N.O.W. campaigns against House VAWA H.R. 4970, which allows shelters for men and has anti-discrimination provisions, ironically calling it "Exclusionary".

TerriChris · 2012-05-16T14:24:15+00:00

Evidence that feminists are not about equality.

DougDante · 2012-05-16T12:11:07+00:00

Here is an "exclusionary" nondiscrimination clause that HR 4970 would add to VAWA:

" ‘(A) NONDISCRIMINATION- No person in any State shall on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, 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 2012, or 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."

link

Sex discrimination in VAWA funded programs is rampant, NOW knows it, and they want to keep it that way.

cthulufunk · 2012-05-16T18:39:24+00:00

N.O.W. lobbied to have the ARRA amended, redirecting aid intended for the male-dominated sectors hit hardest, to female-dominated sectors where there was already job growth. Never make the error of considering N.O.W. to be benign.

"A Washington feminist establishment that celebrates the "happily-ever-after" story of its victory over burly men cannot represent the views and interests of many women. Those men are fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, and friends; if they are in serious trouble, so are the women who care about them and in many cases depend on them. But NOW and its sister organizations see the world differently. They see the workplace as a battlefront in a zero-sum struggle between men and women, where it is their job to side with women. Unless the Obama administration and Congress find the temerity to distance themselves from the new feminist lobby, the "man-cession" will deepen and further mischief will ensue."

[No Country For Burly Men](www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp)

Embogenous · 2012-05-16T15:03:52+00:00

that would actually be dangerous to survivors of domestic violence while shielding abusers from accountability

That's what the current VAWA does. What they mean is "dangerous to female survivors [and helping male far more, but who cares] while shielding male abusers from accountability [and helping to bring far more female abusers to justice, EDIT: But who cares].

seal_raider · 2012-05-16T13:27:27+00:00

Ah, the irony is killing me... sadly, the surprise is less surprising; that men are not deserving of even the most basic and minimal of care.

2012-05-16T20:11:52+00:00

N.O.W. campaigns against House VAWA H.R. 4970, in favor of H.R. 4271 which also allows shelters for men and has anti-discrimination provisions, but includes additional provisions for specific at-risk groups

Oh hey I fixed this for you!

Scott2508 · 2012-05-16T21:48:13+00:00

4970 is through , this is a kick in the balls for feminists everywhere !

SilencingNarrative · 2012-05-16T17:15:43+00:00

From the NOW action alert:

TAKE ACTION: The House of Representatives is expected to vote on Wednesday, May 16, for the Republican version of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (H.R. 4970), which not only eliminates important provisions included in the Senate-passed bipartisan bill (68-31, S. 1925), but contains new ones that would actually be dangerous to survivors of domestic violence while shielding abusers from accountability. The Republican leadership will not allow any floor amendments.

Does anyone know what this notation means?

(68-31, S. 1925)

Is that a pointer to the section of the bill they don't like?

2012-05-16T19:08:13+00:00

But what if the same thing was introduced but for women? It'd pass.

2012-05-16T19:24:59+00:00

On bills prescribing women's shelters: "We want our own place to feel safe!" On bills prescribing men's shelters: "DAT'S SEXIST!"

chavelah · 2012-05-16T23:14:54+00:00

They called it racially exclusionary.

Adams Bill is Racially Exclusionary and Puts Survivors at Risk - The House Judiciary Committee recently reported out a bill, sponsored by Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Fla.), that rolls back protections for victims of violence and fails to include provisions included in the bipartisan Senate bill that would help Native American women, immigrant women, LGBT persons and college students.

I agree with these particular objections to the Adams Bill.

The nondiscrimination clause that DougDante mentions is included in the NOW-backed version of the bill, which is being sponsored by Rep. Moore: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4271/text

Both the Adams version and the Moore version allow sex-specific and sex-segregated programming, provided that comparable services are offered to both sexes.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize NOW and VAWA. You don't need to make stuff up.

AnthonyZarat · 2012-05-16T13:17:03+00:00

You can find the full text here:

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Markups%202012/PDF/112hr4970.pdf

I wrote a short script to search the document for the word "women", except where it occured in the title of the document:

grep omen in.txt | grep -v Violence Against Women Act

The output consists of a list of protections for Indian women and women with disabilities ... AND the bill adds protection for incarcerated men and boys:

"... sexual assault against men, women, and youth in correctional and detention ..."

Feminisrts are lying. The bill changes very little, except that it protects men. That is what they don't want. Protection for men.

genuinemra · 2012-05-16T13:07:12+00:00

This is just really typical of this organization. They are at the forefront of the domestic violence industry and I am glad to see them called out for the profiteers they are by you. Upvote.

Collective82 · 2012-05-16T12:27:21+00:00

I didn't see anything on the link that says they were against men getting items or help,did I miss something?

BinaryShadow · 2012-05-16T15:18:44+00:00

The double-think is strong with this group.

Alanna · 2012-05-16T12:25:58+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Comments