From Senator Sharrod Brown's auto-replier (and it MUST be an auto-reply, because if anyone on his staff had read the letter I sent, they'd know this reply doesn't answer what I wrote at all.)
You have to be kidding me. Did anyone in his office even read the letter? I wrote about a man going through false allegations at the hands of his malicious, psychotic ex, facilitated by the very law he's bragging about helping to get passed. Maybe his staffers just saw "Mrs" and didn't even bother reading beyond that. Certainly they didn't read my description of my friend's case. They definitely didn't read the copy of SAVE's brief, and they surely didn't read my explanation as to how enacting those changes could have spared my friend's experience.
For two decades, VAWA has enabled predatory women to use the legal system to extort money and property from their significant others. By providing financial and legal incentives for women to file false charges, the law has made use of the domestic violence victim's advocacy system a tool for women in custody and property disputes in conjunction with the choice to end any cohabitant relationship.
I've seen the results of that flawed system, as it was used against close friends of mine, and even against my own husband when his first wife wanted him out of the home. VAWA is not a law designed to protect victims of abuse from their abusers. It is a law designed to make it easy for women to accuse with credibility, and to obtain conviction without facing the burden of proof.
The law is biased against men, and filled with incentives for the entire system to push men through from arrest to imprisonment regardless of the circumstances. The most recent version expands the definitions of some offenses beyond anything sensible, to the point of outlawing being considered annoying. The idea that women are so delicate, so helpless that we cannot even handle being annoyed online is demeaning. The fact that the law, which uses gender-specific wording to indicate a focus on male perpetrators and female victims, had to be altered so that it now penalizes annoying women online shows that our government thinks less of us than of men. Perhaps, when it comes to discussion, men can handle themselves, but women must be protected from even suffering the indignity of an argument.
Perhaps the U.S. Senate thinks our delicate minds cannot handle men's vicious and brutal intellect.
Perhaps the rhetoric isn't so much an attempt at showing a pro-woman attitude as an accidental betrayal of a willingness to sacrifice men for votes.
Dear Mrs. XXXX:
Thank you for sharing your concerns about the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
Nearly one in four women will experience domestic violence. VAWA was enacted in 1994 after a long campaign to impose national criminal sanctions against those who commit violent acts against women, including sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking.For nearly two decades, VAWA has played a crucial role in efforts to empower women, promote safe family environments, and raise awareness about domestic violence, predatory behavior, and sexual assault. Unfortunately, VAWA was allowed to expire in September of 2011.On February 12, 2013, the Senate passed bipartisan legislation to reauthorize VAWA through 2018. The Senate-passed bill, which I co-sponsored, takes new steps to protect America’s women. In addition to reauthorizing funds to combat domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual assault, the Senate-passed bill also includes protections for LGBT victims, immigrant victims, and Native American women who are victims of violence committed on tribal lands from men who are not tribal land residents.This reauthorization bill also renews the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to prevent and prosecute human trafficking and help victims of human trafficking across the country. Additionally, I supported an amendment that enhance protections for child victims of sex trafficking.I am hopeful that the House will now take vote to pass the Senate-passed bill so that domestic violence and sex trafficking victims across the country can again find relief and prosecute their abusers. Should proposals on the Violence Against Women Act come before the Senate, I will keep your thoughts in mind. Thank you again for getting in touch with me.Sincerely,Sherrod BrownUnited States Senator
You have to be kidding me. Did anyone in his office even read the letter? I wrote about a man going through false allegations at the hands of his malicious, psychotic ex, facilitated by the very law he's bragging about helping to get passed. Maybe his staffers just saw "Mrs" and didn't even bother reading beyond that. Certainly they didn't read my description of my friend's case. They definitely didn't read the copy of SAVE's brief, and they surely didn't read my explanation as to how enacting those changes could have spared my friend's experience.
For two decades, VAWA has enabled predatory women to use the legal system to extort money and property from their significant others. By providing financial and legal incentives for women to file false charges, the law has made use of the domestic violence victim's advocacy system a tool for women in custody and property disputes in conjunction with the choice to end any cohabitant relationship.
I've seen the results of that flawed system, as it was used against close friends of mine, and even against my own husband when his first wife wanted him out of the home. VAWA is not a law designed to protect victims of abuse from their abusers. It is a law designed to make it easy for women to accuse with credibility, and to obtain conviction without facing the burden of proof.
The law is biased against men, and filled with incentives for the entire system to push men through from arrest to imprisonment regardless of the circumstances. The most recent version expands the definitions of some offenses beyond anything sensible, to the point of outlawing being considered annoying. The idea that women are so delicate, so helpless that we cannot even handle being annoyed online is demeaning. The fact that the law, which uses gender-specific wording to indicate a focus on male perpetrators and female victims, had to be altered so that it now penalizes annoying women online shows that our government thinks less of us than of men. Perhaps, when it comes to discussion, men can handle themselves, but women must be protected from even suffering the indignity of an argument.
Perhaps the U.S. Senate thinks our delicate minds cannot handle men's vicious and brutal intellect.
Perhaps the rhetoric isn't so much an attempt at showing a pro-woman attitude as an accidental betrayal of a willingness to sacrifice men for votes.
No comments:
Post a Comment