Woman Shot, Killed In Domestic Assault - Who Cares?
| May 23rd, 2006A woman is dead and her boyfriend is in custody after a weekend shooting in St. Paul, police said.
I once assumed everyone would see this as a tragedy all Americans want to fight, yet in Time To Address Domestic Violence Abuses by Phyllis Schlafly, she writes:
The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was signed by President Bush in January without any public debate, but evidence is now surfacing which Congress should have examined before the law was passed. VAWA is a nearly-billion-dollar-a-year extension of one of the major ways that Bill Clinton bought the support of the radical feminists. Why Republicans passed this bill is a mystery. It’s unlikely that the feminists who will spend all that money will ever vote Republican.
Is this Ms. Schlafly’s way of trying to bring more violent men into the Republican fold? I’d dismiss her as a radical fluke except a known side effect of at least one state’s gay marriage ban removes women like the victim in this recent case from protection provided by anti-domestic violence laws.
It’s telling to me that I haven’t seen a single gay-marriage-ban proponent working to close this gap.
DAYTON, Ohio - A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage bars prosecutors from charging some unmarried people under the state’s domestic violence law, a state appeals court ruled.
Friday’s decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeals is the first from Ohio’s 12 appellate courts to rule that the Defense of Marriage amendment, passed by voters in 2004, means that the domestic violence law does not apply to unmarried people.
Does this mean that those in favor of the gay marriage ban see gay marriage as a greater sin than murder?
Also posted on my blog,
May 23rd, 2006 at 11:24 am
Is this Ms. Schlafly’s way of trying to bring more violent men into the Republican fold?
I must note that most of the violent men already vote weeth los Republiculos, and that los Republiculos can have them.
so.
This comment was written by ¡El Gato Negro!.Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2006 at 5:31 pm
05/23 I Want My Period, At Least Until Menopause 05/23Woman Shot, Killed In Domestic Assault - Who Cares?
This comment was written by FeministBlogosphere.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2006 at 4:24 am
Paul, police said. I once assumed everyone would see this as a tragedy all Americans want to fight, yet in Time To Address Domestic Violence Abuses by Phyllis Shaffly, she writes: The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was […]Continue reading at Alas, a blog … posted 9:44 am at Alas, a blog
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
I’d like to just insert a point of irony, here. I’m going to skip the gory details (because they’re, well, gory, and highly personal) but years ago when I was seeking assistance from a domestic violence agency, I was told that I was extremely fortunate that they were willing to overlook the fact that the perpetrator was, like myself, a woman, because their grant funding specified that it could only be spent on services for victims of male perpetrators.
So… After the side effects of these morons’ gay marriage bans have been experienced by heterosexual battered women - one has to wonder, where might it leave women (and men) battered in same-sex relationships?
A hefty can of worms, that.
This comment was written by Victoria Marinelli.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2006 at 5:57 am
The gay community has done some very good work on those issues, actually, unlike FRAs and MRAs.
I just have a question. Why is the title of this post in passive voice? Who attacked? One almost needs to ask, what attacked her and killed her? Was it a man? How come we do this all the time? “Women get pregnant, women get raped, women get killed…..” Well, by who or what? It sounds like these women go stumbling into things and there’s no men involved. Last time I checked, for example, women didn’t ‘get’ pregnant by osmosis. And what’s domestic violence? I know these are old questions, but the title struck me this morning.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2006 at 8:22 am
Gin. Not speaking for Abyss, but I suspect s/he phrased it that way as part of his point. S/he’s been around long enough to recognize the impact of passive voice on how DV is perceived.
On the plus side, I’ve noticed in recent months that one of my local news stations (KMBC), that has an on-line presence, has switched from passive to active voice in their DV headlines. It was a refreshing change.
This comment was written by odanu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2006 at 7:17 am
Where’d my other comment go? It was t here yesterday.
I’m not criticizing abyss2hope; I’m criticizing the article. Well, maybe a little. Why do we use passive voice when we describe what men do to women?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2006 at 8:37 am
Ginmar, I haven’t deleted any comment from you on this thread. So I have no idea what to tell you.
It’s possible that there’s a database problem of some kind, although I certainly hope that isn’t it. Has anyone else noticed their comments disappearing?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2006 at 10:58 am
No, it’s a user error—-meaning me, duh. There’s another post on a similiar subject, I just got confused about which comment I’d posted where. But, yeah, we do use passive voice when it comes to some things—and we use active voice when it comes to others. I think the FRAs and the MRAs are so used to being ignored when they do flip out that the simple use of a phrase like, “The man shot this women,” instead of ‘woman shot in DV incident” becuase it’s so bald looking.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2006 at 9:19 pm
and therefore my commitment to my partner and all legal agreements would be null and void if this bill passes. This is just plain lunacy. Furthermore, Ohio passed a similar marriage protection amendment, which lead the state’s Supreme Court to findOrder of Protections against abusive partners to be unconsitutional if the couple wasn’t married. So, the unintended consequences of this bill are futher reaching than just bigotry. They prevent protecting women from abusive partners. They deny any legal protections and benefits to couples, like myself, who choose not to marry. They put in
This comment was written by Mad Melancholic Feminista.Report this comment to the moderators