Former Free States

women don't report violent behaviour by spouses because they feel trapped economically, with no alternative means of support

If a guy is supporting a woman, maybe she should do as she is told or get the hell out, and if she does not do as she is told, and does not want to get the hell out, she needs to be punished.

You know, this is probably the most sensible thing I've heard from you on the subject of women...which, admittedly, isn't saying a whole lot.

It also leads me to believe that you may actually be - partially - correct about the nature of women in our society. Unfortunately, it's your attitude that perpetuates that, making it a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

You (and others like you) are convinced that women are weak, pitiful creatures, that need your protection and guidance to prevent them from driving their car off a cliff while putting on their makeup, and so when you are left in charge of raising a woman, instead of making them strong, independent and capable, you turn them into the weak, pitiful creatures you envision them to be. The problem is not inherent in the female genetic code, but rather, in the way we are raising our children. Well, not "we". I intend to raise my daughters right.

You (and others like you) are convinced that women are weak, pitiful creatures, that need your protection and guidance to prevent them from driving their car off a cliff while putting on their makeup,

But VAWA assumes that women are weak pitiful creatures that need protection from people like me, and I don't see you ranting about how bad VAWA is.

It is perfectly OK to allege large differences between men and women provided these differences make men look bad, or justify treating men worse than women.  It is, however, totally unacceptable to allege large differences between men and women if these differences make women look bad, or justify treating a woman with less dignity than one would treat a man.

The outrage about the one, and the lack of outrage about the other, implies that those outraged feel that women are weak pitiful creatures who need protection, and indeed they are, but I think that dangerous thoughts are rather low on the list of things that they need protection from.  

2005 Crime victimization survey:

Table 12, Victimization rates for persons age 12 and over, by
gender and marital status of victims and type of crime

Female married:     Violence victimization rate 7.8%
Female divorced or separated Violence victimization rate 33.4%

Table 13: Victimization rates for persons age 12 and over, by
gender  head of household, relationship of victims to head
and type of crime.

Female heads of households living with others
violence victimization rate 20.6%

Wife of a male head of household
violence victimization rate of 6.7%.

Female heads of households living with others
simple assault victimization rate 14.1%

Wife of a male head of household
simple assault victimization rate of 4.2%.

Female heads of households living with others:
rape/attempted rape victimization rate 1.8%

Wife of a male head of household:
rape/attempted rape victimization rate of 0.1%

VAWA reaches into relationships and attempts to break up couples that are politically incorrect in their inequality, but on the face of it, seems unlikely that this make women safer.

You (and others like you) are convinced that women are weak, pitiful creatures, that need your protection and guidance to prevent them from driving their car off a cliff while putting on their makeup,

But VAWA assumes that women are weak pitiful creatures that need protection from people like me, and I don't see you ranting about how bad VAWA is.

Yes, it's bad. It's horribly sexist. Of course, so are you, and, well, you're here, and the morons who wrote VAWA aren't.

Agreed, VAWA is horrible and sexist.  For that matter, the ONLY reason I even considered supporting the old ERA ("Equal Rights Amendment" for those too young or high or something to remember this 1970s proposal for a Constitutional amendment to say "no discrimination on the basis of sex") was for fear that voting it down would be ruled equivalent to saying sex-based discrimination was acceptable.    It was nice to be wrong about that.