Thursday, March 7, 2013
The "Undeserving" Women of the Violence Against Women Act
I am glad that the Congress finally passed, and the POTUS has signed, an extension of the Violence Against Women Act. It was long overdue, and it should have been a "no-brainer" for everyone involved. But I cannot get over the fact that the people who voted against the bill, particularly on the final vote, essentially gave a big "fuck you" to lesbians, undocumented immigrant women and Native American women. I think that Rep. Marsha Blackburn came closest to telling the truth, when she explained her decision to vote against it. She didn't like the groups that the latest iteration of the law included. I take that to mean that she has no problem with violence against lesbians, undocumented immigrant women and/or Native American women. That is an incredible admission, and it's one that I think can be attributed to every single member of Congress who voted against the bill. Some women, apparently, are more deserving of federal protection than others, at least in the minds of scores of Republicans. It's probably too much to hope that her constituents who know people in any of those "undeserving" categories will remember that, when she is up for re-election in '14. Then again, I have a sneaking suspicion that the vast majority of her constituency feels exactly the same way. And that's the real shame here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'd like to dedicate to all the ladies out there...
A blanket inclusion of all women, meaning none are deserving of violence, is out of the mental grasp of some.
This is another verse of "You can't have what I have, because I'm implicitly better than you, and I'll make the decision to deny you equality based upon how you are different from me." Isn't that precisely what Governor George Wallace was saying in the school house doorway to fellow Alabamans? Isn't that what Suffragettes were told for decades by men in their lives? Isn't this what Rep. Marsha Blackburn is saying to other women?
It goes to show that someone who couldn't vote 100 years ago (in Tennessee), let alone be elected to the U.S. Congress, can sing the party line.
I'm just sayin'...
I've asked this question in a couple of places, and nobody has really known (or at least given) an answer: if the Equal Rights Amendment had passed, could VAWA have been constitutional?
That is an interesting question. But I think if we look at how race has been dealt with in the law, then that might provide the answer. Black men were granted the franchise in 1870 (and Black women in 1920, with all of the nation's women), and obviously the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was still necessary. So, I think that if there still appeared to be discrepancies with regard to the treatment of women, then VAWA might have been constitutional (particularly with regard to undocumented immigrants and Native American women).
Post a Comment