Laws which prohibit marital rape, for example, can be neutrally written. But because marital rape of women is far more prevalent, they will benefit primarily women. In fact, it was the plight of married female rape victims (not married male rape victims) that prompted the change of the laws to make marital rape a crime.

Are you opposed to that type of targeted law? I can’t tell if you’re against facial non-neutrality or if you’re against actual non-neutral application of the law.

Statistics can be used to show many things. Look at the victims of violence. Are more male or female? Are the victims of hate crimes mostly minorities? Where are the facts and data that are accurate? Who is providing this data?

Violence against women is primarily partner violence: 76 percent of the women who were raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 were assaulted by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, or date, …

That from the US DOJ National Institute of Justice Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as linked to on the National Online Resource Center for Violence Against Women.

Yet I don’t think we should only provide protection for women in a relationship because they are subject to more violence than non-partnered women.

Likewise, read this article http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=34888

While nine in 10,000 whites and nine in 10,000 Hispanics are victimized by hate crimes, only seven in 10,000 blacks are targets, according to the report.

I do not think we should give more protection to “whites” or “Hispanics” in hate crime legislation either…

I don’t think any study will accurately capture an opinion of violence, and studies often “spin” results based on the cause of the group funding or providing the information…

Everyone should be protected from violence, and protecting everyone does not decrease the protection offered to any “one” group or person…

Similarly here, the situation of women and men in the US in regards to violence is clearly not equal, and I think that it makes sense for our laws to recognize that.

I agree. Male victims of domestic violence are generally discriminated against and erased by the dominant discourse which frames domestic violence as “violence against women”.

Note that there is no comparable discrimination against women. Street violence, which is mostly perpetrated against men, is not framed as “violence against men”, nor are female victims discriminated against in the provision of services.

Women face more violence.

That is not true.

I understand your example. I hope you understand that I do not think it applies here… Anyone arrested for violence would be guilty–I don’t care whether they are rich or not. I am protecting those who are subject to violence–not protecting those who commit violence (regardless of their class, ethnic group, social status, etc.).

Do you see it targeting a group you think will lead to unfair treatment? In other words, how would protecting everyone equally (rather than protecting women more) lead to unequal treatment under this law?

Your last example does NOT treat everyone fairly does it? If the law was written to allow everyone to get married, I would have no problem with the law-even if it allowed three people to be in a marriage (understand that some cultures differ from ours).

Why give an example of a law that treats people differently as your example? That is what I am arguing against… Marriage, in most laws, apply marriage only to a union between a man and a women does not apply to everyone equally does it?

I am not arguing that all laws are written equally, I was only saying that this law should have been gender-neutral everywhere rather than in most places…

Laws passed against theft apply only to those who commit theft. Do we get rid of all these laws just because they apply to less financially well off individuals, no. Should some laws be repealed (like the one you give about sleeping under bridges)? Certainly–or at least amended :)

That means nothing to me but means a very great deal to my gay friends.

Pretending that that law is neutral is extremely foolish, though it applies regardless of sexual orientation.

—Myca

I wonder why you need to be critical? Yes, English is my first language.

Serious question, actually. We seem to be talking past each other, and that sometimes happens with folks who aren’t very skilled with English. It’s not an attack, just a question.

Is that discrimination due to the law being written the way it is or is that outcome due to the enforcement given by District Attorney and/or the police (or other law enforcement units)?

Part of the reason I used the example I did is that a law against vagrancy (sleeping under bridges) will lead to a greater oppression of the poor in cases where it is enforced equally.

See, the rich don’t need to sleep under bridges, so if the law says, “arrest everyone sleeping under a bridge, regardless of their income,” 100% of the people arrested will be the very poor.

The problem here is clearly not unequal enforcement. It’s equal enforcement of a law that pretends that everyone’s situation is the same, when it’s clearly not.

Similarly here, the situation of women and men in the US in regards to violence is clearly not equal, and I think that it makes sense for our laws to recognize that.

—Myca

It does when the application of the law by DAs, LE (law enforcment), and lawyers use the law to make the law apply differently to different people. Writing it so that it offers different protection to different people guarantees people will not be treated equally.

I wonder why you need to be critical? Yes, English is my first language. Does writing a law so as to be scrupulously neutral lead to some pretty serious discrimination when situation are unequal?

Sure.

Is that discrimination due to the law being written the way it is or is that outcome due to the enforcement given by District Attorney and/or the police (or other law enforcement units)?

If the law is written so that it applies to all, any discriminatory application may be due to improper enforcement or application.

Understand, making that law apply to all does not reduce any protection to women. Rather, making the law apply to all makes more people/groups receive the protection offered under the law. Again, whether the law is applied as it should be is an enforcement issue–this is why the EPA is sued for failure to meet goals/guidelines.

Follow this argument that a lawyer could make:

Most of the VOWA is written in a gender neutral tone. However, these sections (and the attorney will list the sections that are not gender-neutral) are not so written. Why would some sections be written gender-neutral and some not? Obviously, the legislature meant for some areas of the law to only apply to women and not to (whomever his client has abused).

A court may agree with that argument.

Again, my suggestion would not give women any less protection. Do you think women deserve more protection than other groups/people? I can accept that. However, my wanting to protect everyone from violence does not make me “wrong” in any sense of the word. :) I really don’t think we disagree unless you are saying that women deserve more protection from violence than other people (e.g., gay men, African Americans, Latin Americans, etc.). If we do not agree (if you think women should have more protection than others), I can accept that reasonable people can disagree.

Your complaining about rich and poor not being treated equally is a problem with enforcement of the law not with how the law is written.

Is English your first language? I ask because we seem to be talking past each other here, especially if you think, “The law, in its infinite wisdom, prohibits the rich, as well as the poor, from sleeping beneath bridges,” has anything at all to do with enforcement.

I was making the point that writing a law so as to be scrupulously neutral can lead to some pretty serious discrimination when situations are unequal.

—Myca

I agree.

Law available here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3402enr.txt.pdf

My original post only discussed TITLE I (ENHANCING JUDICIAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TOOLS TO COMBAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN), TITLE VI ( HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND SAFETY FOR BATTERED WOMEN AND CHILDREN). and TITLE IX (SAFETY FOR INDIAN WOMEN).

I agree with your statement in general and only wish the legislature had done as well on those sections :)

The law is a good law, don’t get me wrong…

Myca:

I am an English major, but the courts interpret language specifically and do not always appreciate metaphors… I am sorry that I do not think your example worked. That it was a metaphor (the substitution of one idea or object with another, used to assist expression or understanding) or not is not relevant if it does not help with increasing the understanding… Sorry.

Your complaining about rich and poor not being treated equally is a problem with enforcement of the law not with how the law is written. Nobody has disagreed that enforcement is not always conducted equally. We all agree enforcement needs work, but I think the law should provide for equal treatment. If we start writing unequal treatment into the law, how are we improving the situation (i.e., ,making the situation better)?

If we have a problem with enforcement (which we do), let us work to improve enforcement.

I am not sure why you seem to think I think the law is bad. To simplify my comment, I stated that the law should apply to ALL rather than to the FEW or the ONE. If you agree with basic idea, we agree. If you don’t agree, I haven’t seen where you state why some people and/or groups deserve better treatment than everyone else. We really don’t need to argue over minutia…

Perhaps you want to make a group whole–that is the justification for making it easier for women and other “minorities” to get government business loans–a benefit I do not oppose.

Please understand all I am saying is that I (me) would prefer the law to prevent violence against all and to provide the same benefits to all–something it comes very close to doing.

I don’t mind extra police, and I would assume that the police would protect everyone equally — rather than just intervene if a woman was attack and not intervene if a man was attacked.

I think that you don’t understand analogies.

I am not suggesting we do NOT protect women. I am simply suggesting that the law offer the same protection to everyone…

The law, in its infinite wisdom, prohibits the rich, as well as the poor, from sleeping beneath bridges. Right.

VAWA isn’t a perfect law, but most of it is written in scrupulously gender-neutral language.

Great point, Ampersand. Counsel, what specific complaints do you have about the act? Which provisions (once again, specifically) do you believe are unfair and unwarranted?

—Myca

Why would it bother someone so much, the idea of women recieving xtra protection from violence? I mean, it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, you know?

playing lawyer to Lucifer for a moment, it might make some people more equal before the law than others, which can foment resentment of the law and worsen social divisions and strife. whether this particular case of not-quite equality under the law actually does do those things might be debatable, though.

I end up feeling like the people who are so upset about this (as-in-your-original-post-was-2.5-years-ago-upset) are just really bothered by the idea of a law protecting women. And that’s creepy.

I have to admit that your assumption about me being “bothered” or upset about protecting women is wrong–whether you admit it or not.

I am not suggesting we do NOT protect women. I am simply suggesting that the law offer the same protection to everyone…

I don’t mind extra police, and I would assume that the police would protect everyone equally — rather than just intervene if a woman was attack and not intervene if a man was attacked.

Whether it is reasonable or rational is up for debate. I am not saying anyone should be subject to violence.

My point was why do you offer more legal protection to one group of people–regardless if it is women, men, hermaphrodites, African-American, etc…

Whether women face more violence is irrelevant as to whom should be protected FROM violence.

Only including women in the law does not mean the law will be enforced. So, you may be talking about enforcement of the law. I do not mind appropriate enforcement of the law, my comment is directed to protecting everyone rather than a group we all want to protect–just not to the detriment to other groups who also need the protection. For example, groups that are targeted for violence include gay men. Excluding “men” means gay men don’t get the same protection against violence as women would receive…

The question I have to you is, “why not?” I am not saying women are subject to less violence or that they are subject to more violence than men. My comment is simply stating that if we all focus on “our” problems, we exclude solving THE problem–violence.

Perhaps this will help… You suggest we protect women because they are subject to “more” violence? Does your rationale suggest that we should protect women “less” if they are subject to “less” violence? I don’t think so… I think we both want to end violence–not just against women.

Or are you suggesting, somehow, that violence against those who are not women is somehow more acceptable?

Here’s the thing, man. Two points:

1) This whole debate kind of creeps me out in the way that the debate over whether or not white people ’should’ say the n-word creeps me out. Why would it bother someone so much, not being ’supposed’ to use a horrible racial slur? Why would it bother someone so much, the idea of women recieving xtra protection from violence? I mean, it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, you know? Since it does neither, I end up feeling like the people who are so upset about this (as-in-your-original-post-was-2.5-years-ago-upset) are just really bothered by the idea of a law protecting women. And that’s creepy.

2) If the ‘inequality’ still bothers you, think of it this way: two towns border each other and have a roughly equal population. One town has very little crime, its streets are safe at night, etc. The other town is suffering through a horrible crime wave, its citizens are scared to go out, chaos reigns supreme, etc.

It only makes sense that the second town should put more police on the streets. There just simply isn’t going to be a way to staff their respective police forces that is both perfectly ‘equal’ and actually effective. If you just give them both the exact same number of officers, funding, and training, one police force will end up overstaffed, and one will end up understaffed.

This is the same situation. Women face more violence. We’re addressing the issue more strongly because it requires it. It may be, as you said, that it’s ‘unfair’ to staff the two towns’ police forces differently (”After all, they have the same population! Why should one town have twice as many cops?”), but it’s also the only reasonable, rational, thing to do. The actual world is about more than just theory.

—Myca

A commenter replied: No. Not when gender is a mitigating factor in the illegal acts themselves. We can stop aiming laws at women when men stop aiming violence at women because they are women.

I don’t know whether the commenter is thinking this thorough… How is the gender of the person getting beaten a mitigating factor to the illegal act of committing the violence?

If a law stated all violence was illegal, why would the gender be relevant? I am suggesting equal treatment under the law–not unequal.

By your logic (We can stop aiming laws at women when men stop aiming violence at women because they are women), we would need seperate anti-violence laws for women, men, hermaphrodites (or do you lump them in with women or men?), different ethnic groups, etc.) rather than have one law against violence.

If we had to pass separate laws, whomever was not included in one of those laws would not be included (i.e., treated fairly). How do you justify such exclusion?

I argue that it is the act (violence, murder, etc.) and not the gender, ethnic group, etc. that should be relevant. Sure, you can agree, but your logic excludes equal treatment for some, and I can’t understand your reasoning for that exclusion…

BTW: I don’t include “race” in the description because I think there is one race, the human race.