Thursday, November 24, 2005

Can Women be Predators?

I was talking to a friend the other day about all the female teachers in the news who have been having sex with teenage boys. Her response was that these women must have low self-esteem, feel bad about their marriage or have some other reason for engaging in this behavior. When I asked her if she would give the same leeway to men who fondle teen girls (note, I did not even go as far as saying having sex with them), she shuddered at the mere thought of that and said, "No, they're men, that's what they do."

I was surprised because this female friend prides herself on not stereotyping others. I asked her if she thought that only men were predators, to which she replied, "well, I guess a woman could be a predator but I never thought about it." She stopped herself and said, "you know, I just assumed that was the way things were, but that can't be right." I think the idea of all men as potential predators is so ingrained in our society that we do not stop to think that the idea might be not only preposterous, but that it supposes that women are not predators.

In an incredibly insightful book entitled, When She Was Bad: How and Why Women Get Away With Murder, Patricia Pearson explains that we often mistake women for angels. We always want to see women as victims, rather than perpretrators of crime--that thought is too scary, I think, because we want to believe that the last person who would hurt us is a mother.

So we do anything we can to document that women are victims, rather than predators. When we look at crime rates, we see tables that cite the percentage of incarcerated women who were abused as children. There is typically not such a table for men---even though more boys are physically abused in childhood than girls. We try to justify why a girl would grow up to be a woman who harms others but we have no such excuse for men. Pearson says that this is because we clearly seek a preemptive cause for female transgressions that preserves an emphasis on victimization. "It is not the effect of abuse on future criminality that truly concerns us. It is the desire to avoid seeing women as willful aggressors."

Just take a look at any TV show on Lifetime or We--women are always victims and rarely aggressors. They fight only in self-defense and never out of the normal human emotions of greed, lust, or anger. Oxygen Network started to get progressive for a while with Snapped, a show about women who kill for the reasons just listed, but they quickly surcombed to the feminist dogma that women only harm others because they are forced to by men. (Notice the language of the cultural facists involved in the link to this freebattered women's site where they describe Snapped as a "misogynist, homophobic" show).

As long as we believe that women do not possess the full range of human emotions, we will continue to see them as victims of circumstance. The real tragedy in this is that the real victims of these predator women (who are often children) will never see justice served and the rest of us who are female will live with stereotypes that have not moved us beyond the 19th century.

43 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the guys at the Thanksgiving feast yesterday was a cop. We got to talking about the recent reports of women school teachers having sex with teen and pre-teen boys, domestic violence. And he admitted that in a fair percentage of the domestic violence calls he responds too, the aggressor is the female in the family. Usually a female who beats the kids bad enough that the adult male calls 911, or a situation where the adult female is the one beating the adult male. Or in our town that has a very large GLBT population, it is one woman severely beating their female partner. While the cops see reality, the average population still is indoctrinated to think of males as the predators, and females being the "innocent victim".

9:30 AM, November 25, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

To anonymous,

Yes, cops do see the reality and frequently they do take women to jail for domestic violence more so than they used to. You bring up a good point with the GLBT population-there is a fair amount of women beating other women which feminists choose to ignore as women are only supposed to be beaten by men.

9:50 AM, November 25, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We all have to battle these preconceived notions of who and what is dangerous. What is the old expression? "God didn't make men equal; Colonel Colt did."

Probably that phrase was never used, but it is true. We equate violence with physical strength, and---MOST of the time---men are physically stronger than women.

Though how men can say that after watch childbirth mystifies me.

But violence begins in the mind, regardless of technology, and I don't think that genesis has a thing to do with race or gender. Some of the worst forms of violence are psychological, in my opinion.

Sadly, we let what we wish to be (which I think of as the seed of modern liberalism) obscure facts, as in the examples above.

Let's give thanks that most of us do not have to deal with violence daily, and prayers for those who do.

"Eric Blair"

11:39 AM, November 25, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

Hi Allicent,

I am glad there are women like you out there--who stand up for justice instead of thinking that just by virtue of being a woman,they should never be held responsible for anything. Modern feminism thinks that women should get away with everything and be responsible for nothing.

Full-fledged citizens take responsibility for their actions and do not use their gender as a way to beat a rap--unless they are a con-artist of sorts or Catherine McKinnon--but who would know the difference between the two?

12:00 PM, November 25, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I k now fo at least 3 incidents in academic circles, where the assumption that the man in question is a predator and the woman always the victim, has ruined the lives of 3 men I know. In one case, male math grad student is accused by estranged wife of molesting his 2-tr old daughter. Police rush in, leftist-feminist social workers and prosecutors swing into action and charge him and he is thrown in county jail. Mathematics Dept withdraws his felloship , and Univ starts procedure to expel him. However, soon thereafter, in a recorder conversation, said estranged wife tells a social worker that her allegations are false, and she made them out of spite, andthat she wanted to force him to concede his parental rights so that she got sole custody!!!!
Anyways, my friend is in limbo, cuz he is still facing trial, the toddler is in the grandparent's care, while the ex-wife is also under investigation, and is about to get indighted.
Net result is my friend's academic career is totally ruined, the toddler has suffered a lot, all becasue, a group of women fo=rensic social-workers and a Asst DA( a disciple of Catherine MacKinnon's ideology), took the "women are always the victim" theory to the extreme.
And god only knows what is going to happen in court next month!!!

The 2 other cases were when women a PhD student, and the second an undergrad, did not get the grades they thought they ought to have gotten, accused their professors of sexual harrasment and worse, and casued a lot of trouble for the 2 profs. Both women later admitted to having lied, yet, were not punished, but ordered to undergo "counselling" by the Disciplinary Committee. yet, both profs will have to now live with their reputation smaered.

12:13 PM, November 25, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

To anonymous:

Yes, so many people (men included) believe that women can not do damage to anyone--but the truth is, false allegations can damage a person's reputation, take their career, their home and their children--and of course, a bunch of do-gooder mental health and law professionals often assist in this crime. Maybe they should be held accountable in some manner for doing so.

When there are consequences for accusing people falsely--maybe this will stop to some degree. For the moment, it seems that feminists have the upper hand with their non-relenting slogan of victimhood for women.

12:28 PM, November 25, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This thread has just reminded me of a situation I was peripheraly aware of as I was getting ready to graduate college in 2000. A few weeks before graduation, a good friend of an acquaintence of mine, a guy I never actually met, was accused of date rape (according to the story I heard there was drinking involved) and ended up being thrown out of school just before graduation, did not get the degree and had a med school offer rescinded. Thinking back to the discussions we had about the case, it all revolved around what a skeez this guy must have been, not whether he was actually guilty. The assumption was, he was guilty. That's it.

Reading this thread it just struck me that he may not have been and his life may have been ruined for nothing... I don't even see how a person could recover from such a thing.

2:00 PM, November 25, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or how about the whole Anita HIll-Clarence Thomas business years ago?

The comment was that women would never lie about such a thing.

Of course, it is interesting how the press was so disgusted with Clarence Thomas over a supposed joke regarding pubic hair, and the same press a few years later seemed to either ignore similar charges about a president, or say it was no big deal (or that the women were sluts). I guess I am saying that in the current climate, politics trumps everything.

Ironic bit. Nina Totenberg came to talk at the institution where I teach last semester. She was presented as a being a hero over the Anita Hill business, and no one even asked her to compare and contrast that issue with things Clintonian.

I don't mean to bring up politics per se. I do mean to bring up hypocrisy. Our current climate is nothing but. If you are on the "correct" side, you can make whatever charges you like and destroy a person's career.

Even if you are lying for personal or political advantage.

It's truly sad.

"Eric Blair"

2:25 PM, November 25, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

If I were to name two influential feminists of the late 20th century, I might pick Betty Friedan and Alan Guttmacher. (As I said in the other entry, I do not see why feminists have to be women.) Friedan cofounded NOW and NARAL. In her famous book, she argued that many American women felt incomplete in mid-life without a career, even if they gave no thought to it when they were young a newly married. Guttmacher promoted voluntary family planning throughout his career. He was president of Planned Parenthood for 14 years, in particular when the Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut.

Of course both of them could only respect the feminists who came before them who fought for the 19th amendment to the US Constitution.

So I wonder how Guttmacher and Friedan would respond to a woman who votes, keeps her maiden name, has an independent career, has full access to contraception, and says that feminists are bad people. I know that Friedan was very angry about this sort of thing when she was in the thick of politics, but now I suppose that she would just sigh. Guttmacher, if he were still alive, might shrug instead.

3:06 PM, November 25, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

To Greg,

I suspect Betty Friedan would be appalled at the new breed of feminists who no longer stand for equality but are now what she called feminists chauvinist boors at one point. Actually, Greg, I suspect that no matter what I say, you have got an argument for the other side which is fine, I find it entertaining.

3:45 PM, November 25, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Betty Friedan is still alive and I'm sure she still calls herself a feminist. If Friedan thought that some feminists are or were chauvinist boors, she certainly didn't mean that as an indictment of feminism as a movement.

Maybe we can agree that feminism is not a monolith. If you think so, you are (unintentially) taking a cue from the "Zionism is racism" crowd. Zionism is a monolith, their reasoning goes, and Baruch Goldstein was a monstrous Zionist, therefore Zionism is monstrous. I think of myself as a Zionist as well as a feminist. I have the same response to those portray Zionists as Nazis as to those who portray feminists as feminazis.

Anyway, no I don't always disagree with you. I agreed with your post "Ten Years in Jail for that?", and I said so too. If it seems like I always disagree, that is the impression that I make on everyone. My philosophy is, what do you ever learn from agreeing to agree?

4:00 PM, November 25, 2005  
Blogger KCFleming said...

Dr. Helen is right on target regarding the assumption of victim status given to women.

I have read quite a bit on the subjects of violence, sociopathy, and personality disorder, among others (mostly junk for the layman, but some scientific reviews as well). Yet I have never run across a good set of "clues" to help identify the potentially violent person before they strike.

I have long suspected that some people are better attuned to these patterns than others, and some people just tune the pattern out in favor of being "nice". The books "The Sociopath Next Door" and "The Gift of Fear" had some useful tips, but both seemed incomplete.

5:33 PM, November 25, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I notice that after Golda Mier, Indira Ghandi, and Margaret Thatcher the talk that women leaders were naturally non-violent and would avoid war faded quickly.

9:23 PM, November 25, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Allicent and Helen: I agree that victimhood is a tempting and unhelpful avenue, or an outright dangerous avenue, for almost any political group. Whether it's women in America, or Republicans on university campuses, or Serbs in the Balkans, it's just very easy for to them to complain, and complain and complain and complain, about how badly the establishment treats them. One sign that the victim complex has gone too far is if the complaints grow stronger and more vicious as the complainers gain the upper hand.

In one respect it's a more endemic problem for women. Unless women start taking testosterone injections, men will be stronger and more aggressive on average. So just because of biological differences between men and women, the victim business can never go away completely.

I also agree that women-only TV networks like Lifetime aren't very satisfying. They do cater to the victim complex too much, maybe not all the time but still too much. Even as they do that, they also cater to traditional gender roles with countless ads for makeup and shampoo.

Even so, I think that it is a big mistake to cavil about feminism as if it is no longer useful in America. I don't see that the feminists' work is finished, given that only 14 out of 100 Senators are women. I am not one for quotas, but the White House itself imposed a 25% minimum quota of women in both the Afghan and Iraqi national legislatures. America's unintentional message here is "do as we say, not as we do". The true part of the message is that if women are not even 25% of a legislature, something is still very wrong. Even if quotas aren't the solution, feminists should still look for a solution.

Part of the reason that there is still work for feminists is the self-indulgent backlash against feminists as a class. The mother of the anti-feminist movement was Phyllis Schlafly, and she did much to reinforce the message that feminists are radicals and bad people who should be blocked. I think that she stepped in with this message way too early. Part of her motivation was simple hatred of homosexuality, but gays were not her only casualty. You could argue that Schlafly's intellectual descendants, people like Laura Schlesinger and Ann Coulter, aren't really very important. Even so, I think it's a mistake to carry on with Schlafly's irresponsible tactics.

9:46 PM, November 25, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

Greg,

You mistake our critique of feminism for wishing it gone. I realize there is still much to do in terms of women gaining in certain areas. However, I think it is a mistake to advance people just because they are women. For example, I would vote for Condi Rice for president in a heartbeat but would no more vote for Hillary Clinton than I would for Fidel Castro. I realize they are not the same--I do think Hillary hides her political views better.

Anyway, you mistake the viciousness of women--I suppose you are the type who would think that women in power would put an end to much of the violence in the world, but alas, it would only change from direct aggression by men to a secret police or hits being put out on people by women. I don't see this as an improvement. Maybe in your utopian world where women are nonviolent and unable to defend themselves against others, it would be less offensive to your nerves. At least the violence would be more hidden and people could just wonder what happened. This type of violence, according to you, is not dangerous. I think we should advance people based on their abilities and merit, not on their gender or color of their skin.

7:21 AM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger AmericanWoman said...

I agree with Dr. Helen. There are some bad feminists, just as there are good and bad liberals and conservatives.

I vote, I did not keep my maiden name, but not only do I have an independent career, I am the main breadwinner in the family. I also have full access to contraception, and I say that some feminists are bad people.

If we do want equal status with men, then we must also take on all the risks and responsibilities of men. We can't retreat into the 'poor little feminine me' syndrome as soon as something bad happens.

It boils down to the same concept - personal responsibility. Not getting so drunk that you don't remember if you consented to sex. Not having children with men who are unreliable. Not encouraging harassment behavior at work by wearing inappropriate clothing or other behavior.

If a man acted in this way, we as a society would laugh at them. If a man went to a gay bar, got drunk, flirted and woke up and cried rape, who would feel sorry for him?

8:55 AM, November 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if some women, who are manipulative, nasty or otherwise lacking ethics and morals, just jump onto the feminist movement, or adopt a feminist identity to use it to make personal gains.

9:29 AM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

To Americanwoman:

Yes, I agree that we do not have to swallow feminism hook, line and sinker the way that some hard core feminists believe we should. I laugh when these feminists have hypocritical slogans like, "Well-behaved women seldom make history."
Apparently, the only rebels are the ones who agree with them. Try disagreeing and having a mind of your own and see what happens.

Anonymous,

Of course, not all feminists are manipulative etc. Some just fight for equal rights. But your point is well-taken. Many women in prison for serious crimes will get politicians or other influential people to advocate for them by acting like they believe the feminist rhetoric to beat it out of jail. Or women who want to win at any costs or who want power flock to feminism and advocate for extreme positions, not based on equality but based on female lack of responsibilty.

9:43 AM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Helen: If you don't wish feminism gone, you're just not making yourself clear. For example, you said,

Aren't you the Instawife? and if so, I am a feminist and really do not think a woman should be referred to in this way.

Given your answer to this question, you're making it sound like "I am a feminist" is an excuse to say just about any stupid or nosy thing. That does sound like wishing feminism gone.

You can also look at some of the comments that you have invited. For example,

Feminism is very similar to National Socialism in ideology, and it's no wonder that Nazism was proudly supported by the German women.

I do not see any daylight between equating feminism to Nazism and wishing feminism gone. Of course you may say that you do not agree with this outside comment on your other post, and that may even be true. But still, you are eliciting 100% opposition to feminism from some people. It is a plausible interpretation of what you say even if you don't intend it.

1:43 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Helen: Also, I have no illusions about the viciousness of women. I know what happened when Golda Meir was prime minister of Israel and Margeret Thatcher was prime minister of Britain. I am not sure that what they did was really vicious, but it was certainly not pacifist. In any case, I am not a pacifist. (I am only pacifist enough to say that the pacifists are sometimes right.)

If I think that the fact that there are only 14 women Senators indicates a problem, it is only for exactly the same reason that the Bush Administration imposed a 25% minimum quota on women in the Iraqi and Afghan national legislatures. Namely, women deserve to be represented too. Men can represent women fairly, sometimes, but 86% male representation is an overwhelming proportion and is likely to lead to mistakes.

1:52 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

Greg,

This particular person identified herself as a feminist who did not like the nickname instawife--I just let her know that I did not mind the name--whatever she interpreted it to mean is none of my concern. My concern would be if I was actually abused by it in some way which I am not. I wish nosy busy bodies gone--not necessarily feminists.

Hey, people comment in the way they wish--some feminists probably are socialists--who favor cooperation over competition--in that case, it might be best if those type left for they advocate a method of government that is doomed to failure anyway. For true feminists (of whom I count myself one) who believe in true equality for both sexes, I am 100% in favor of.

1:59 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Americanwoman: I agree completely that equality comes with responsibility. For example, I registered for the draft, and I think that women should too.

I agree that men can be raped. The question is, when does it usually happen? In order to commit rape, you need to either be physically stronger, or have a gang of accomplices, or use a deadly weapon, or drug the victim to the point of completely eliminating consent. Women can do this, and I'm sure that a few do from time to time, but I don't think that it is a very common crime.

What is a common crime is men getting raped in prison. That happens all the time, and the reports say that the perpetrators even usually get away with it. This is an absolutely shameful side of American society, which has an unusually large prison population among wealthy democracies. Any fair feminist who works to prevent rape should condemn this kind as well.

2:01 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Helen: If you count yourself as a true feminist, great. Me too. You need to bring out that message more when you discuss feminism, because otherwise some people will misunderstand you.

It won't just be feminists who misunderstand you. Chris Key in your comments section did not say that merely that some feminists are socialists. He said that Feminism is similar to Nazism. He said, "feminist-minded women are just pure evil." He said, "feminism is dependent upon socialism". He said, "the subjugation of boys is derived from the implementation of feminist ideology". He said, "It's time for men to stand up to the feminists." There is no way to take these comments as only applying to some feminists.

And Chris Key was not the only one. "Because they are 'stuck on stupid' (Neo-feminism) they chase off good men...", to quote another comment. This is not just a critique of some feminists.

2:12 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger BobH said...

Concerning raping men:

According to an experiment performed by Russell Clark and Elaine Hatfield, 69% to 75% of college age men will willingly engage in sexual intercourse with a female stranger when she asks. So why would women even bother attempting a rape? Given this figure, I'm willing to believe that rape of males fits the feminist model of rape: rape is an act of violence, i.e., it's a form of assault. A few years ago, Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer did an excellent book on rape from an evolutionary perspective. (Forceable rape of females has been documented in about 50 species, including orangutans and dolphins.) Given what they say, rape of females seems more like an act of theft, i.e., the male didn't pay the female enough to gain her consent.

I'm also very suspicious when there is a power relationship (teacher-student, boss-subordinant, military superior-subordinant etc.) between the two. It's just too easy to mix the two domains

To Helen:

I read the Pearson book several years ago. The think that I still remember is her contention that men are hunters, while women are trappers. Considering most women's reaction to complaints about the current American paternity fraud laws (which Instapundit finally mentioned recently), the second half of her contention rings completely true.

5:12 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger freelance radical said...

I wanted to respond to a previous comment made here, by saying that I watched part of the movie "The Graduate" this week, in which a woman literally rapes a young guy by employing psychological violence -- which is probably a worse violence than the physical kind. When one is being wanokgsubjected to the latter, one knows exactly what's happening -- but when experiencing the other kind, people tend to feel as confused and totally crazed as the guy in that movie did.

5:51 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

To upkedupke,

Yes, I have heard of instances where a man is psychologically coerced into having sex with a woman without wanting to do so. The effects are serious and guys do suffer from what happened but naturally no one takes it seriously because he is a guy and should have stopped it. If a woman is psychologically coerced, she is a victim--if a guy is, he is just a whuss.

6:08 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

I think that the authorities should first focus on forcible rape, the kind where the perpetrator rips off your clothes at gunpoint. Date rape and psychologically coerced sex are also reprehensible, but they are part of a gray area in which the degree of criminal culpability is often unclear. Some universities have experimented with shadow legal systems in which students and faculty are accused of sexual harassment and date rape. Certainly there is a real problem to solve, but it is all too easy to infringe on defendants' rights with these experiments.

What happened in The Graduate is no one's idea of noble behavior, but it was not rape.

Actually, I can think of one famous example that I consider blatant and outrageous in which a woman sexually exploited a man. The woman was Margaret Bean-Bayog, the victim was Paul Lozano, and she was his psychiatrist. Lozano eventually committed suicide, partly or even mostly because of Bean-Bayog's poisonous anti-therapy. I am glad that she lost her license over this case, but it might have been better if she had been convicted of a felony. Maybe not rape, but if not that then maybe criminal malpractice.

6:48 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Mika said...

The focus of this thread has shifted somewhat. I want to return to the issue of female teachers' having sex with their young male students. I am a 47-year-old male. I am married and have two beautiful children (9 & 14). Prior to my marriage I engaged in a protracted series of healthy long-term monogamous romantic relationships, primarily with (more or less) coevals (every one of my partners was older than me, but usually not by more than a few years). The first of these, however, commencing when I was 14-years-old, was with a thirty-year-old woman, S., who'd been my elementary-school teacher. Our relationship ended six months after it began only because she had made a prior commitment to take a one-year sabbatical in Greece: while she was abroad our correspondence was intercepted; our sexual relationship discovered; she fired; I forbidden to communicate with her; and she persuaded that persisting abroad for several years was the better part of valor.

At no time in my life have I ever regretted the sex (or anything else) we had (almost daily for six months). Indeed, she modeled for me what it was to be both a sexual adult and an intellectual one. As a direct consequence of my relationship with S., I pursued and received a PhD from Harvard (English, 1991, "Apostolary Narratives: The Protagonist in the Narrator's Desire") and have taught at the college level for many years.

My sexual relationship with this woman, I can say now with hindsight, was the best and most important sexual relationship of my life. Period. Make that "the best and most important relationship. Period."

I would without question encourage each of my children (a girl and a boy, both younger now than I was then) to find a similar relationship, if possible. To speak truly, my feeling is that anyone who as an adolescent does NOT have a long-term intense sexual relationship with a wise and loving much older mentor misses out on one of the most valuable develpmental experiences life can afford.

Those who on principle decry such relationships have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

1:29 AM, November 27, 2005  
Blogger AmericanWoman said...

mika, I'm hoping you are a troll. I can't believe that anyone would condone let alone encourage that behavior.

The job of a teacher is to be a mentor and help students realize their potential. 99.999% of them manage to do that WITHOUT having illegal sexual relationships with their students.

It's wrong. It's wrong legally, morally, and for a teacher it is taking advantage of the teacher student relationship as well. Teachers are in loco parentis when children are in school, so it is akin to incest.

I'm sorry for what you went through (if you are indeed being truthful) and I urge you to seek counseling.

BTW, how would you feel if your 14 year old daughter was having sex with a 30 year old male teacher. Or your son with a 30 year old male teacher?

8:01 AM, November 27, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that one aspect of these cases has gone undiscussed: the infantilization of teenagers.

My grandmother got married at 16 during World War II to her 19 year old boyfriend; a little young but by no means exceptional at that time. For most of human history prior to the 20th century a teenager was an adult, period. Not a 19 year old but a 14 year old. Not a fully mature and wise adult, but an adult who could fight (and die) in wars, conceive children, manage a household, etc. Now that baby boomers have extended adolescence into the late twenties I suppose it's natural to view anyone with less than a master's degree as a drooling infant but the testament of history and nature speaks otherwise.

The notion that sexuality is unnatural and indeed inherently violent until some magical transformation has taken place within the mind of a teenager is also unexplained. What is the moment of transformation? How many years after puberty is finished does sex become normal?

I know middle-aged men who are less mature than my teenaged female cousins. Those men are virgins, and will likely remain so. They might know more about mortgages and politics and higher education, but any mature 16 year old girl knows more than they ever will about the human heart. These guys might be physically stronger but a willful woman of any age could wrap them around her little finger, as they used to say.

10:57 AM, November 27, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

To anonymous 10;57,

Thanks for your post--I do discuss this very issue of "Treating teens like babies" in at article at:

http://violentkids.com/articles/violence_article_3.html

11:30 AM, November 27, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not too many years ago, most of the world's work was done by teenagers, since most people older than that were either dead or crippled by disease, accident, or overwork.
There is a restriction as to fertility, though. Female fertility seems to rise and fall--speaking of age--in accordance with the level of subsistence. Fat times and the average age of menarche drops. Lean times and it rises.
The possibility of estrogens and growth hormones in our food supply operates as a uncontrolled variable in looking at this, but menarche seems to be dropping in the first world.

All of which is fine, if the issue is some variant of Homo Erectus who will have a too-early miscarriage, bear a couple of young who don't make it, one who does, and get herself et up by a leopard at the age of twenty.

We're not concerned with them. We're concerned with the right now and the effect of too-early sex on those who are developed physically long before they are developed emotionally.
Just for starters, the percentage of prison inmates who have been sexually abused as kids ought to mean something, although it probably won't to those promoting "healthy" (which means they enjoy it very much) sex with the extremely young.

10:05 PM, November 27, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting to see someone commenting on this topic. Personally of late I've been wondering whether all our social experimenting has created an environment that is producing more predatory women.

While the argument that this perception is the result of crimes being reported that had not been reported in the past seems to be the popular answer, I'm having increasing difficulty in seeing that as fully explaining the situation.

I think at the least the question deserves more consideration than it receives. Good to see someone looking at it.

9:17 AM, November 28, 2005  
Blogger goesh said...

It is good to see mental health folks being other than Liberal in their views. I'll add you too my favorites list. When I read the title, I thought of Bonnie and Clyde and Ma Barker and Carol Ann Fugate. Men are better built for physical aggression and predation in that sense, but they don't have the market on predatory behavior.

10:27 AM, November 28, 2005  
Blogger Sissy Willis said...

I don't think it's women per se. They're only a subset of props in the Leftist fantasy -- a system of honor that is an alternative to mainstream moral orders -- with which to terrorize the powerful.

Nobel Peace Prize nominee Stanley Tookie Williams, the Hollywood Left's favorite convicted murderer and Crips gang co-founder, comes to mind.

1:30 PM, November 28, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is another example for you:

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P2010

6:43 PM, November 30, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have three points:

1. A fellow ball player had his wife arrested for assualt once. He is a huge guy and his explanation was that if he had done anything to defend himself, he would have been the one arrested. We weren't suprised, but we did tease the heck out of him for getting beaten by a girl. :)

2. I saw an "Cops"-type video program that included a piece where a female driver was given a ticket by a male officer. Later, the woman filed sexual assualt charges against the officer, using very detailed descriptions. A review of the police cruiser's video showed that no such assault had occurred. She was later prosecuted for filing a false report. But the piece indicated that without the video he probably would have been charged. His career would have been ruined.

3. Helen, you linked to a book in this post and that, combined with a recent comment by Glenn that you had snatched the latest "In the Mail" before he could read it begs me to ask this favor: Could you please post your thoughts on the books you read? I've only seen once that Glenn has linked to your opinions from these. Thanks.

3:48 PM, December 01, 2005  
Blogger Serket said...

Betty Friedan died at her home in Washington, D.C. on February 4, 2006 of congestive heart failure on her 85th birthday. There is someone from Harvard named Michael Anthony Cooper who wrote the literary piece that Mika mentioned.

1:26 PM, January 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

福~
「朵
語‧,最一件事,就。好,你西.................

5:06 AM, March 14, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"免費視訊美女520sexy girl
sogo論壇aa片免費看
免費線上 aa 片試看85CC
情色18 禁sex520免費a長片
av女優影片情色文學
日本av淫蕩人妻免費漫畫帝國
777美女dvd無碼av女優
視訊辣妹girl5320 貼片貼圖區
本土自拍影片qq 美美色網漫畫
百分百成人圖片avdvd
視訊辣妹找援交
dodo豆豆聊天室
成人影片下載免費線上a片
sex999日本美女寫真集
色情漫畫777美女dvdav
小護士免費 aa 片試看
網路自拍美女聊天室天堂
080聊天網桃園天堂
雪之深戀 080聊天網水之浪漫
sex888入口免費性影片觀賞
高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
aa 片試看免費卡通
百分百成人情色圖片
嘟嘟情人網影片
內衣模特兒寫真成人圖貼
免費視訊78論壇
拓網學生族視訊777美女
辣妹有約辣妹no31314視訊
dudu sex免費 aa 片試看
成人a影片論壇
"
"免費視訊美女520sexy girl
sogo論壇aa片免費看
免費線上 aa 片試看85CC
情色18 禁sex520免費a長片
av女優影片情色文學
日本av淫蕩人妻免費漫畫帝國
777美女dvd無碼av女優
視訊辣妹girl5320 貼片貼圖區
本土自拍影片qq 美美色網漫畫
百分百成人圖片avdvd
視訊辣妹找援交
dodo豆豆聊天室
成人影片下載免費線上a片
sex999日本美女寫真集
色情漫畫777美女dvdav
小護士免費 aa 片試看
網路自拍美女聊天室天堂
080聊天網桃園天堂
雪之深戀 080聊天網水之浪漫
sex888入口免費性影片觀賞
高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
aa 片試看免費卡通
百分百成人情色圖片
嘟嘟情人網影片
內衣模特兒寫真成人圖貼
免費視訊78論壇
拓網學生族視訊777美女
辣妹有約辣妹no31314視訊
dudu sex免費 aa 片試看
成人a影片論壇"免費視訊美女520sexy girl
sogo論壇aa片免費看
免費線上 aa 片試看85CC
情色18 禁sex520免費a長片
av女優影片情色文學
日本av淫蕩人妻免費漫畫帝國
777美女dvd無碼av女優
視訊辣妹girl5320 貼片貼圖區
本土自拍影片qq 美美色網漫畫
百分百成人圖片avdvd
視訊辣妹找援交
dodo豆豆聊天室
成人影片下載免費線上a片
sex999日本美女寫真集
色情漫畫777美女dvdav
小護士免費 aa 片試看
網路自拍美女聊天室天堂
080聊天網桃園天堂
雪之深戀 080聊天網水之浪漫
sex888入口免費性影片觀賞
高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
aa 片試看免費卡通
百分百成人情色圖片
嘟嘟情人網影片
內衣模特兒寫真成人圖貼
免費視訊78論壇
拓網學生族視訊777美女
辣妹有約辣妹no31314視訊
dudu sex免費 aa 片試看
成人a影片論壇
"

"

3:35 AM, April 07, 2009  
Blogger Brandonio! said...

I for one am a victim of a woman's lie.As a matter of fact I spent 3and a half years in prison for a crime that never happened.Her name is Stephanie Elizabeth Culp/Harrington.Anyone who knows this woman should run the other way! Pure Evil without a conscious in the world.Paybacks are a bitch!

3:47 PM, April 26, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

9:57 PM, May 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

77p2p735聊天室735聊天室711成人711成人707網愛聊天室707網愛聊天室視訊聊天室69成人69成人666成人光666成人光530誘或成人網頁530誘或成人網頁5278cc免費影片5278cc免費影片5278影片網5278影片網視訊聊天室v6 04u成人4u成人358成人影城358成人影城3388影片區3388影片區25xxx成人影城

1:30 AM, June 07, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home