Tennessee Republican Congressman John Duncan explains why he doesn’t think his opposition to the Violence Against Women Act is a bad thing:
“Every bill is given a motherhood-and-apple-pie title,” Duncan said outside the House chamber. “But if you voted [based] on the title, you’d vote for every bill up here. If we’d all done that, the country would have crashed a long time ago.
“So this is another bill with a motherhood-and-apple-pie title,” he added.
Passed in 1994 and renewed twice without controversy, the Violence Against Women Act reauthorizes funding for pro bono legal assistance and training programs to help victims of violent sex crimes, stalking and other forms of dating and domestic abuse. Despite the bill’s title, the benefits apply to female and male victims.
“Like most men, I’m more opposed to violence against women than even violence against men,” [Tennessee Congressman] Duncan said [explaining why he is voting against the bill]. “Because most men can handle it a little better than a lot of women can.”
In other words, the VAWA also helps male victims of domestic violence, and Duncan thinks that a bad thing and that it justifies his reticence to support the bill. Why? Because men are tough and manly, so male victims of domestic violence should just deal. (Read Melissa McEwan’s response here.)
On a similar note, Vision Forum’s Wesley Strackbein is outraged by the U.S. military’s recent decision to allow women in combat:
While all life is precious in God’s sight, we have erred in concluding that the death of G.I. Jane in combat is no more terrible than the death of G.I. Joe. Women should not be placed in harm’s way to defend our nation, and rather than celebrate what should be mourned, we should cry out to God to humble our hearts in repentance.
Only then will the scales be lifted from our eyes and our hearts be made tender to protect the weaker sex.
And people think it’s we feminists who don’t care about men.
Patriarchy is a vile, vile thing.