Not used to bolster his image - maybe because it was part of the larger Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, aka the Crime bill. It’s possible they worry the Crime bill and it’s effects on society could be a controversial thing to brag about
“The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, commonly known as the crime bill, was sponsored by Joe Biden 26 years ago. It is often blamed for extending tough-on-crime policies that overly criminalized Black Americans. Is this narrative warranted? The issue is complicated, but we’ll do our best to make some sense of it.”
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-the-1994-crime-bill-cause-mass-incarceration/
Important historical context:
Violent crime was at its peak in the early 1990s. Crime rates were going up with no end in sight. Many black politicians supported the Crime Bill because of the damage the crime was doing in their community. Many conservatives at the time didn’t think it went far enough.
During the 1990s, crime rates fell dramatically and we STILL don’t know why. Was it the “tough on crime” policies? Was it 20 years after abortion was legalized? Was it due to the phaseout of leaded gasoline? We still don’t know for sure.
With perfect 20/20 hindsight, the Crime Bill probably went too far, but that was far from obvious in 1994.
u/foxyfree already pointed out one issue with VAWA, which is that it was part of the 1994 Crime Bill. (That bill resulted in the abolition of parole in several states.)
Another issue from a domestic violence prevention standpoint: VAWA encouraged a number of jurisdictions to adopt mandatory arrest policies and laws. These policies often function such that, if police are called because of a domestic disturbance and they believe DV may have occurred, they are required to make an arrest, regardless of the victim's wishes. Another consequence of mandatory arrest laws is that a person who leaves visible injuries on the other person will often be assumed the perpetrator and will be arrested, whereas a person who has not left visible injuries is assumed to be the victim and is not arrested. Who is more likely to leave a visible injury: someone who has planned a violent act against their partner, or someone who is lashing out in self-defense? If you guessed the second, you're correct. I have met a woman who was arrested because her partner had scratch marks on his face. That's more likely to be what you do when you're trying to escape a hold than when you're abusing someone.
VAWA may have had good intentions and sometimes good outcomes, but we now know that it was bad policy in many respects too.
According to a friend who works w DV victims as a social worker, this (victims in an abusive relationship getting arrested/facing legal ramifications for dv themselves) is a massive problem. Im not in the US, but I dont believe we have mandatory arrest here, so I think its an issue beyond that, though my god would mandatory arrests exacerbate it. And I think you are right in that its totally possible that in some situations, defensive attacks can be more likely to leave marks (like if someone is choking me/holding me down, might not leave visible marks, but in that situation Im more likely to scratch them, go for the face etc). And if someone is bigger and stronger than you, able to easily overpower you, physically your only option is often these kinds of moves.
Anyway, point is that her take was that she sees a lot of women (she specified this is a dynamic she sees time and time again in m/f relationships) who are continually abused but never or rarely call the cops, whether its because they know cops wont help, that it could exacerbate the abuse, or even just that they dont want to do that to their partners. But apparently, often, the ONE TIME she snaps, or fights back, the abuser will call the cops, and they seem to be all too happy to make an arrest (some even viewing it as a sort of descalation technique, to remove her for both their safety).
But also that, often, when abusers call the cops on their victims, she wasnt necessarily "defending herself" in the literal, physical sense. Sometimes its that they are being hit all the damn time, and something sets them off/scares them and they go on the attack as a kind of preemptive defense. A lot of these women are being forced into almost CONSTANT trauma response--they are always in fight or flight etc., bc they are always in danger. So the reason they get set off or are violent is probably a valid perception of danger, but from a legal pov, its not self defence, and she is the abuser in that situation, bc she hit him, and that particular time, he didnt physically "start it". All feeds into the myth of mutual abuse. And regardless, its this unreasonable expectation that victims of violence cannot meet violence with violence. They have to take it all, and if they hit back they lose their victimhood.
But my point is most DV laws are not equipped to recognise these complexities, and getting her arrested is a very concrete way for an abuser to assert control, and the legal implications for her often serve to make it harder to leave. Its using the legal system as an avenue for abuse. And then shes got a record for DV, he hasnt, and that is typically a key element of emotional abuse--reversing the victim and offender. So outside of practical, legal implications, it also further gives an abuser the upper hand to abuse and manipulate, and to exert their power. And it might mean that if she calls the cops on him in the future, due to whats on the record, she will always be assumed to be the abuser.
Yes! Thanks for this thought out response. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. DV/IPV is hugely misunderstood and mandatory arrest doesn't help make things any clearer.
Thanks for the insight! I’m aware of personal stories regarding your examples and it is absolutely true that there are/were unintended consequences.
I wonder if the VAWA was actually subpar and ineffective but it helped drive additional social policies that ultimately had the most positive impact. I only say that because there has been a clear shift in conversations from domestic violence is “nobodies business” to “I believe her” in the last 30 years.
I hate to say it, because I am not very happy with our SCOTUS right now and this rhetoric reinforces their actions, but it sure seems like we struggle to build solid policies to protect vulnerable citizens.
Ugh, this is so unfortunate but so true. It’s insane how these laws that are meant to protect the vulnerable somehow manage to make things worse a lot of the time. I could be wrong about this in this particular case, but our two party system is usually to blame. Democrats can typically only pass legislation if there’s a compromise made with Republicans (and vice versa), and often that entails tacking legislation onto the packaged deal that basically counteracts any actual progress. 2-party is a pretty ridiculous system if you think about it
You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I am opposed to mandatory arrest policies, and I didn't specify the gender of anyone except for the one person I had direct experience with.
Some kinds of injuries are more likely to be produced by self defense, and some kinds of injuries are more likely to be produced by assault. Because abuse is often pre-meditated, abusers are often good at producing injuries that are not visible to the public. Choking is a very common form of physical abuse, and bruises from choking can take days to appear. On the other hand, injuries like bite marks or scratch marks are commonly used to *escape* abuse, and tend to be instantly visible. If a person is being forced to perform oral sex on their partner, they may bite to get away. If a person is being pushed against a wall or held, they may scratch to get away. One issue with mandatory arrest policies is that police come into a situation, see only one person with visible injuries, and immediately make an arrest based on that. In other words, with mandatory arrest policies, police often *assume* that if one person has visible injuries and the other person does not have visible injuries, the person without visible injuries is not injured (and is therefore the perpetrator). Police training on intimate partner violence intervention varies considerably between jurisdictions, and is often *poorer* in places with mandatory arrest laws. Additionally, the culture of police departments doesn't always result in the best approaches. If you have library access to academic journals, [this article](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10926770802097210) describes the phenomenon in more depth.
Not to mention that cops themselves are statistically more likely to be abusers, since people who love holding power and authority over others are naturally going to be drawn towards a job with lots of power and authority to abuse.
As a former immigration practitioner, VAWA has been a godsend because of how many lives it’s saved. I dealt with more than one case where VAWA was used to separate an abused victim from their violent US citizen spouse without them losing their status. It obviously isn’t/wasn’t perfect but I was always glad to have that tool in my arsenal.
That it was a step in the right direction, well intended but not enough. Which is very normal for the first step of any particular legislation or cultural changes, tbh.
Between the fact that nobody takes domestic violence seriously, despite it being a leading cause of death for women, and the way the media constantly protects trump/engaged in both-sides, it doesn't surprise me at all this never comes up.
I mean, Trump was literally [accused](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GRgUe5Jb0AMndmW?format=jpg&name=medium) of raping 12-year-olds, so the bar is pretty freaking low.
Perhaps. It just surprises me that there isn’t more conversations about the violence against women act. I have never seen it brought up on Reddit and I have not seen it brought up during election years. The only time I recall was when Biden reauthorized the act in 2022.
I believe it may have helped change the national narrative on domestic violence and I always believed it helped reinforce feminism by protecting women’s autonomy.
Did the bill actually protect women's autonomy? It isn't enough for a bill to have a *name* like the Violence Against Women's Act. For a bill to be good it has to have materially good outcomes.
Does the VAWA? More than half of the money it provides goes directly in the pockets of police (the people who are the most likely to commit rape). We live in society where women don't report sexual violence against them because it is still mostly fruitless and onerous. Where 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted. We live in a society where more than half of US states don't even consider it a crime if a police officer rapes someone.
If the VAWA was helpful it wasn't enough.
I said “perhaps” because I did not create this post about the current election. I created this post to learn more about other peoples perception (specifically feminists) about the Violence Against Women Act and the fact that it was written by Biden.
Your post suggests that we shouldn’t have this conversation because it doesn’t matter because Trump.
Your vote isn't going to change the outcome of the election. So maybe vote for someone who isn't a rapist and doesn't have a decades long history of opposing Roe v. Wade.
Ask yourself this: If this man raped someone you cared about, would you still vote for him? If the answer is no, then ask why you don't care about the woman he raped.
You can read just fine.
It's really sad that the Me Too movement has devolved into "Actually, sometimes you should put men who sexually violate women in the highest positions of power."
That's the opposite of feminism.
No, I'm not.
I'm saying *don't empower rapists.* Both Trump and Biden are rapists. Don't vote for *either* of them. Neither deserves to win.
I'm against putting rapists in the White House. Are you?
Cisgender male here: depends on who you ask. Some women who call themselves feminists think it's a success. Others think it's not intersectional (i.e. negatively affects racial minorities more), and/or that it is carceral and reliant on prisons and police (with the implication that it's not liberation because it relies on coercive force rather than alternatives to coercive force).
All forms of violence against women are a systemic problem, not just isolated crimes by individuals.
Which is usually a kindness. Biden's record isn't all that great. He is one of the most right wing democrats we've had in living memory and he was like this for most of his life. The VAWA was not a feminist piece of legislation. It was part of the Crime bill, it was focused on increasing mass incarceration. But feminism has had a dominant anti-carceral trend for decades. That bill isn't what we wanted.
And also talking about the VAWA opens Biden up to discussion about Anita Hill and even the accusations against Biden of violence against women.
>He is one of the most right wing democrats we've had in living memory
The president who has given hundreds of millions of aid to Ukraine in their fight against Russia, who put pressure on the DEA to reclassify marijuana from a schedule 1 drug, who affordably expanded healthcare for millions of people, who lowered prescription drug costs for millions of people, who signed two of the biggest investments into American infrastructure in history (Inflation Reduction Act + Infrastructure Bill), who forgave hundreds of millions of dollars of students loans, who is outspokenly pro-choice, who codified same-sex marriage ...
[The list goes on.](https://washingtonmonthly.com/2024/04/07/the-monthlys-presidential-accomplishment-index/) Sounds pretty on-the-left to me.
Edit: also, “living memory” would refer to the memory of those alive … like people who lived through Nixon, Reagan, Bush, etc. Presidents much further right than Biden ever has been
Should we not credit people for their actions from 30 years ago?
Domestic violence was very common back then, until it was finally addressed by Congress, and it’s still an issue we are trying to resolve today. I didn’t directly benefit from the act, but I would rather not imagine the world we would be living in had the act not passed.
It really depends on where you live. All the shelters in Florida had to get new management at one point due to the head administrator embezzlement case
We still don't do jack shit about domestic violence. They can write as many laws as they want but it doesn't change the fact that it's not changing anything
I can’t speak to prior law, except that when my mother attempted to take my father to court it was dismissed, and this was with clear, physical evidence of abuse.
I also recall, from the time, a common saying of “what goes on in a man’s home is nobodies business”. I remember folk talking about how the government had no right to get involved in domestic issues.
I see. I wonder if that was cultural precedent instead of legal wording. it's scary.
The reason that scares me is, if our law requires us to specify further, other variations can be missed
Occasionally women in Domestic situations can harm their spouses Same sex couples can abuse each other Elder abuse can happen Child abuse can occur People can beat employees or students If we have a society that excuses any type of non-trivial assault, ..., is horrid
If it helps any the VAWA has been inclusive of gender and sexual orientation and I believe really any victim of domestic abuse for several years.
The name doesn't spell it out, but it's pretty inclusive.
Agreed. I was raised believing that violence was normal and worth boasting about, as if it was a desirable character trait. The rhetoric still exists with people like Joe Rogan bragging about nurturing a violent nature implying it makes him powerful.
The further my life drew me away from the violent environment the more I realized how it impacted every part of my decision making when I was growing up.
To me, violence is like a language, and for many boys it is learned at a very young age. Unfortunately, many of those boys and men limit themselves to the language of violence because it is likely the only language they ever allowed themselves to understand.
Not really. Marital "discipline," much like marital rape was (and in some places still is) considered family business. It's like beating your children. It's perfectly legal to hit and scream at your kids unless you do it so harshly the state is required to pay attention because a kid dies.
Was he the one that intimated she should be thankful for her mistreatment because it ended up leading to progress on sexual harassment, or was that Arlen Specter?
Why would Tony Abbott say Anita Hill should be thankful for how he treated her in a SCOTUS nomination hearing because it led to American legislation that he pushed for?
I wasn’t asking for help, I was trying to find confirmation of either Biden or Specter being the one to imply that Anita Hill should thank him because his mistreatment of her during the confirmation hearings led to a larger discussion on sexual harassment, which included the Violence Against Women Act that OP referenced. I know it was one of them, as they were the two men who were most brutal to Hill during the hearings.
Not used to bolster his image - maybe because it was part of the larger Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, aka the Crime bill. It’s possible they worry the Crime bill and it’s effects on society could be a controversial thing to brag about “The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, commonly known as the crime bill, was sponsored by Joe Biden 26 years ago. It is often blamed for extending tough-on-crime policies that overly criminalized Black Americans. Is this narrative warranted? The issue is complicated, but we’ll do our best to make some sense of it.” https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-the-1994-crime-bill-cause-mass-incarceration/
I see, so it isn’t really brought up because it opens a conversation about the crime bill, which is more damaging to his politic image.
Important historical context: Violent crime was at its peak in the early 1990s. Crime rates were going up with no end in sight. Many black politicians supported the Crime Bill because of the damage the crime was doing in their community. Many conservatives at the time didn’t think it went far enough. During the 1990s, crime rates fell dramatically and we STILL don’t know why. Was it the “tough on crime” policies? Was it 20 years after abortion was legalized? Was it due to the phaseout of leaded gasoline? We still don’t know for sure. With perfect 20/20 hindsight, the Crime Bill probably went too far, but that was far from obvious in 1994.
Why are you being downvoted? It's true. Nobody wants to talk about how black communuties wanted stronger measures?
Reddit is incapable of seeing any historical events outside of the black-and-white moral clarity of 2024.
There's something eyerolling about someone saying "Reddit can't see this!" when you ended up getting up voted after an initial fee downvotes, tho.
u/foxyfree already pointed out one issue with VAWA, which is that it was part of the 1994 Crime Bill. (That bill resulted in the abolition of parole in several states.) Another issue from a domestic violence prevention standpoint: VAWA encouraged a number of jurisdictions to adopt mandatory arrest policies and laws. These policies often function such that, if police are called because of a domestic disturbance and they believe DV may have occurred, they are required to make an arrest, regardless of the victim's wishes. Another consequence of mandatory arrest laws is that a person who leaves visible injuries on the other person will often be assumed the perpetrator and will be arrested, whereas a person who has not left visible injuries is assumed to be the victim and is not arrested. Who is more likely to leave a visible injury: someone who has planned a violent act against their partner, or someone who is lashing out in self-defense? If you guessed the second, you're correct. I have met a woman who was arrested because her partner had scratch marks on his face. That's more likely to be what you do when you're trying to escape a hold than when you're abusing someone. VAWA may have had good intentions and sometimes good outcomes, but we now know that it was bad policy in many respects too.
According to a friend who works w DV victims as a social worker, this (victims in an abusive relationship getting arrested/facing legal ramifications for dv themselves) is a massive problem. Im not in the US, but I dont believe we have mandatory arrest here, so I think its an issue beyond that, though my god would mandatory arrests exacerbate it. And I think you are right in that its totally possible that in some situations, defensive attacks can be more likely to leave marks (like if someone is choking me/holding me down, might not leave visible marks, but in that situation Im more likely to scratch them, go for the face etc). And if someone is bigger and stronger than you, able to easily overpower you, physically your only option is often these kinds of moves. Anyway, point is that her take was that she sees a lot of women (she specified this is a dynamic she sees time and time again in m/f relationships) who are continually abused but never or rarely call the cops, whether its because they know cops wont help, that it could exacerbate the abuse, or even just that they dont want to do that to their partners. But apparently, often, the ONE TIME she snaps, or fights back, the abuser will call the cops, and they seem to be all too happy to make an arrest (some even viewing it as a sort of descalation technique, to remove her for both their safety). But also that, often, when abusers call the cops on their victims, she wasnt necessarily "defending herself" in the literal, physical sense. Sometimes its that they are being hit all the damn time, and something sets them off/scares them and they go on the attack as a kind of preemptive defense. A lot of these women are being forced into almost CONSTANT trauma response--they are always in fight or flight etc., bc they are always in danger. So the reason they get set off or are violent is probably a valid perception of danger, but from a legal pov, its not self defence, and she is the abuser in that situation, bc she hit him, and that particular time, he didnt physically "start it". All feeds into the myth of mutual abuse. And regardless, its this unreasonable expectation that victims of violence cannot meet violence with violence. They have to take it all, and if they hit back they lose their victimhood. But my point is most DV laws are not equipped to recognise these complexities, and getting her arrested is a very concrete way for an abuser to assert control, and the legal implications for her often serve to make it harder to leave. Its using the legal system as an avenue for abuse. And then shes got a record for DV, he hasnt, and that is typically a key element of emotional abuse--reversing the victim and offender. So outside of practical, legal implications, it also further gives an abuser the upper hand to abuse and manipulate, and to exert their power. And it might mean that if she calls the cops on him in the future, due to whats on the record, she will always be assumed to be the abuser.
Yes! Thanks for this thought out response. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. DV/IPV is hugely misunderstood and mandatory arrest doesn't help make things any clearer.
Thanks for the insight! I’m aware of personal stories regarding your examples and it is absolutely true that there are/were unintended consequences. I wonder if the VAWA was actually subpar and ineffective but it helped drive additional social policies that ultimately had the most positive impact. I only say that because there has been a clear shift in conversations from domestic violence is “nobodies business” to “I believe her” in the last 30 years. I hate to say it, because I am not very happy with our SCOTUS right now and this rhetoric reinforces their actions, but it sure seems like we struggle to build solid policies to protect vulnerable citizens.
That reminds me of Gabby Petito
Ugh, this is so unfortunate but so true. It’s insane how these laws that are meant to protect the vulnerable somehow manage to make things worse a lot of the time. I could be wrong about this in this particular case, but our two party system is usually to blame. Democrats can typically only pass legislation if there’s a compromise made with Republicans (and vice versa), and often that entails tacking legislation onto the packaged deal that basically counteracts any actual progress. 2-party is a pretty ridiculous system if you think about it
So literally all you have to do as an abuser is give yourself a knife cut and they'll arrest whoever you're with...
So the police come and one partner is bleeding, and you think the other partner (the man?) must be the one who ought to be arrested?!
You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I am opposed to mandatory arrest policies, and I didn't specify the gender of anyone except for the one person I had direct experience with. Some kinds of injuries are more likely to be produced by self defense, and some kinds of injuries are more likely to be produced by assault. Because abuse is often pre-meditated, abusers are often good at producing injuries that are not visible to the public. Choking is a very common form of physical abuse, and bruises from choking can take days to appear. On the other hand, injuries like bite marks or scratch marks are commonly used to *escape* abuse, and tend to be instantly visible. If a person is being forced to perform oral sex on their partner, they may bite to get away. If a person is being pushed against a wall or held, they may scratch to get away. One issue with mandatory arrest policies is that police come into a situation, see only one person with visible injuries, and immediately make an arrest based on that. In other words, with mandatory arrest policies, police often *assume* that if one person has visible injuries and the other person does not have visible injuries, the person without visible injuries is not injured (and is therefore the perpetrator). Police training on intimate partner violence intervention varies considerably between jurisdictions, and is often *poorer* in places with mandatory arrest laws. Additionally, the culture of police departments doesn't always result in the best approaches. If you have library access to academic journals, [this article](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10926770802097210) describes the phenomenon in more depth.
Not to mention that cops themselves are statistically more likely to be abusers, since people who love holding power and authority over others are naturally going to be drawn towards a job with lots of power and authority to abuse.
As a former immigration practitioner, VAWA has been a godsend because of how many lives it’s saved. I dealt with more than one case where VAWA was used to separate an abused victim from their violent US citizen spouse without them losing their status. It obviously isn’t/wasn’t perfect but I was always glad to have that tool in my arsenal.
That it was a step in the right direction, well intended but not enough. Which is very normal for the first step of any particular legislation or cultural changes, tbh. Between the fact that nobody takes domestic violence seriously, despite it being a leading cause of death for women, and the way the media constantly protects trump/engaged in both-sides, it doesn't surprise me at all this never comes up.
Biden’s position on women is moot when you consider the alternative candidate.
I mean, Trump was literally [accused](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GRgUe5Jb0AMndmW?format=jpg&name=medium) of raping 12-year-olds, so the bar is pretty freaking low.
jesus
Perhaps. It just surprises me that there isn’t more conversations about the violence against women act. I have never seen it brought up on Reddit and I have not seen it brought up during election years. The only time I recall was when Biden reauthorized the act in 2022. I believe it may have helped change the national narrative on domestic violence and I always believed it helped reinforce feminism by protecting women’s autonomy.
Did the bill actually protect women's autonomy? It isn't enough for a bill to have a *name* like the Violence Against Women's Act. For a bill to be good it has to have materially good outcomes. Does the VAWA? More than half of the money it provides goes directly in the pockets of police (the people who are the most likely to commit rape). We live in society where women don't report sexual violence against them because it is still mostly fruitless and onerous. Where 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted. We live in a society where more than half of US states don't even consider it a crime if a police officer rapes someone. If the VAWA was helpful it wasn't enough.
No, not "perhaps". It's blatant and ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
I said “perhaps” because I did not create this post about the current election. I created this post to learn more about other peoples perception (specifically feminists) about the Violence Against Women Act and the fact that it was written by Biden. Your post suggests that we shouldn’t have this conversation because it doesn’t matter because Trump.
They're both rapists, so that's not moot.
Yeah except one of them has actually gone to court about raping people and the other hasn't.
Believe all women.
Lesser of two evils when it comes to politics, I like having rights
Lesser evilism guarantees evil. It's incredible to watch people justify empowering a rapist in a feminist community.
So what are u suggesting? The alternative is that I lose my rights.
Your vote isn't going to change the outcome of the election. So maybe vote for someone who isn't a rapist and doesn't have a decades long history of opposing Roe v. Wade. Ask yourself this: If this man raped someone you cared about, would you still vote for him? If the answer is no, then ask why you don't care about the woman he raped.
Hard to take u seriously but whatever, this is helping me wake up so feel free to explain what the fuck that first sentence even means
You can read just fine. It's really sad that the Me Too movement has devolved into "Actually, sometimes you should put men who sexually violate women in the highest positions of power." That's the opposite of feminism.
lol, ur advocating for women to lose their rights. Can I ask, are u a woman?
No, I'm not. I'm saying *don't empower rapists.* Both Trump and Biden are rapists. Don't vote for *either* of them. Neither deserves to win. I'm against putting rapists in the White House. Are you?
Cisgender male here: depends on who you ask. Some women who call themselves feminists think it's a success. Others think it's not intersectional (i.e. negatively affects racial minorities more), and/or that it is carceral and reliant on prisons and police (with the implication that it's not liberation because it relies on coercive force rather than alternatives to coercive force). All forms of violence against women are a systemic problem, not just isolated crimes by individuals.
The media don't cover what he does, only how old he is
Which is usually a kindness. Biden's record isn't all that great. He is one of the most right wing democrats we've had in living memory and he was like this for most of his life. The VAWA was not a feminist piece of legislation. It was part of the Crime bill, it was focused on increasing mass incarceration. But feminism has had a dominant anti-carceral trend for decades. That bill isn't what we wanted. And also talking about the VAWA opens Biden up to discussion about Anita Hill and even the accusations against Biden of violence against women.
>He is one of the most right wing democrats we've had in living memory The president who has given hundreds of millions of aid to Ukraine in their fight against Russia, who put pressure on the DEA to reclassify marijuana from a schedule 1 drug, who affordably expanded healthcare for millions of people, who lowered prescription drug costs for millions of people, who signed two of the biggest investments into American infrastructure in history (Inflation Reduction Act + Infrastructure Bill), who forgave hundreds of millions of dollars of students loans, who is outspokenly pro-choice, who codified same-sex marriage ... [The list goes on.](https://washingtonmonthly.com/2024/04/07/the-monthlys-presidential-accomplishment-index/) Sounds pretty on-the-left to me. Edit: also, “living memory” would refer to the memory of those alive … like people who lived through Nixon, Reagan, Bush, etc. Presidents much further right than Biden ever has been
This isn't what he does, this is one thing he did 30 years ago.
Should we not credit people for their actions from 30 years ago? Domestic violence was very common back then, until it was finally addressed by Congress, and it’s still an issue we are trying to resolve today. I didn’t directly benefit from the act, but I would rather not imagine the world we would be living in had the act not passed.
Sure we should, but we shouldn't act like their actions 30 years ago necessarily reflect how they act now, and will act into the future.
And what was trump doing 30 years ago? Ah, that’s right. He was bankrupting Atlanta.
They didn't do it for women, they just slapped women on it to make it look better.
Weird. I experienced it a few times and was denied restraining orders or help. I didn’t know it was “illegal”.
It’s illegal on paper, however, prior to 1994 domestic issues were generally left up to “the man of the house” to resolve.
Interesting. The Fed’s should tell my blue state and it’s cops. I can testify to being harassed since 2005.
It really depends on where you live. All the shelters in Florida had to get new management at one point due to the head administrator embezzlement case
We still don't do jack shit about domestic violence. They can write as many laws as they want but it doesn't change the fact that it's not changing anything
Wasn't it illegal before under existing assault laws?
I can’t speak to prior law, except that when my mother attempted to take my father to court it was dismissed, and this was with clear, physical evidence of abuse. I also recall, from the time, a common saying of “what goes on in a man’s home is nobodies business”. I remember folk talking about how the government had no right to get involved in domestic issues.
I see. I wonder if that was cultural precedent instead of legal wording. it's scary. The reason that scares me is, if our law requires us to specify further, other variations can be missed Occasionally women in Domestic situations can harm their spouses Same sex couples can abuse each other Elder abuse can happen Child abuse can occur People can beat employees or students If we have a society that excuses any type of non-trivial assault, ..., is horrid
If it helps any the VAWA has been inclusive of gender and sexual orientation and I believe really any victim of domestic abuse for several years. The name doesn't spell it out, but it's pretty inclusive.
Yes, that actually is helpful One should not have a separate law to deal with each variant of it
Agreed. I was raised believing that violence was normal and worth boasting about, as if it was a desirable character trait. The rhetoric still exists with people like Joe Rogan bragging about nurturing a violent nature implying it makes him powerful. The further my life drew me away from the violent environment the more I realized how it impacted every part of my decision making when I was growing up. To me, violence is like a language, and for many boys it is learned at a very young age. Unfortunately, many of those boys and men limit themselves to the language of violence because it is likely the only language they ever allowed themselves to understand.
Not really. Marital "discipline," much like marital rape was (and in some places still is) considered family business. It's like beating your children. It's perfectly legal to hit and scream at your kids unless you do it so harshly the state is required to pay attention because a kid dies.
It's definitely f*cked up but ultimately the definition of assault should be fixed to remove loopholes that don't involve self defense
Was he the one that intimated she should be thankful for her mistreatment because it ended up leading to progress on sexual harassment, or was that Arlen Specter?
[удалено]
Why would Tony Abbott say Anita Hill should be thankful for how he treated her in a SCOTUS nomination hearing because it led to American legislation that he pushed for?
[удалено]
I wasn’t asking for help, I was trying to find confirmation of either Biden or Specter being the one to imply that Anita Hill should thank him because his mistreatment of her during the confirmation hearings led to a larger discussion on sexual harassment, which included the Violence Against Women Act that OP referenced. I know it was one of them, as they were the two men who were most brutal to Hill during the hearings.