threatening her.
So, publicly speaking Ms. Ireland, with no real known witnesses, provide some proof where Mr. Brooks threatened Ms. Kirkpatrick. Provide actual proof where Mr. Brooks was disgruntled due to being passed over for the position of chairman of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. Provide proof Ms. Ireland that the loaded gun in Mr. Brooks's car was destined to be used against Ms. Kirkpatrick?
Let's face it Amanda Ireland, you're just talking a lot of trash to demonize men without any proof of such. I'm still waiting for your reply!!!
Last week the Pentagon also suspended the ban on women soldiers serving along side men in combat infantry and artillery positions.
CarmineD
Ms. Ireland,
I hereby declare that I, all of my friends, all of my acquaintances, and most everyone else in the civilized world is opposed to "violence to women."
I trust this is the outcome you desire.
Now, please go do something else with your life.
Purgatory
"All pigs are equal; however, some pigs are more equal than others." Every time something happens, someone wants a "special" law created to "remedy" the situation. So we wind up with "special" classes such as enhanced penalties for "hate" crimes, crimes against the "elderly," "handicapped" parking spaces, etc. If it's a crime, it's a crime, and the penalty should be equal no matter the victim. If we are all "equal," why create differences? You can't have it both ways. Oh, yeah, I forgot. We now live in "progressive" America.
Yeah, the VAWA was so dastardly, providing a quilt that led to creating databases of known stalkers, allowing the identification of trafficking of underage foreign girls, among a host of other things.
Read the law, you creepy right wingers, it was there to protect your grandmothers, mothers, sisters, daughters and granddaughters.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr...
You are a sick lot.
Because some women choose to advance themselves onto the front lines of our next wars doesn't mean that all women will no longer suffer abuse, what a stupid bunch of people from the right there are that post here.
Isn't this against the law already? I suppose if it makes you feel good we can add more laws. Or add it onto hate crimes or something.
How about making this Violence Against Women and Children Act.
I wonder how many of those females committing acts of violence against men were defending themselves or their children?
With all the talk about the 2nd Amendment related to the right to have guns, it just might bring more women into the realm of gun ownership, in order to protect themselves and their children.
Could the two be linked?
If there is no special "Act" to protect women and children from violence, I would like to see more work on providing safe havens for them to go to for help in separating from the violence they experience.
If violence is increasing against men by women, there needs to be safe havens for them to go to for help as well.
The Violence Againist Women Act (VAWA) is a great law. That won passage in 1994 and it's reauthorization in 2000 and 2005.This law has helped women who suffered in silence from dating violence,stalking and domestic abuse,along with other crimes against them.
Now we need a law that guarantee's women equal pay for equal work who do the same job as a man.If Hillary Clinton would have been elected as President in 2008 instead of Barack Obama she would have received the same pay as the President now gets. So what's wrong with this picture,judge for yourself.
Leave it to the "paltry open-minded liberals" in this discussion room to manipulate a debate topic and they will score well. This conversation has nothing to do with specific people such as, grandmothers, mothers, sisters, daughters and granddaughters. This topic is about "WOMEN" as a whole and violence associated with this gender.
If the female gender supposedly needs specialized and specific laws passed to protect them, then why is there the cockamamie need for all the gender-neutral movements in America such as women serving in combat positions in the military?
In relationships, statistics don't lie; women now have the slight lead over men when it comes to violence. However women still sustain more injuries.
So, as commentator Jerry Fink said, you can't have it both ways. Which way do the women of America want it? Do you want true equality? Or do you want female gender sensitive laws to provide special provisions for safety?
BChap said:
"paltry open-minded liberals" and "Which way do the women of America want it? Do you want true equality? Or do you want female gender sensitive laws to provide special provisions for safety?"
I say:
Bradley commenting on my intelligence is a hoot, kind of like Bradley is "Fred Sanford" in his lack of curiosity.
If I choose to raise my daughter to be a homemaker and stay at home mother, and after becoming an adult she chooses to complete her life as a homemaker, I want most of the elements of the VAWA to be retained. If my daughter elects to be GI Jane, and not avail herself of the protections of the VAWA that is her right too.
For Bradley to give this ultimatum is male chauvinism in another package.
Here is an example from the law itself:
"TITLE IX--SAFETY FOR INDIAN WOMEN
SEC. 901.
FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) 1 out of every 3 Indian (including Alaska Native) women are raped in their lifetimes.
(2) Indian women experience 7 sexual assaults per 1,000, compared with 4 per 1,000 among Black Americans, 3 per 1,000 among Caucasians, 2 per 1,000 among Hispanic women, and 1 per 1,000 among Asian women.
(3) Indian women experience the violent crime of battering at a rate of 23.2 per 1,000, compared with 8 per 1,000 among Caucasian women.
(4) during the period 1979 through 1992, homicide was the third leading cause of death of Indian females aged 15 to 34, and 75 percent were killed by family members or acquaintances.
(5) Indian tribes require additional criminal justice
and victim services resources to respond to violent assaults against women.
(6) the unique legal relationship of the United States to Indian tribes creates a Federal trust responsibility to assist tribal governments in safeguarding the lives of Indian women.
I guess these women should just call the police, they will put an end to their misery. That is always all it takes. Oh yeah, sometimes an order of protection. That ALWAYS works...
I've always been under the impression that violence against anyone was illegal. But as usual the progressives have to single out certain segments of the population.
"JeffFromVegas" says, "If I choose to raise my daughter to be a homemaker and stay at home mother, and after becoming an adult she chooses to complete her life as a homemaker, I want most of the elements of the VAWA to be retained."
I understand your point Jeff. I'm sure you make an excellent "Stay at Home Mom".
Chuck333 reasonably states:
"I've always been under the impression that violence against anyone was illegal."
I say:
If the laws aren't getting the desired result, new laws are added to put a spotlight and additional funding into a problem area.
We've done it with slavery, voting rights, and even put the right to own firearms into writing. I guess protecting women isn't your thing...
It's a shame you love your guns more than your mother...
...rhetorically speaking anyway...
"It is unconscionable that women and girls continue to be threatened, harmed and killed by men with guns."
Really? Does anyone disagree with this? I, for one, find "It is unconscionable that women and girls, as well as MEN AND BOYS continue to be threatened, harmed and killed by men AND WOMEN with guns. KNIVES, FISTS---ANY WEAPON FOR THAT MATTER.
Apparently the Amanda doesn't care about how many men die in this country, but thinks that current laws somehow allow women to be slaughtered daily on our streets.
Apparently Amanda has no clue.
I guess protecting women isn't your thing...
It's a shame you love your guns more than your mother...
Jeff since you don't know me your statement is a bit off the wall. I'm all for protecting everybody and do believe that gun laws need to be revised.
On another note my mother was also my best friend and since she is now been passed away since 94 I'd appreciate you not bringing such things into this discussion. It makes you sound weak, but of course I always consider the source.
Oh Jeff by the way, a mother, three sisters, two daughters, a wife and a grand daughter so you can rest assured I'm very protective of women!
Chuck333:
"Oh Jeff by the way, a mother, three sisters, two daughters, a wife and a grand daughter so you can rest assured I'm very protective of women!"
Then why is it difficult for you to align with parts of the VAWA? Like enabling an anti stalker database so when a creep (not a registered sex offender at this point) moves from Baltimore to next door to someone you love we (and especially you) know about it?
Jeff I never said I wasn't for VAWA. What I said was that its getting old how progressives single out certain segments of the population. Laws should be inclusive of everyone not just certain groups.
My problem with the Violence Against Women Act is that the title alone makes it immune to criticism. There are provisions in the Reauthorization Act that some people find troubling but anyone who opposes or has questions about the bill is portrayed as having a narrow and intolerant ideology.
It seems that once you start explaining, you've lost the battle. We should not be saddled with a law that, because of its title alone, is impervious to harm.
Yes, I oppose violent women.
Brooke Logan,
I could not have said it better nor more efficiently. Kudos.
Regards,
Purgatory