I Am An Mra

JB wrote: Ladyblu.
Can you back up any of your assertions?
Can you take the parts of Vawa that she discussed in her blog post and prove that she is wrong.

my response: I absolutely can, and will do so now, and hopefully you will understand it (although I doubt it, since you have continuously shown that you don't) .

The Honey Badger who wrote the Breaking the Glasses blog post that JB quoted is completely wrong in her claim that VAWA isn't gender neutral. She quoted sections from the Act as it was written in 1994 without providing the amendments that were created, and have been applied, to ensure that the Act is now gender neutral, and that everything that previously applied only to women, now applies to everyone including men. This is set forth in the very first section of the 2013 revision (which the Honey Badger left out). It states:

" `(13) CIVIL RIGHTS-

`(A) NONDISCRIMINATION- No person in the United States shall, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code), sexual orientation, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public Law 106-386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 109-162; 119 Stat. 3080), the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, and any other program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds appropriated for grants, cooperative agreements, and other assistance administered by the Office on Violence Against Women.

`(B) EXCEPTION- If sex segregation or sex-specific programming is necessary to the essential operation of a program, nothing in this paragraph shall prevent any such program or activity from consideration of an individual's sex. In such circumstances, grantees may meet the requirements of this paragraph by providing comparable services to individuals who cannot be provided with the sex-segregated or sex-specific programming.

`(C) DISCRIMINATION- The authority of the Attorney General and the Office of Justice Programs to enforce this paragraph shall be the same as it is under section 3789d of title 42, United States Code.

`(D) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing contained in this paragraph shall be construed, interpreted, or applied to supplant, displace, preempt, or otherwise diminish the responsibilities and liabilities under other State or Federal civil rights law, whether statutory or common.

`(14) CLARIFICATION OF VICTIM SERVICES AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE- Victim services and legal assistance under this title also include services and assistance to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking who are also victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons as defined by section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102)."

Essentially what this is stating, which some people obviously don't understand, or don't want to understand (JB and the Honey Badger), is that all sections of the VAWA act (like 40291, 40121, 20102, 20103, and 30208 part 5. which the Breaking the Glasses Honey Badger posted, and any others she quoted which were taken word for word by her from the 1994 Act) no longer apply only to women, and not men or anyone else any longer. It indicates that even if a particular section specifies that it only relates to women, it NO LONGER DOES. Do you get it now JB?

JB goes on to write: "Anyone who admits to being physically abused by his sisters then creates a PSA telling men that it is never ok to hit a woman is not only a misogynist and misandrist but is also a raving idiot."

my response: How so? Please explain why you believe that a man who was physically abused his sister but now thinks that it is never OK to hit women is a misandrist, a misogynist, and a raving idiot? Should he be encouraging men to hit women instead?

Males who were abused by their sisters and maintained hatred, anger and loathing toward women as a result (which is misogyny), and who as a result promote, and think it is perfectly fine to hit women are viewed by most fair minded people with a brain as hypocritical, misogynistic, raving, idiots who don't seen to know the difference between right and wrong, and feel that two wrongs somehow make a right.

Men who experienced physical abuse by their sisters but are able to move on and let go of their anger and hostility, and be a more intelligent, caring, and non-hypcritical person as a result, and who doesn't promote men doing to women the equivalent of what was done to them are viewed as good, fair minded people. They recognize that two wrongs don't make a right and they certainly aren't misogynists as a result, or misandrists simply because they don't think people should do to the opposite sex what was done to them.