Yes yes yes I know that he was the main brain by the Violence Against Women Act and people think that makes him an untouchable saint. To hell with that.
Don't get me wrong male against female violence happens and its something that needs to be confronted just like any other violence. But simply put the man has no problem denying female against male violence in his noble, almost chivalrous, pursuit to end violence against women. We've seen before that even when someone directly brings it up he will just talk over them like they said nothing. However I just saw something at Fathers and Families that may show why he does this.
Biden quotes a lesson from his dad:
My dad used to say that there’s no worse sin than the abuse of power. Whether it was raising a hand to someone weaker or using any advantage to push people around, he taught me that if you saw abuse, you had an obligation to attempt to stop it.I think I see what he did.
I am just about convinced that instead of taking the time to look at any given violence situation to see who the one with the power or who is weaker or who is being taken advantage of he just declared that men have power and women don't therefore drawing the conclusion that either there is no female against male violence or its not that big of a deal.
Think about it. If you take that lesson from his dad in the purest sense doesn't that mean that you would be recognize all forms of violence and abuse, regardless of which one(s) you may advocate for? So don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that Biden shouldn't advocate on behalf of abused women. No that's a very important cause and the end so to speak is a very valid one. (So please save me the accusations of saying that I'm denying violence against women or that I don't think its that big of a deal because more than likely I will edit your comment.)
However what I am saying is that I don't think that the means are justified by an an ends that's even as serious as violence against women. As I have said violence against women is something that needs to be confronted. But is it really right to do so at the cost of actively denying any violence that's not male against female?
Bonus question: Its the Violence Against Women Act right? Then why does the discussion almost always end up as male against female violence and almost never mention female against female violence?