Theirs is not to make reply. Theirs is not to reason why. Theirs is but to do or die. Into the house chamber strolled the two hundred.

How women cause violence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5OdQGbVNa4

I am Canadian but just want to say, what's up with the Republicans? They are mean spirited and don't want to help people. I think many are Christian extremists, but why don't they do as Jesus said and love their neighbors as themselves, turn the other cheek and do unto others as they would have them do unto them?

I've been wondering that myself

Where can we see both versions of the bill? Without seeing them to compare, I can't make an informed decision. Maybe the republicans are right and the new bill gave too much to illegal aliens. I really don't think they would not act because LGBT and Native Americans would be affected, as they are American citizens.

So fed up with hearing that Republicans hate women and have no interest in human rights. The latest ruckus being over the Violence Against Women Act, and how the GOP "shot it down." Come on, really??? The GOP has always supported this bill and it's prinicples, and still do...what they oppose are the new stipulations added to it that specifically address same-sex couples and illegal immigrants. The law covered domestic violence as it stood, but the dems insisted on using the bill as a vehicle to address those items on their agenda that had nothing to do with the spirit of the law. If it was so important to them for the bill to be renewed in order to protect women, they could have removed the new verbage that served no functional purpose, but only served to showcase their positions on other issues that are not representative of more than half of the country. So really, the Dems chose interest group pandering over protecting women. Looks to me like the Dems are the ones who care less about women, even stooping to lying over the facts. Sadder still are the number of people who take such outlandish claims (like "Republicans hate women") at face value without question. We're becoming a nation of drones.
Do libs ever stop to think if they know any Republicans who actually hate women and want to throw grandma over a cliff? Doubtful. Most of us do, however, support the death penalty for adult murderers and reject tax-funded baby-killing... so I guess that must make us all haters.

I just read the bill. It's a giveaway to other nations of US taxpayers money. Granted, it's for a good cause, but let some other nations take up the slack. The US taxpayers are tired of giving away money to other nations. In the particular bill, it would be 5 nations. Full text of the bill is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr5905/text

For goodness sake...

@Judith, you have the wrong bill. Try this, S.1925, with the various proposed and considered amendments: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:20:./temp/~bdz4OC:@@@L&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=112|

If men got pregnant there would be a free birth control and an abortion clinic on every corner.

Men are 3 times more likely to be the victims of assault. Also, men are equally as likely to be abused by their partners, as cited in this, as well as several other studies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

Have you ever actually read the VAWA? It is horridly sexist, and offers virtually no support for male victims of violence. When they come up with a fair, gender neutral version, I will whole heartedly support it.

In the meantime, I would suggest you do some research on the subject matter instead of merely regurgitating Leftist talking points.

Molsen: Nice pretend world you inhabit. Hope you have a great new year. Prepare for many defeats in advance, I suggest...

Bye-bye, Molson.

You've more than qualified yourself for lifetime membership in the Circular File.

(swish - plop!)

Molsen, you actually have a point - "domestic" violence against men does happen - not nearly with the frequency and severe trauma that it happens to women but it does happen. The fact that the GOTP mostly male House decided NOT to even look at let alone give it an up or down vote - shows me exactly what cave these neanderthals crawled out of.

As for "regurgitating talking points" - puhlease, don't even go there with me....

How could they NOT PASS THIS? WTF is the matter with these people?

@Molsen -- did you even read the entire article you posted? The 3:1 ratio of violence perpetuated against men (vs. that of women) was the 3rd sentence of the report, as a summation in the Abstract. Further down, the authors explain, in exhaustive detail, how this doesn't tell the whole story. Please fast-forward to the "Discussion" section (near the end) where the authors give meaning and context to the very brief "Abstract" section at the beginning. Specifically this statement:

"perpetrators who were men were more likely to inflict an injury on a partner than were those who were women, regardless of reciprocity status. This replicates findings in the literature at large that women are more likely to be injured by partner violence than are men"

Were you raised in a household where this wasn't necessarily the case? If so, I totally feel for you, dude. But don't let that stop you from reading articles like this fully and with an unbiased mind...

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be considered a sacrament.

Molsen, if you're going to hang your hat on a self-reported study even the authors admitted has serious limitations

"The use of a nationally representative sample greatly increases the generalizability of the findings, but this particular sample is of limited range in age (18–28 years) and likely does not include the most severely abused victims who are subjected to extreme control by their partners and may be unable or unwilling to participate in research."

then don't expect to be taken seriously. This study was about the correlation between reciprocity of violence and severity of violence. It wasn't designed to determine whether men or women are more likely to commit violence against their partner. Any conclusions drawn from data that isn't central to the hypothesis is practically meaningless. I suggest you do some research on the subject of how to read and interpret a study before you start citing them to support your arguments.

you've got that right

Why is a potentially gender-neutral bill protecting all victims of domestic violence, men, LGBT individuals, etc. considered "watered down" by the supporters of the original VAWA legislation? Are the attorneys and their female clients afraid to surrender their advantage in court by making false allegations of domestic violence so they can kick their spouses out of the house and get the upper hand? And why doesn't VAWA protect those victims of false allegations by including penalties for perjury? Want a fair law? Either include these provisions, or be glad that VAWA suffered the legislative death it deserved based on its original flawed features.

If men could get pregnant, they would not go around whining about it. They would go to work and ignore it until the day came to have the child. It is the whining women who have a problem with it. To men, it would be just another medical condition to be ignored. Besides, men have been demanding equal consideration in medical issues, yet there are over 200 federal funded commissions on women's health, but not even one of men's health.

As for being beaten up by women, they are. Violent women do it differently from men. Men get angry and hit. Women stew on their anger for hours, and even days, than attack, usually with a weapon, and when the man is unaware it is coming.

http://www.squidoo.com/OtherFaceOfDomesticViolence

I didn't have these protections when I was growing up, and being molested. I was raped in college and prosecuted the perpetrator who had raped someone else, but they didn't prosecute. It took me 14 months to get him in jail for 36 years Sentence! I didn't get any money just the satisfaction that I got him out of society so another person wouldn't be hurt or killed! This is a very dangerous person who didn't care who he hurt he just wanted control. That's what it is about when the person is abused in any way!If these women/men are courageous enough to get themselves and children out they should be protected by the courts to keep the person away from them! They should get the same protections as any victim of violence, not be sterotyped or victimized all over again!

Dragoon -- Um, I get the tinfoil, but why would the GOPs be buying more rope -- unless, you don't mean....??

(honestly, I'm not sure I understand)

Conservative government policies lead to increased suicide rates.

They are just blocking a totally bias piece of legislation that is anti male victims, and especially against the children of those men.

The real problem is that women (whether they are gay, Native American, or just a regular American women) all pay income taxes to the US government. This bill should not exclude any of these women since they pay taxes and should have this protection. Do women pay attention to this when they vote. I guess not since Romney and the GOP got 47 million votes. Hit the GOP where it hurts. Don't vote for the women hating GOP.

The bill has no problem excluding men, although they also pay taxes.

ok then, let me beat the holy piss out of you so you need it.

Don't worry, Charles, all over the world women are doing it for you.

You do know founder of Refuge Erin Pizzey agrees with us, right?

Critica - Perhaps the reason the "Violence Against Women Act" deals primarily with violence against women... never mind. You think on that.

"This bill should not exclude any of these women since they pay taxes and should have this protection."

Rights are rights, whether victims pay taxes or not. These two things shouldn't have anything to do with each other.

Critica - the VAWA lost became gender-neutral years ago. Men can and have used it in the wake of violence, and the LGBT Americans who would also have been covered by this new version included gay men and transgendered individuals.

So please - educate before you snipe.

If VAWA is to be made non-sexist, we must begin by changing the title to something like the Partner Violence Reduction Act.

Then, we must go through the entire language of the act, and make it reflect the reality that violence is gender-symmetrical, i.e. that men and women perpetrate in roughly equal proportions.

Similarly, all anti-male bias in any form must be not only removed from the act, but proactively corrected by appropriate provisions. (E.G. retraining programs for police, court personnel, etc. )

Anybody who has been paying attention to things with an open mind should know by now what is wrong with VAWA. The information has been widely available for years.

Go to the SAVE Services website for a feast of educative material in the form of PDF downloads. This will keep you busy for a good long while:

http://www.saveservices.org/reports/

SAVE services has already proposed an impeccably fair and non-sexist alternative to VAWA. Go to the following page and your PDF download will begin immediately. Study the proposed version, and explain to me what could possibly be considered bad about it:

http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Partner-Violence-Reduction-Act1.pdf

Finally, acquaint yourselves with Dr. Martin Fiebert's classic bibliography (last updated in June of 2012, and now containing 286 items):

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

The studies in Fiebert's list overwhelmingly support the conclusion that domestic violence is symmetrical between men and women.

When you have processed all of this, come back and explain why SAVE Services's proposed Partner Violence Reduction Act should not be passed into law.

Tabaqui

There is zero funding in the bill for male victims, and their children. Male victims cannot use it to get custody of their children like women can. Take the time to read it sometime.

' . . . and deliberately alienate more than half the people who can (and WILL vote) vote. Ah, yes women being able to vote. An unfortunate issue that the Republican party has not addressed.

Right now is a bad time to be male victims of domestic violence, and especially their children. They get no help from this bill. 40% of the victims are men, but if a man tries to seek help, he is likely to be the one arrested.

http://www.squidoo.com/OtherFaceOfDomesticViolence

Stephen - same here...also used to be a Republican at a time when I was less informed (shame on me). But - thanks to the Teapublicans, I saw the light. The current Dems are more like the moderate Republicans from days gone by. I have a lot of respect for Merkel, though many Germans think that Obama is on the right of her ideology. As an immigrant to the US (came over with a German company in the 70s), I have many relatives in Europe (Germany, Holland, Switzerland and France), and they wonder why so many Americans are complete morons - especially in Washington. No wonder I feel as is I am from a 3rd world country when I visit my mom and sibs every other year.

I forgive you Stephen. It's hard, but I am reminded of "they know not what they do". The Teapubs have revealed themselves more than ever before. The Teabaggers can get a nod for doing that, but they are to be blamed for the bs debt ceiling, etc.

They promoted a narrative that fooled people into voting for them. They concealed their true desires in the guise of taxes and budgets.

But they now displayed their contempt for America. It's like they want to burn down the whole thing. They need to go away and never be seen again until they realize that they are acting like complete a-holes.

Send them packing in 2014.

As folks like you realize how far right and crazy the GOP has become there begins a search for a place to hang your vote, so to speak...There are old time republicans around here that just don't know what to think...they really don't agree with most of the current policies of the GOP...and by golly they ain't gonna vote fer no Democrat...no matter what...keep government hands offa my Sosul Securty...I'm really trying hard to be compassionate and feel a little bad for them...but I can't...I have told those who would listen about the extremists moving in and being made credible by the media...I was feeling the same way about the Dems at one point...I'm registered (I)...this hurts in the primaries...the real fight coming up will be in the States...that should be fun...

If the aid for Hurricane Sandy bill had just been about aid for Hurricane Sandy victims, I don't think there would have been any problem passing it. Instead, the Dems chose to lard it up with billions of dollars of pet projects that have nothing to do with hurricane relief. Why was $150M for Alaskan fisheries in the bill? $2M for the Smithsonian? Over $10B in public transportation projects, the vast majority of which is NOT reconstruction? But the lapdog media pliantly repeat the Democratic talking points and cover up the reality. Don't forget the White House mantra in the midst of the financial crisis, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

Whether you like it or not, bills always come with amendments that have nothing to do with the main subject of the bill. This is one of the few areas where there is equivalency: both Republicans and Democrats do it. It's simply legislative SOP. There is no point getting so stupidly self-righteous about it.

Also, there would be a problem no matter what, because the Republicans have moved so far to the right that it is now "conservative" dogma that disaster relief is a bad thing. If you had been paying attention, you would know that.

Yup, Ninz.

GOTV - time started yesterday.

That kind of reinforces the point, doesn't it?

These people are not his "fellow Republicans".

I'f Lincoln heard these a$$hats call themselves "The Party of Lincoln" he'd go all Vampire Hunter on 'em.

Still pertinent, however.

Poor Neanderthals. They just don't understand that they will continue to lose the woman's vote, the gay and lesbian vote, and the Native American vote. Pity.

I think that on some level they do understand. That's why their fervent embrace of the gerrymander and voter suppression.

I so much hope Obama does that, and that the Republicans are foolish enough to attempt to impeach.

Cantor voted against the fiscal deal AFTER it's passage was assured. It was purely "leadership" politics, a shout-out to the TP, and an apparent FU to Boehner.

The don't actually "believe" in anything except 1.) Money, 2.) power and 3.) Rich People and Corporations that provide money and power.

Oh, and maybe 4.) they really just don't like females that much.

Most women are fools no matter how they vote.

You must be a fool man too, Scar Crow. Not such statement comes out from a intelligent person.

Psst Scar Crow

Your misogamy is showing.

Tsssss....

No sense of humor...

None at all.

In future Scar I suggest a #snark if you are being humorous. You're new here and it's hard to grasp you sense of humor. No timing no timing at all.

P.S. Like like your General Trelene (retired) photo.

Scar Crow, you're a "scardy"-cat and a coward. Only cowards hide behind fake monikers and "pretend" to pick on others. If you were a real man 1) You would NOT pick on others in a "joking" manner. 2) You would be your real self, i.e., use your REAL name, because obviously you're being your real self in that comment. 3) Don't hide. Only cowards poke then run and hide.

I don't believe for a second that you were only joking about women being fools. If you had given your real name and photo, then I *might* believe you were joking but you chose to hide and that's all the information I need.

Some of us more senior viewers seriously enjoy the schadenfreude, though. So for us, slower is better.

Actually, the "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" Mantra belongs to Nancy Pelosi circa 2008, how's that working? Nice try to spin it though.

And yet, in your diatribe against "the left", you don't bother to learn what's in the bill. You'e last 2 sentences are actually kind of disgusting.

the bill extends existing protections for women to include Native American Women, undocumented aliens, and members of the LGBT community. It provides them the right to recourse if someones beating the crap out of them.

"Violence against anyone for no reason except self-defense should be prosecuted the same, its all wrong, all the time whether against women or whomever, right?"

Yes. But it's not. And the disgusting leadership in the Republican Congress doesn't want it to be.

billhillie, you do not understand the difficulty in prosecuting violence against women. A guy that's beaten up in a bar usually has no problem testifying against his assailant. However, a battered wife needs much more support - which VAWA provided. That wife is often putting her breadwinner in jail by participating in the prosecution. VAWA funds local programs that help ease (although they do not remove) the collateral consequences upon a woman who is a victim of domestic violence. Things like funding to help train women for the workforce when they've been victimized and isolated for years, assistance to women who are victims of crime in obtaining counseling for themselves and their children, and the assistance of victim advocates to explain and help victims through the criminal prosecution process (it can be scary to be in the belly of the law enforcement machine without someone to tell you what is going on). All of that is gone now purely because Republicans cared more about preventing those services from being provided to illegal immigrants, lesbians, and native americans than they do about the successful prosecution of those who commit acts of violence against women. As a prosecutor, the House GOP just made my job harder.

Is this serious, or ironic satire? Sometimes it's hard to tell on the internet.

The left seeks to ever divide people into hyphenated sub groups and victim minorities and paint everyone as the Boogey Man and themselves as the prey.

Really? That sounds more like right-wing conservatives complaining about the "Homosexual agenda", "The war on Christmas", or "The 'Lamestream' media" to name just a couple of examples that came immediately to mind.

Creating "Boogey Men" to fear, and painting themselves as permanent victims has been a hallmark of right-wing politics for decades now. But so has projection, namely accusing your opponents of your own shortcomings, as you have so admirably demonstrated here.

Nobody is asking you to "perform penance", or provide "punitive damages". But it would be nice that if a woman is getting regularly beat up by her partner, that she have legal recourse. You know, before they get killed.

There's nothing quite as entertaining as listening to someone that's never had to face a particular form of discrimination, tell the other party to "get over it". I bet you would be in favour of a straight pride festival and white history month as well huh?

Oh you're just full of yourself aren't you. Try being a woman in desperate need of help to get out and get safe only to find that there is no help out there. It happened even WITH the bill in place, stripping the funding from it means now the number of women who stay in a horrible situation will rise out of fear of having no where to turn for aid. Having been in that place myself in the past, it's terrifying and with zero aid out there, I'd still be in it and probably be dead. As to when you get to stop paying penance, how about when we are actually treated equally, paid equally,respected equally, instead of being treated like uppity slaves or children you need to give these things to in hopes of quieting us down and making us go back to our rightful 'place'. When no man kills or severely injures a woman who lives with him because he feels he owns her, when it's just as safe for me to walk home from a night out in my skirt as it is for you to do so, when people won't say I was asking for violence based purely on my gender. Then we'll talk about 'enough'.

Very well stated, Julia!

Perhaps you should educate yourself before you post such crap. The VAWA *also* covers men (who can also be victims of domestic violence and rape).

There was no spending attached, just new wording to include more disenfranchised people.

Well said Billhillie.

VAWA contains absolutely no definition of 'domestic violence' and so each state leaves the definition open to include actions that no sane society would ever consider 'violent''-like responding to a phone call from your children or being 'annoying'. The program is a boondoggle for government and lawyers, nothing more.

Any act of violence, by a man or a woman, against another person should be punished after the fact, not before with due process rights assured.

VAWA is thankfully gone. We should hope it stays that way.

nice excuse on why this bill shouldn't have been passed. Yep, golly, since it's not perfect, why then everyone should suffer! It's so cute when people protect their ignorance this way.

Where did you come up with your assertion that men are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than women? That flies in the face of pretty much every study ever conducted, anecdotal evidence, as well as basic common sense. I had to read that several times, just to make sure that I didn't misunderstand what you were trying to say.

According to one study, Between 1993-2001, women comprised 85% of domestic violence victims, and men 15%. That data is from the Department of Justice, and published on the Clark county Indiana prosecutor's office website. Hardly a socialist bastion of radical feminists.

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/facts.htm

tony, reallly? "Men are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than women"

You must have a citation for such a claim, don't you?

I partially agree with you that all victims of domestic violence deserve protection. But, your statement does not ring true. Also resorting to name calling, i.e 'sexist, bigoted, discriminatory, feminist legislation' does your argument no service.

Please try to calm down and deal in a factual manner with the issue at hand.

Have you lost your mind, Tony? Where did you ever find a "study" that suggested men are more likely than women to be the victims of domestic violence? Or have you been watching Fox News?

Mrs Clinton had a blood clot that could had given her a stroke. Hannity laughted at her and the Fox News crazies made fun of her for being ill. What does that tell sane people?

Well, a couple of little quibbles. Like your statement 'Men are more likely to be the victims of domestic violence.' Actually, not so much. Yes, there is a study that included that statement - but you're leaving out the other 99% of the same research, which pointed out that those DV incidents are self-reported. In other words, any guy that says "She started it" counts. And it includes claims of emotional abuse, as in "She was so mean to me that it drove me to punching her in the face." The study authors themselves point out that these numbers are misleading and give a false impression of the victimization.

So let's take a look at numbers that are a little more meaningful, which is that women make up 85% of DV injuries. Women are also far more likely to be repeatedly victimized than men.

Something like 64% of women murdered in the US are murdered in DV related incidents - they're 5 to 8 times more likely than men to be abused by their partner. Violence by a partner accounts for about 21% of violent crimes against women, but only about 2% of violent crimes against men. Women account for 39% of hospital emergency room visits for violence related injuries, but 84% of those injuries are inflicted by their partner.

Women are far more likely to be the primary caregiver for any children in the relationship, but far less likely to be the primary breadwinner, which means there are any number of reasons that a woman finds it far more difficult to leave, and so needs far more support to do so. Compound that by the fact that about 75% of calls to the police for assistance in domestic violence situations occurs *after* leaving (or attempting to leave) the batterer. And roughly half the homicides of female partners were committed by men after the woman left their batterer.

If you think that the problems of male victims of domestic violence needs to be addressed, by all means, pressure your elected representatives to do something about it. In the mean time, pardon me all to hell if I'm not sympathetic to the notion that the Violence Against Women Act shouldn't have been renewed because it's incredibly sexist.

It's always the same: at the merest mention of injustice and inequality, the little privileged babies cry how they are the real victims. Idiots.

No, wrong, sorry, and? The VAWA is gender-neutral in language and ALSO COVERS MEN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lHmCN3MBMI

Yes, men are as likely to be victims. The DV groups want you to believe otherwise so they put out distorted and biased stats. This way, since men are banned from DV agencies, it's women's groups that get the funds. These funds have been shown to be misspent and misappropriated and the House version seeks to increase accountability. But I guess that's being women haters by making sure funds are actually spent on victims. And those that say men should start their own law, it's the women groups that have opposed this and demand that NO funding be spent on men's shelters or programs that reduce the violence by women, which has been escalating.
And no, VAWA isn't gender neutral in language- only the House version is, the one everyone here says is somehow pro-abuse. Valerie Jarrett is livid about the gender neutral language. She feels men deserve to be excluded from the protections women get.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/next-war-on-women-showdown-looms-over-vawa-reauthorization/?singlepage=true

I guess it's ok for this country to ignore men like this- and there are many like him.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2091650/Ian-McNicholl-beating-The-5ft-1in-girlfriend-beat-businessman-partner-badly-needed-cosmetic-surgery-years-horrific-abuse.html

And let's ignore this man too. After all he is only a man. Who gives a crap, right? And I guess DV is so horrific unless it happens to a man. Then it's something to celebrate and laugh about. I guess these women/feminists and the entire crowd find it empowering to abuse men. I guess this is why many here say to hell with men who are abused. They find it "fabulous".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91O3wDSy_HE

What a tight little ball of hate. Thanks for proving my point.

How is that hate? I state facts and back them up. I guess to women like yourself if any man asks for equality and to be protected from abusive women just as women are protected from abusive men, then that is equal to hate? Please explain. I guess to you only women have rights.

"I'm just asking" the mating call of the forum troll.

billhillie really. "knee-jerk reaction"? The law has been out there since 1994 and Congress thought it was a good idea until now.

And does it make a difference who the perpetrator of the violence is? If an undocumented woman is being raped or beaten and is afraid to report it because she's afraid of being deported does that make it OK?

And you still have no idea what's in the bill, do you? Practiced ignorance and proud of it, huh?

I can't believe this guy is serious.

You seem really dismissive of women in general. "Many women...think with their emotions first." You pretty much have said everything with that sentence.

Also, the Violence Against Women Act basically holds law enforcement responsible for how they handle it when women victims report violent crimes, particularly domestic violence and sexual assault. Many police jurisdictions are very good about how they handle these things, but there are just as many who handle it terribly. There's still a lot of blaming the victim (she must have said/done something to set him off) and not enough of blaming the perpetrator for his actions.

"We all know Republican men hate women."

Do you realize that you sound like a moron when you say such things? Check your feet for bullet holes, mate! ;)

A democrat/liberal tries to get laid.

EPIC FAIL

Go back to giving her some pot to impair her judgement loopy hernandez.

Scar

Although I like your General Trelene image remember that at the end of Squire of Gothos he turns out to be nothing more than a spoiled child. Think about that.

Oh BTW if what you said on #24.2 was meant to be humorous.

EPIC FAIL

The VAWA is gender-neutral in language and also covers men.