Biden on violence against women
Interesting.
The full passage reads:
Establish a new Task Force on Online Harassment and Abuse to focus on the connection between mass shootings, online harassment, extremism, and violence against women. As highlighted above, Biden will convene a national Task Force with federal agencies, state leaders, advocates, law enforcement, and technology experts to study rampant online sexual harassment, stalking, and threats, including revenge porn and deepfakes — and the connection between this harassment, mass shootings, extremism and violence against women. The Task Force will be charged with developing cutting-edge strategies and recommendations for how federal and state governments, social media companies, schools, and other public and private entities can tackle this unique challenge. The Task Force will consider platform accountability, transparent reporting requirements for incidents of harassment and response, and best practices.
It sounds like a promising start.
Violence against women, or violence against “women?” A start, anyway.
Might be an way to challenge the trans narrative. We need to make sure they see all the “pov if you’re a terf in my mentions” and “choke on my girldick” posts.
The inclusion of “mass shootings” in there is giving me a hint of how Biden plans on selling taking away Second Amendment rights from Americans. Try to scare the women and then tell them that they will be safe from bad scary men if those men can’t have guns. The fact that firearms are a product of the last couple of centuries while men have done just fine killing women with knives, clubs, bare hands, etc. for all of recorded time will be ignored. No one will ever mention the women who have saved themselves by having guns for self-defense.
Also ignored will be the fact that it is the MAN in the house who is the real cause of most domestic violence regardless of whether he uses a weapon or not. But I guess “male control” does not sell as well as “gun control” with the Woke Stasi.
And the Biden gang will be happily trying to make it legal for any man (rapist, murderer, pedophile, abuser, etc.) to get his male body into any space that used to be just for real women. Despite the fact that real women have faced online harassment and physical violence from some TIMs and some trans cult boosters for years now. Despite the extremist threats some TIMs and some trans cult boosters have made to real women in with terrorism against a center for rape victims and merchandise glorifying and calling for real women to be killed or mutilated or raped.
Sorry, Uncle Joe, this woman is not falling for it. When you do the “male control” approach first, we can talk. But I am keeping my guns.
southwest88, it is unlikely that Joe Biden has any intention of taking guns away, in spite of the propaganda that I received nearly daily from the Trump campaign. Democrats will not take that step, because there is a strong contingent of gun-owning Democratic voters.
Some sensible gun control laws would not be a bad thing, IMHO. The anarchy on guns is dangerous and insane. It is possible to have both sensible gun control and the Second Amendment.
And yes, I am sure there are women who have protected themselves with guns. They are not going to be the majority, since people who attempt to protect themselves with guns often end up getting killed with their own gun. It is time to do a cost benefit analysis, and do it fairly. If the number of women protecting themselves against violence with guns far outweighs those women being shot and killed in spite of (or because of) having the gun, then your argument is valid. If it is the other way around, it is not, if the guns cause more harm than help. So, yeah, I am willing to look at my beliefs and subject them to that sort of analysis. It could turn out that more women save themselves with guns than I think. That’s how science works.
But to suggest Biden is going to take your guns away seems highly premature. He has not come down on that side of the argument; that was Beto (or was it Mayor Pete? Those debates seem years ago, and I sort of forgot).
And it could be that you are reading his intentions wrong. The way that is worded, he is looking to see if there are any connections. It could be a connection between internet harassment and mass shootings, suggesting the shootings are caused by the internet nonsense. It’s a perfectly valid possible interpretation of that tweet to think that the connections are not about “taking guns away”, but about dealing with the role of the internet in the horrors of our modern society. Though I doubt he is planning to take the internet away, even if I believe that is a logical area of study. I don’t leap to the most extreme definition immediately, unless of course it is Trump saying something, in which case I have learned that extreme is the norm.
iknklast
I hope your take on this is right but having seen how things are going for real women in places with strong gun control (like the UK) I will be staying to the cautious side of paranoid. :)
I do have one quibble with what you wrote because it seems to be another example of how we as a society can’t face that violent males are the problem to be solved. “…. if the guns cause more harm than help” almost seems to give the gun the status of an entity that works by itself, rather than simply being an inanimate object that needs human agency to work. I have several guns in my home and no violent men and that is what makes me safer than a woman who has no guns in her home but does have a violent man living with her.
Men don’t need guns to brutalize and destroy women. All of recorded human history has shown that. Yet we as a society simply cannot say that perhaps we need to remove violent males from society because that would be the total destruction of the ultimate method by which men can control women — violence and the ever present threat of violence. Violence that will be condoned and barely (if at all) punished by the legal system.
I get that Biden will not have the power to totally destroy the Second Amendment openly but look what years of dedicated effort has let the right wing do to abortion rights —- chip them away bit by bit, rule by rule, clinic by clinic, etc. until the right exists but cannot be exercised by any but the wealthiest and the very lucky ones.
southwest88, of course I meant men with guns; it was a shorthand. If the ownership of guns does come out a net benefit for women, that would be a good thing to know. If it does not, and we find that the ownership of guns leads to more violence against women, those would also be good things to know. The problem is, everybody acts like we know those things. There are always cases of individual women who have guns and can protect themselves, but there are also stories of women with guns who are killed with the guns. We need some conscious study of what is safer – having guns, not having guns, or if the only common denominator is the presence/absence of violent men. I have no guns. I have no violent man in my house. I have been as fortunate as you, so I suspect it isn’t the gun keeping you safe, but the lack of violent men. Still, that is just my suspicion from a small sample size.
By all means, violent men are the big problem. But…if violent men with guns are killing more women than violent men without guns, and if gun ownership does not protect women (or does protect women), those are facts we need to know. Right now, we don’t, so I applaud this task force, without assuming they will get everything right. I hope they do, but when do any task forces get everything right? It’s a start on a sticky problem.
Hopefully this task force will do more than waste taxpayer money but I am a battle-weary older woman who can’t see how much more “study” has to be done on male violence when decades of crime statistics and centuries of crime history can tell us what we need to do. Which is the one thing no society that I can name now is ready to do — actually hold men accountable for their violence and remove violent men from roaming free.
The focus on guns is, to me, just another way of not dealing with the real issue. The task force would be better if it dropped the gun angle and focused on all the other things listed because I just have not seen that most mass shootings had either hatred of real women as a direct cause or targeted just real women. Yes, the few shootings done by incels targeted women and there was the one event in Canada where men were allowed to leave so only the women were murdered but those are not all or even anywhere near the majority of mass shooting situations.
BTW, mass shootings seem to have dropped off in 2020. Is it because of the Covid lockdowns? I would think that the political tensions would make mass shootings increase but that does not seem to be happening. If anybody wanted to get away with a mass shooting, the street riots/protests going on in so many cities would provide an opportunity for that but nobody seems to be taking that route either.
Maybe I am derailing from the Task Force issues to mass shootings in 2020 but now I am wondering why does it seem these events have slowed down so much in USA this year?