Someone posted this image in the comments at A Voice for Men. As far as I can figure it, it depicts brave MRAs pulling down the allegedly evil Violence Against Women Act, which for some reason is represented by the Venus of Willendorf. Because women are fat? Or is just feminists who are fat? Or battered women?
Is every supposed MRA cause really just an excuse to talk shit about women?
Nope, not true. It is not illegal to be annoying. You of all people should know that, NWO. I think you have domestic violence early warning signs lists mixed up with VAWA.
This is again not true. Try reading the actual law to see what it says rather than MRA blogs that are full of crap
VAWA does not make it legal for women to kill men no questions asked. You’re just thinking of the few battered women who have been acquitted for killing their abusers because they acted in self defense. Sadly, many women that kill in self defense are not acquitted and end up in prison, so if anything there is a bias against women in those situations.
Billions? There are only about 6.8 billion people on the planet right now. If you’re going to make up numbers, at least make it believable. To answer your question, though, no I do not want to give anyone a bloody nose. What would that accomplish?
Perfect timing NWO. I had a stressful day and tearing into what passes for logic in your posts is a perfect way for me to bleed some of that stress off.
Tell me, apart from unnecessary scare quotes, what’s the difference between women and “women.”
That’s a strange way to explain it. To quote what Kirbywarp cited earlier
I was unaware that decreasing things like domestic violence was somehow elevating women to a superior class. I would say “does this imply that you think women should be abused to be brought back down”, but since you are a ready advocate of violence to solve problems, I would suspect you really do think this.
Ignoring your blatant abuse of scarequotes (in a really strange place to use them), can you cite for me some of these sections?
So…not wanting anyone to be domestically abused makes me “hate filled?” I would hate to see what love is in your universe.
Two words for you, NWO:
Foxy, Boxing.
Check it out sometime!
owlslave, is there any law against hitting people you would be in favor of? any at all?
In NWOWorld, love is expressed by violently assaulting other people.
like isnt the root of this just that you think violence should be legal?
(and the hating women thing is just icing on the cake)
Unfortunately, NWO’s timing is way off on this one, as we literally just finished discussing how each of his points were wrong…
@NWO:
Hey, did you know that the word “annoy” don’t appear anywhere in the text of the bill? And that “emotional distress” is only mentioned as “substantial emotional distress” as part of the definition of “stalking?”
Here’s the definition of Domestic Violence:
So where exactly is the “annoyance” bit, or failure to fund things, or any of the crap you said? Where is the “woman only” language? I’m all ears, NWO. ^_^
It is not illegal to be annoying. You of all people should know that, NWO.
Well played.
Actually, come to think of it, NWO probably thinks that being annoying is illegal and if he revealed his real name he’d be arrested for it.
NWO is always on the side of more beatings! NWO is just pissed that domestic violence is illegal.
The kicker is that it is illegal for both genders under the VAWA, and they are looking for extra protection for men now in the new version.
NWO is against that though, he just wants it to be legal to beat people, well women in particular.
shorter NWO: BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!
I’m having quite a bit of difficulty finding anything NWO says is in the bill in the bill itself… I can only imagine it’s like a game of telephone, where someone made up shit at the very beginning and NWO swallowed and repeated it.
There are actually some sections that mention women specifically, upon further reading… Each of which start off with a “findings” section that explain that women account for the majority of DV/assault/abuse cases, and seem to address women specifically for that reason. In other words, putting more work towards making the biggest impact.
So NWO, if you want to call misandry, I guess you’d have to show that helping people who suffer more is a bad thing, or that women don’t actually suffer the majority of DV/assault/abuse cases.
Remember when NWO used to be fun to laugh at?
Those were the days.
Lol… By this he means “I opened it up once and glanced through, saw all the tiny text, saw the big bold Violence Against Women and called it a day.”
I’m not sure NWO can read for comprehension.
OK, NWO, you say you’ve read VAWA, but did you UNDERSTAND it?
I think not.
*sigh*
The one point in time where NWO’s pet issue is on topic, and he pulls a one and done. 🙁
Maybe he’ll come back, and then we can talk about VAWA with the bill right in front of us! Or maybe NWO can only deal with off topic stuff, so he’ll start ranting about pedophilia and how it should be legalized or something…
Yeah, Kirby, you’d think he’d want to stay and ride his favorite hobbyhorse.
Everyone needs a hobby.
NWO “read” VAWA like he “read” Title IX or that other one that he brought up once that suggested that no laws be made that granted parents the right to their children. He reads some article about it on the Daily Mail or somesuch and decides that article is the pure absolute undiluted truth.
NWO – I used to have much more of a problem with VAWA, and so did the ACLU. But it’s been rewritten to a much more gender neutral standard. I’m not entirely happy with it now, but it’s not the ultimate evil of matriarchal law. Part of the problem with MRA’s is that they can’t realize when progress has been made, or when circumstances have changed. Frankly, they don’t WANT to believe VAWA could have been bad and gotten better, because it’s not about VAWA, but a feminist reign.
“Part of the problem with MRA’s is that they can’t realize when progress has been made, or when circumstances have changed”
MRAs don’t like progress because that gives them fewer things to whine about. When the FBI changed its definition of rape to include men (thanks in part to the efforts of the evil misandrist feminist organizations), the MRAs still threw a hissy fit over some minor issues.
“MRAs don’t like progress because that gives them fewer things to whine about. When the FBI changed its definition of rape to include men (thanks in part to the efforts of the evil misandrist feminist organizations), the MRAs still threw a hissy fit over some minor issues.”
Precisely. Progress hurts their Role-Playing Game of a movement.
The best part about it all to me is that when change is made that MRAs like, usually by feminists, the MRAs say stuff like “Ha, now the evil feminists will be moaning and screeching and frothing angry now!” Oi…
“When will one single woman stand up and be willing to shed a little blood, or bloody the nose of another woman for men?”
I am not willing to bloody a woman’s nose, but I am willing to boop my kittens on the nose for anyone, man or woman. To be honest, I don’t really need a reason.