Monday, February 13, 2012

Violence Against Women Act

"The Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized in 2005 by unanimous consent in the Senate and with 415 votes in favor in the House, and signed by George W. Bush. It's up for reauthorization again now, and of course, this time, Republicans have a problem with it. The bill—which is actually cosponsored by Idaho Republican Sen. Mike Crapo—received no Republican votes in the Senate Judiciary Committee."

I am not familiar with the Violence Against Women Act, so take Daily Kos author's word for it. I do not know that the Act was changed from what it was in 2005. If not, it is a clear indication that those Congress people voting against it now, are doing so to thwart President Obama.

Until I read the Act, I can not say if I am for or agin it. I am against violence to all people, not just violence against women. And children. I am for anything that empowers females ~ well, most everything. Women, like African slaves, were not considered human beings for a long, long time. Even after women were given the right to vote, slavery was abolished, Negroes were granted the right to vote, both groups were treated as less than men.

It especially irritates me that corporations were (and still are) deemed human beings deserving of citizen rights, when females and persons of color were not. We, the people, meant, we the men, white men; took too many years to change people to include other human beings. The struggle continues for lesbians and homosexuals. Oh, they have lots of rights others take for granted; always have. The right to pay taxes for instance, or if male, own property and so on.

Yet, being law-abiding tax-paying U.S.A. citizens does not give them the liberty to marry, if their loved one is of the same gender. They are denied tax breaks that heterosexual married couples receive. It seems those elected to represent all citizens, are taking exception to the VAWA on account of it including people who are gay or transgender, or illegal immigrants.

Mistreating females (and persons of color) was acceptable because they were not considered human beings with rights, same as men. If he beat her, she deserved it, was a common sentiment. Beating children is condoned by the Bible. Well, the Bible does not say "beat your children", it is those who do who point to Bible as reason it is acceptable: Spare the rod, spoil the child, kind of thinking.

Thus any Act that says, no, it is not okay to beat or rape a women, is favorable to me. I also think a lesbian should be just as protected under the law. And transgenders, and yes, even illegal immigrants, despite me not approving of illegal immigration. I do not blame Republican elected officials for their war on women. It is being demanded of them by groups of citizens, including, those who label themselves Christian conservative women.   The fools ~ no female needs to send all of us back to those days when we were nothing in the eyes of the law and men.

No comments: