Author: has written 5281 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

7 Responses

  1. Shankar Gupta
    Shankar Gupta June 21, 2005 at 10:36 am |

    Here’s the kicker: “Local crimes and marital disputes should not be subjects of federal law or spending.”

    Ah. So… physically attacking someone you’re wedded to is simply a “marital dispute”? I wonder, then, if it would be ok for me to beat the shit out of my boss — after all, wouldn’t that just be a little “labor dispute,” and no business of the authorities?

    I think physically attacking someone you’re wedded to falls under the category of “local crimes,” not marital disputes. Likewise, if you were to beat the shit out of your boss, it would just be assault. The federal government wouldn’t be involved at all.

  2. Cinnamon
    Cinnamon June 21, 2005 at 11:10 am |

    The funny thing is that the VAWA was used to help bring charges against the guy who taking shots at random folks in DC a while ago. Because of VAWA, carrying a gun across state lines to commit a crime, has higher penalties than if you use a gun in your home state.

  3. Marian Shah
    Marian Shah June 21, 2005 at 11:44 am |

    Lauren–Just out of curiosity, whose quote was the “fish and bicycles” quote? Not being snarky, I really want to know, because pop culture has always attributed it to Steinem.

  4. Marian Shah
    Marian Shah June 21, 2005 at 11:52 am |

    Oops, I’m an idiot. I clicked the link and answered my own question. :)

  5. ol cranky
    ol cranky June 21, 2005 at 2:57 pm |

    I wonder if the men who love and care for the women who’ve been beaten to a pulp or killed by their fathers, brothers, husbands are considered “man haters” for wanting better domestic violence laws.

  6. Adrienne
    Adrienne June 21, 2005 at 3:22 pm |

    The first commenter is exactly right. Jill, Schlafly wasn’t trying to say that wife-beating isn’t a crime, just that it’s not a crime that should be under the purview of the federal government. And she’s absolutely right. Murder, rape, assault, theft—these are things that happen within individual states with their own statutes dictating the punishments for said crimes. The Violence Against Women Act is a purely symbolic piece of legislation that does nothing to reduce domestic violence, and yet, it’s one of those Catch-22’s that politicians hate: if you vote against it because you believe the individual states should make their own laws regarding domestic violence, opponents will say that you “support domestic violence,” or something to that effect. And that’s ridiculous.

  7. Cinnamon
    Cinnamon June 22, 2005 at 12:07 am |

    However, in cases where women escape their abuser by fleeing their home state, states had a hard time providing protection to these women who fled into their state. VAWA increased penalties for following that woman with the attempt to cause her harm as well as making it easier for the new host stateto prosecute him as well as protect her.

    Not to mention it helps to provide another layer of protection for women who are either married to a military member, or are in the military themselves. For full text, go here http://www.now.org/issues/violence/vawa/vawa1998.html

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.