"She misses her daughters, but she's staying busy"
Yep, busy as a bee hanging out in bars after killing her husband; Mary Winkler confessed to killing her preacher husband in March of last year but instead of hanging out behind bars in prison, she is hanging out in bars around McMinnville, Tennessee partying with co-workers (Thanks to the reader who sent me this story):
In another article about the crime, ABC news reports:
Yes, it's always best if you miss your kids and you are up on murder charges to hang out in a bar and laugh it up--it boggles my mind what people are willing to forgive, depending on your race and/or gender.
Update: Winkler's attorney is outraged by the photos of his client smoking in a bar. The pictures of the alleged husband killer are up on YouTube here and a promo of the pictures by a Memphis TV station are here. What do you think--should the TV station have run these pics and story?
Luis Correa was also in the New York Grill on New Year's Eve and took pictures of Winkler with his camera phone. He claims someone went over to Winkler's table and asked if she killed her husband. He said she answered yes, in a joking manner and everyone around her was laughing.
News 2 spoke with Winkler's manager at the dry cleaners where she's employed. Her manager said it was on New Year's Eve that he and Winkler went out to New York Grill. He also said, "She's not the preacher's wife. She might have used to be the preacher's wife, but he is dead now. She's not married; she is no body's wife."
The issue of Winkler and the murder case is a divisive issue in McMinnville. Some have supported her, saying she did everything the justice system asked of her and has every right to be part of the community. Others don't think that is enough.
In another article about the crime, ABC news reports:
What's striking to many outsiders is how accepting and supportive the majority of the community has been to Winkler.
That sense of forgiveness, community members say, stems from the town's Christian roots and from its tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Winkler's daughters are currently living with Matt's parents.
"She misses her daughters, but she's staying busy," said Miller, of her sister. "She's the loving Mary we used to know."
Yes, it's always best if you miss your kids and you are up on murder charges to hang out in a bar and laugh it up--it boggles my mind what people are willing to forgive, depending on your race and/or gender.
Update: Winkler's attorney is outraged by the photos of his client smoking in a bar. The pictures of the alleged husband killer are up on YouTube here and a promo of the pictures by a Memphis TV station are here. What do you think--should the TV station have run these pics and story?
posted by Helen at 11:55 AM
64 Comments:
it boggles my mind what people are willing to forgive, depending on your race and/or gender.
Maybe she's got a great personality?
I shake my head thinking "What if this was OJ?" And certainly part of the double standard is simply sexism. But I wonder how much is something more.
It is scarry to think of an abusive father, but MUCH more frightening to think of an abusive mother. Maybe too frightening to think about. Mom's own us for years, mom's and women have much more access to children than father's and men do. So if we think we can't trust women around children, it would be difficult to sleep at night because women have unfetterd access to children.
So maybe part of the double standard is that it is just too damn scarry to think of women as potential abusers. So we don't, unless we absolutely have to.
Trey
Mothers don't have any more "access" to their children than fathers do. "Mom's" (sic) don't "own" us any more than fathers do.
p.s. It's "scary", not "scarry".
p.s.s.
Bet he's not a real psychologist either.
Eh, Trey?
Just earlier this week we read about a dad who has to pay child support for kids that DNA tests have proven are not his.
Meanwhile, a woman who admitted killing her husband is having a good 'ole time, doncha know.
Tell me again about that "glass ceiling" thingy?
""Mom's" (sic) don't "own" us any more than fathers do."
That is quite simply false. I don't think you are lying, I think you are just uninformed.
You obviously have never been anyhwere near a family court. Count your blessings. Mothers are presumed to have the better right to raise children. Fathers get sole custody very rarely. (Joint custody is rare in this country.)There is almost no behavior on the part of a woman that that will result in the father getting custody - drug addiction, co-habiting with an abusive boyfriend - nothing. Judges generally hold unregenerate patriarchal views of the woman's role and of child rearing.
It is not unusual for men to have to agree to pay extra child support, beyond the usual schedule, for visitation time, time with their own children. In this type of negotiation the children are a bargaining chip belonging to the woman. That sounds like "ownership" to me. There is usually no requirement for any accounting for the use of this money, even though of course it is intended for the support of the children, so that the mother is free to spend every dime on herself without any repercussions, since there is no expectation that women will be self-supporting in this society which is why alimony (deferred prostitution payment) still exists. This is what I mean by unregenerate patriarchal views of women. That indicates that the money is held to be the property of the mother to maintain her property.
Please look into this matter further so that you don't go repeating falsehoods. After this, anything else will be dishonest.
jim:
I practiced family law for 12 years. I'd say I'm informed. What do you do for a living?
anon 3:34
anon 7:08
Oh yeh you practiced family law alright perhaps now you should practice genuflections as a prepartion for purgatory if you are lucky enough to make it there.
"...That sense of forgiveness, community members say, stems from the town's Christian roots and from its tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt."
I'm a bit surprised ABC did not edit that part out,
but then again, when it fits their
"women-are-always-victims" pro-feminism liberal agenda,
the MSM does makes some exceptions.
Ms.Winkler will go to trial, and we will see what she has in defense of the murder charges.
I'll wait until after the trial to form my opinions of her shotgun blast. I do believe some people are deserving of things that happen to them.
My opinion of her being seen at a public venue, a New Year's Eve party, won't wait: she made a mistake. Should've have stayed home, sans public alcohol.
But then again, so should have a lot of other people...
I have continued to hope that I will see in my life time EQUAL justice for ALL who committ same like crimes. The Mary Winkler case has been bizarre from the beginning. Feminist biases have abound. Excuses for her behavior made ad nauseum.
These photos do not shock me. I have always felt the little downtrodden, hand holding murderer was nothing more than a smoke screen. What we saw in the past few months as Farese made his PR moves is nothing but a mirage and was as fake as Mary.
I am glad someone came forward and finally exposed this woman. To this day she doesnt care about her children. Its still all about Mary and her desires.
This was not only a one time event. The bar owner said Mary had been in 3-4 times and she sure looks right at home at the bar. Makes me believe that Mary drank and smoked before her several outings.
As someone who lives in McMinnville, I do not judge someone, that is the courts job, that is Gods job, that is not my job. As the so called bar, it is no more than a local resturant, that offers drinks, This town is a dry town. Anyone who is so rude to take pictures and put them on national T.V. needs to look in the mirror. They are not much better then the person who is accused. She wasn't running down the street with a knife. Unless she is acting out as a public danger, people need to mind their own buisness. What someone won't do for a little attention
It's not Christian to forgive someone before they acknowledge guilt, repent, and attempt restitution. It's called tolerance. It would be more accurate to describe this community's response as politically correct than Christian.
You know, there's something seriously wrong with people's thinking when they can rationalize that the person who identified Ms. Winkler out partying is worthy of judgement, but not a woman who not only killed her husband, but can laugh about it is somehow exempt from public judgement.
Let's see, most teachers are women.
Most daycare workers are women.
Most stay at home parents are women.
Most babysitters are women.
And you say women do not have more access to children than men? Indefensible.
And thanks for the spell check. I can hire you at minimum wage! Leave the thinking to those of us who can count though.
Trey
Perhaps men should take more of an interest in their children, then? I'm talking about men in general, here, so don't get your back up if you're the dad who changes diapers, cooks meals, and gives baths. Men in general don't babysit as teenagers, so when they have their own babies, they don't know much about caring for them. When they watch their wife change a diaper, they think it must be womanly intuition that gives her the know-how...and so they leave that job to the wife. Instead of recognizing that child care is a set of skills that can/must be learned and setting out to learn as much as they can, men (in general, again) sit back and let their wife take charge of all that. I can't wait until society stops marveling at dads who can change diapers (Oh, isn't he a GOOD dad!) and starts expecting men to pull their weight in the "parenthood."
So go ahead, all you manly men out there. Tell me what good dads you are and how you help your wife with the housework and child care.
As for the story about Mary Winkler in the bar...why do we trust that the press got this one so completely right when we suspect so much of their work is wrong?
I do believe some people are deserving of things that happen to them.
I've always been a big fan of vigilante lynch mobs and quick hangings too.
Some of us men do try to spend more time with our children - we are part of the 2 million-plus who are single fathers in America.
Unfortunately, based on their lobbying activities, women's groups seem to want us out of our children's lives.
Do you have an opinion about that, anonymom? You seem strangely silent on that topic.
So much for feminists wanting "equality".
Let's hear your excuses for the next female teacher who molests her students, or the next woman who murders her children and gets off with kid glove treatment from the press and justice system. Please - I look forward to your reply.
American feminists are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to fathers spending time with their children. "Anonymom" looks like one of the herd.
Anonymom,
Your post is a joke. Men who do such things as you describe in a manner of normalcy and love it to boot are no more than a fifth column amongst men. Women seemingly never get it. There is a difference between vocation and job as there is a difference between the genders. A basic sociological construct is intra-labor and extra-labor. I will not even invoke tradition I will just simply say that extra-labor, that is working outside of the domestic sphere is best left to men. While the labor particular to the domestic sphrere is best left to women. This does not mean that there cannot be a 'cross-pollinization' of sorts but by and large the natural abilities of the sexes reach the highest level of cooperation, achievement and purpose (that is the production of children and their well-being) by taking part in this construct. And to set the record straight, that is if you have the temerity to proffer an opinion, the time for semantical gymnastics/games and the gender combat combat has ended; the female has lost, she has forgotten who she is and was while also losing what remained of their dignity. The children she absconded by calumny and jurisprudential corruption are strewn about wearing masks of tears and despair. So, the standard has been laid down and the time for empty rhetoric is past. You have had your time and it has come to an end. In fact your demise was presaged in 1910 when the 'feminist' movement was more equitable; that is before the death-dealers like Margaret Sanger perverted the original Suffragette message which was pro-family and pro-life. The book is entitled: "What's Wrong with the World?" by G.K. Chesterton and provides an overpowering rationality that destroys the fallacies proffered by the femifacists. You can read the book for free at the following url:
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/whats_wrong.html
You would want to read Part Three: Feminism: or the mistake about women. Here is a noteworthy quote that I am sure will get your dander up:
"In all the old flowery and pastoral love-songs, those of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries especially, you will find a perpetual reproach against woman in the matter of her coldness; ceaseless and stale similes that compare her eyes to northern stars, her heart to ice, or her bosom to snow. Now most of us have always supposed these old and iterant phrases to be a mere pattern of dead words, a thing like a cold wall-paper. Yet I think those old cavalier poets who wrote about the coldness of Chloe had hold of a psychological truth missed in nearly all the realistic novels of today. Our psychological romancers perpetually represent wives as striking terror into their husbands by rolling on the floor, gnashing their teeth, throwing about the furniture or poisoning the coffee; all this upon some strange fixed theory that women are what they call emotional. But in truth the old and frigid form is much nearer to the vital fact. Most men if they spoke with any sincerity would agree that the most terrible quality in women, whether in friendship, courtship or marriage, was not so much being emotional as being unemotional."
Single-father anonymous: If you read my post, you'd have noticed that I wasn't talking about the men who already take responsibility for child care. I'm talking about men who cede that responsibility to their wives because--oh, I'm sure there are many reasons--they don't know how, they think their wife knows better, they work all day. After ceding that responsibility, why are those men surprised when other people question their abilities to take on full-time care of children? Family court judges, for example. The Chesterton anonymous makes my point: He really does think that men should not do "women's" work. Why doesn't that attitude make you furious? He's saying that men aren't capable of taking care of children.
It looks as if the men's movement has the same problem the women' movement has: You all say that you're after men's rights, but you get stuck with some extremists who identify themselves as part of your group but who work against you.
The fact that I'm a woman does not make me your enemy by definition. Nor does it mean that I defend women who harm children. My nephew is fighting for custody of his daughter and I'm on his side. I get tired of men who weakly say that men "can" do child care. Of COURSE they can! If a thirteen-year-old girl can do it, why can't you?
Well, anonymom, how would you feel if a husband complained about a wife's ceding financial responsibility to the husband, oh, well, because she wanted to be "taken care of" or wanted to "stay at home" full time? Is that the same level of irresponsibility in your eyes as the example you cite above?
I understand the scope of some of what you write above, but it seems to smack of entitlement and the double standard that men face all the time. A double standard that requires them to work out of the house as much as possible while condemning them for not spending time with their families, and naming them as slackers if they don't work enough.
Single Dad ANon
trey:
"Let's see, most teachers are women.
Most daycare workers are women.
Most stay at home parents are women.
Most babysitters are women."
Uh, yeah. This is sort of what anonymom is saying. Why don't men become teachers, daycare workers, stay at home parents, or daycare workers, then? That's right. Because they don't WANT to. My male co-worker nearly went nuts during his 3 month FMLA leave. He couldn't wait to get back to work.
I agree with the whole "Mary Winkler is probably a cold-blooded killer" line. And there can be no doubt that seeing her out living it up is distasteful, regardless of her claimed defense.
But spare me the whole "It's so much scarier when a Mom kills because they have so much CONTROL" meme. Most women would love to have a real partner to share child-rearing duties.
And hey, trey? Not only can I count, but I can spell, too. So, better leave the thinking to me. And thanks for showing what a little baby you are.
Anonymom wrote: "Perhaps men should take more of an interest in their children, then?"
Completely agree with you there.
Trey
Then anonymom wrote: "It looks as if the men's movement has the same problem the women' movement has: You all say that you're after men's rights, but you get stuck with some extremists who identify themselves as part of your group but who work against you."
So far anonymom, you can just sign your posts with my name too. Well said.
Trey
First a fraud, then a poor speller, now a baby. Your anonymous repartee is certainly devastating. What is next? Poo poo head?
Trey
I didn't call you a fraud. That was someone else. Maybe you wouldn't know that. But then again, that comment did cause me to look you up on the licensure site and I couldn't find you. Also, didn't you basically call me stupid ("Leave the thinking to those of us who can count")?
Anonymous 11:07:
You state: "Uh, yeah. This is sort of what anonymom is saying. Why don't men become teachers, daycare workers, stay at home parents, or daycare workers, then? That's right. Because they don't WANT to."
Men do not want to become teachers, etc. many times because of discrimination against them-- and yes, the pay is low for childcare workers etc. but even men who want to work with kids are laughed at, called perverts and sex abusers and are held as suspect by many. When this discrimination against men ends, perhaps more men will be willing to work with children. For any of you who are interested in men and teaching, Manteach blog at
http://www.menteach.org/pages/faq.html
may have some answers and help.
Why don't women marry men who make less money than they do? Why don't more women become coal miners, firemen, police officers, or plumbers?
Anonymom, I raised a valid point, despite the mudslinging that followed. I recall a NYT article last year where stay at home dads were described as "parasites" because they did not pull their own financial weight in supporting a household. Helen has provided a good reason why men shun professions where they have to interact with children.
Cranky Chesterton references aside, why don't more women pull their weight financially in a relationship? Why are there so many stay at home parasites?
When the shoe's on the other foot, you don't seem too keen on responding. I'm asking the same questions again hoping you will. I look forward to your reply.
Single Dad Anon
Single Dad Anon:
This is anon 11:07. I am dating a guy who makes less. I pay for probably 75% of our outings. And I have been thinking now that I should have become a plumber or an electrician instead of a lawyer. But it's a little late for that now. Anyway, I'm not on here complaining about my "lack of access to plumbing". Men can't complain about their lack of access if they choose not to engage in the professions they allege give women access. I understand helen says men who do become teachers might think they would get laughed at or would be looked upon with suspicion. And I'm sure that does play a role. And I'm sure we as a society need to eliminate our stereotypes. Still, playing in to the stereotypes is no excuse. They tried to tell me when I was a little girl that I was supposed to be the nurse, not the doctor. The secretary, not the lawyer. I told them they could go screw themselves. In addition, I strongly suspect men themselves would engage in the same type of stereotyping. They wouldn't want some male daycare worker around their little daughter.
As to why more women don't pull their weight financially? I don't know that they don't. We can sit here and throw anecdotes around all we want. I've got just as many as you do. The vast majority of women I know do work outside the home. AND they do the vast majority of the housework and child-rearing.
But my recommendation to any man who feels his wife is not pulling her weight financially, to any man whose wife refuses to work--get a divorce. Now. Don't wait 20 years when you find the woman of your dreams. If it's not okay with you, do it now. You don't get to wait 20 years, essentially condoning her failure to work, and then leave without any responsibility. Leave now, while she will still be assumed by the courts to be young enough to learn some skills and support herself.
By the way, my advice is the same to the ladies with husbands who don't pull their weight in terms of housework or child-rearing. Stop complaining and get a divorce. If you choose to stick around, then I don't want to hear your whining.
The big difference in the solutions you propose, anon, is that getting a divorce from a woman who doesn't pull her own weight means loss of children and substantial loss of income in the form of alimony and child support.
For a couple in the reverse situation, the outcome is usually the same for the man.
Certainly, societally, there is stereotyping on both sides, but legally, in Family Court, the situation is far from symmetrical.
Single Dad Anon
Single Dad Anon,
I'm not ignoring you--I just returned from church. I agree with you. Women should take as much responsibility for the family finances as men do/should. I work full time and I earn nearly as much as my husband. My husband is a well-respected teacher. Grade school teacher, even. It is true that women tend to grow up with the understanding that the children will be their territory and men grow up with the understanding that finances will be their responsiblity. But there are all kinds of variations out there. I know a woman who is very good with money but she insists that her husband take care of the finances because he's the man--even though she's better at it than he is. I know women who won't let their husbands near the checkbook. My own grandmother ran the finances for her family. I have friends who are stay-at-home moms who recognize their financial responsibility as working within their budget. Thank goodness I don't have any close friends who earn their own money and consider it "hers" while his money is "theirs"--but I'm sure those women are out there.
The thing is that each marriage is created by the two people in it. Anon12:48 has worked things out with her husband and I've worked things out with mine. She is right, that if this isn't the marriage that works for you, you should do something about it.
AnonyDad, you said, "how would you feel if a husband complained about a wife's ceding financial responsibility to the husband, oh, well, because she wanted to be "taken care of" or wanted to "stay at home" full time? Is that the same level of irresponsibility in your eyes as the example you cite above?"
It's very close. The difference is that taking care of children has to do with raising children to be good people. Taking care of money, important as it is, is not quite that. Still--I agree with your main point, that women need to be just as involved with the family finances.
You also asked why women don't become coal miners or plumbers. I think women are still getting used to the idea that they can do whatever they darn well please. I have a woman friend who took up heating and airconditioning because of the money. Another friend who runs a crane because of the money and because she doesn't want to work indoors. My guess is that men don't rush to apply at the day cares because they won't earn much. The fear of being accused of "touching" probably is a good excuse--but I'd bet the money is the biggest concern. Women who run day cares in their homes can earn a decent living--maybe when men realize that, they will consider that line of work. My husband and I very nearly chose an excellent daycare run by a husband/wife team but chose another with a better location.
Anonymom:
I think we are largely in agreement here. BTW, on behalf of all men, I apologize for the Chesterton reference above which gave you offense.
I think in a world where a man is measured by his earning potential, money is certainly an issue with regards to men pursuing teaching as a career, but keep in mind, this is also a world where children sitting next to men on certain airlines have their seats changed due to the presumption they may be child molesters.
I think a man running a daycare center in his home is a clear recipe for disaster in this day and age, from a liability standpoint. I don't even have sleepovers at my house with my daughters' friends. The concern about false allegations of abuse is a valid one, though you may disagree.
Anecdotally, I am in a very different place than you are. My ex-wife is Harvard-educated, yet refuses to work full-time. Thankfully, though, I have a feeling my daughters will be very different from her. I do not run into that many women who feel discriminated against in their professions.
The bottom line, in my eyes, is that women now have many options they can pursue in their careers compared to past decades. Some might argue this is due to feminist gains.
Those same feminists have closed off alternative professional options to men through their successful efforts to demonize men in civil and criminal court.
Single Dad Anon
Sorry I guess, all you anons look alike to me. And I certainly DID call one of you stupid when one of you denied that women have more access to children than men do. That might have been your evil twin. But as I recall, the spelling snarking came first. I just prefer to skip the whole passive part of passive-aggressive. Now if I was smacking the wrong anon, I truly appologize and ask that you understand and forgive my confusion.
But now, a fact. Women kill more children than men do. That is because they tend to perpetrate "neglect," a passive form of abuse which is more often deadly. Why is this not widely known and accepted? Because as I said earlier, I think that it is too frightening to not trust women because they are the hand that rocks the cradle. It is not all sexism, part of it is denial.
Now, do you want to call me more names, or post an idea?
Trey (which is what my friends call me, it is a nickname, not my legal name)
men cant work in any place where there are kids,, why people think they are perverts, if i wanted to work in a school i would have to have a complete criminal records search done on me.
more and more men are being falsely accused of being pedophiles by terriffied parents, in some cases the child care workers wont even take the child to the bathroom, but has to phone the mother up and say, its purely a way of making sure you arent
sued. when children arent even treated by a plaster on the knee, unless there are 2 teachers present.
men are being pushed out of this field, because of paranoia and fear, and its mostly the parents.
look at the satanic fear in the 90's in england, allegedly kids were abused and sacrificed to satan, kids were eaten by wild dogs.. it ruined that daycare centre, and it was discovered it was false memory.
but their lives were ruined. ask any parent about who they want to look after their kids. 90% will say a woman.
Yes, cadmus. You would have to have a criminal background search to work in a school. You think that's wrong? A woman would have to undergo the same background search.
No, trey, you got me right. All except for I wasn't the one who made the remark about your not being a real psychologist. So, I didn't imply you are a fraud.
Perhaps correcting your spelling is snarky. But you DID misspell the word. I mean, you wanna call me stupid-that's fine. I can take it. I'm just saying, don't get on some high horse about the level of discourse when you've really done no better.
I mean really. Calling names? At worst, I called you a bad speller. Is that so hard for you to hear? Then you called me stupid.
Now, for your "facts". Care to cite a source for that? And I would advise to consider the validity of the source. Because I can find all sorts of stats too if I don't take into account the bias of the supposed "source".
Shoddy sources. Wow, do you do this for a living? I am so busted.
http://mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa03/pages/status_children.htm
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm
The facts:
"The overwhelming majority of perpetrators of child maltreatment deaths are biological parents, especially mothers. National statistics report that about 78% of fatalities in 2003 were perpetrated by biological parents. Of those, 39% were committed by mothers (either alone or with a non-parent), 19% were committed by fathers (either alone or with a non-parent) and 20% were committed by mothers and fathers together.[3] Other studies have found similar findings. [2]In cases of neglect mothers are more frequently the cause of their children’s deaths."
The citation:
3. United States Administration for Children & Families, Child Maltreatment 2003: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data Systems - National statistics on child abuse and neglect. 2005.
I know you only asked for one source, but I am a generous guy!
Trey
Alright trey. I will concede that women kill children more often than men do. Though I couldn't find any info on point in your first link, the second link contains this:
"Women also comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men: 58 percent compared to 42 percent."
Now, will you concede that, if women have more access to children than men (as you allege), that this difference is insignificant?
anonymous 11:41:
This tired old excuse about women having more access to kids and therefore it is no wonder they kill, neglect or perpetrate against them is hogwash. It is like saying that it is not significant if a woman is raped because the perp had access to her.
But trey's the one that said women had more access, not me. That women and mothers deprive men of access through the family courts and through being the majority the of the teachers and daycare workers in this country.
If that is true, then a 58% to 42% split WOULD be statistically insignificant.
And what are you suggesting is the reason for the difference, helen? That women are just more apt to kill and kill children? That they're evil? Seriously, I'd like to hear what your explanation is.
No, your rape analogy is not apt. Men are injured and killed on the job more often than women. Why? Is it because they're stupid? Or reckless? No, it's because they work dangerous jobs in higher numbers than women. So, the opportunity for injury is higher. THAT'S the analogy.
I was talking about access in terms of denial. I did not know these statistics until recently, and I have been working with abused kids since 1991! Anon, you did not know these stats either, that is certainly understandable.
My point of interest is WHY did we not know these stats? WHY is abuse getting most of the attention when neglect is more deadly? WHY are non-familial men separated from some children on airlines when the child's own mother is more likely to hurt the child? Picture a child abuser, I picture a man, don't you? Why?
I believe men and women to be equally wonderful, and equally dangerous. This is not a gender issue for me, the issue is why are men identified as more dangerous than they are while women are identified as safer than they are when you look at the numbers.
Many folks identify this as misandry, plain and simple. I am wondering if it is more. Surely part of it is chivalry. I posit that some of it is denial. It is too frightening to "allow" women to be as dangerous to their own children as they statistically are.
I would really like some reaction to this idea, pro and con, as I am trying to figure this out and could use y'all's help. (Love that double apostrophe!)Gender bashers need not post.
Trey
that comment did cause me to look you up on the licensure site and I couldn't find you.
This is stupendously dense, considering you yourself are posting anonymously and are unwilling to give your own name and credentials.... don't hold others up to standards you are unwilling to prove that you have.
Anonymous 8:29:
No, the analogy would would be if men were killing or harming people at work and your excuse for that was, "Oh, more men are at a job, therefore of course they would kill, or harm someone at work." Do you somehow find it acceptable that women kill children, neglect or harm them at a rate at least equal to men? I hope not. Isn't the real question, why do they do it and how can we decrease it from happening?
"I practiced family law for 12 years. I'd say I'm informed. What do you do for a living?"
The appeal to authority. Is that the best you can do at logic? Thats'a all the closer you come to competence as an attorney? Sounds like you all you did is defrauded a bunch of clients fo r 12 years.
Posession is ninth tenths etc, and if someone has enough control opver something to use it as a barganing chip, that's ownership. Admit it. Or owuld that be asking too much honesty of someone who practices law?
helen:
I don't really understand your analogy. You're saying if the fact was that more men than women kill people on the job? Yes, if the fact was also that men constitute a larger percentage of the workforce, that would make sense. The point is opportunity. And that is what we are talking about here.
And of course I'm not saying murder is acceptable! Don't be daft! No one is excusing murder. We're talking about why there is this statistical difference. I think the difference (58%-42%) is negligible anyway. You all seem to think it's relevant to something, I just can't figure out how. But even so, I'm saying if women have greater access to children, it explains the statistical difference.
Why anybody harms children and how do we stop it from happening? Yes, absolutely, let's focus on that.
knoxwhirled:
I'll keep that in mind. I may decide to post my name and credentials. It was only a passing comment. I don't have a problem with people like yourself posting anonymously.
jim:
Who appealed to authority? YOU said I was uninformed and obviously hadn't been near a family court. I was simply pointing out that you were wrong. Logic? Your post contained alot of broad assertions with no actual FACTS to back it up. I can make alot of broad assertions too. You will dispute them, as I dispute yours. So, don't talk to me about logic.
Anon,
Actually my post was just insulting in a juvenile way.
You have been in family court and still come away so clueless? Or perhaps you know very well how the situation is but have your reasons for saying the opposute. Whatever.
Children are treated like property in this society rather than as members of families; grandparents and other elders in the family have no say whatsoever in how they are raised. Parents have a degree of exclusive control over children that rivals or supasses private prpoerty, and when I say parents, of course that means mothers - the statute reads gender-blind, but the court applies it in a very slanted way, as the stats for custody show. Functionally choiildren are the proerty of their mothers.
Jim, I agree, especially small children. As they grow and mature, there is more space for us men. But in terms of infants and young children, they are their mothers.
Even outside of court. In my first marriage, I was the stable one and ended up being my daughter's primary attachment. In my current marriage and family, and am a distant second to their mommy. While a part of me is happy and thinks it should be that way, a part of me misses the closeness I had with my first daughter.
Now their mom is a mostly stay at home mom, but she also has skills and training and aptitude in dealing with small children that I just don't have. I wonder if gender differences in brains contribute to the socialization of gender roles in parenting.
I know you were referring to legal matters, but I notice a moderate preference for their mommy in our close marriage. And gender strengths do not equal gender inequity in my book.
Trey
I found this sight though more of an accident than anything else, but am glad I did. Having been enbroiled in a custudy dispute for over 4 years I believe that my pratical experience concerning these issue is somewhat vast. My personal experience has been one of people lieing, cheeting, steeling, embezzling, extoring, blackmailing, manipulating,coercing and the requirements for these Crimminal charges, as well as Kidnapping and Child Abuse, have been satisfied repeatedly. The Court is well aware of the fact that these Crimes have and continue to take place. I have requested the Government on all levels, to perform it sole funtion and protect, my Son, as well as many others, from these Criminals. I discribe the System as Sociopaths in a psycotic situation. If everyone knows there is a problem (to state there isn't would be to state one is dillussional or psycotic) yet refuse to do something about it (Negligence) because they are Agtaid or wouldn't be able to collect the massive fee's we as a country are required to pay (Extortion) because the ones in control would be sacrificing there sorce of income (Sociopathic)I and many others will continue to fear for the safety of our children and ourselves.
What makes my situation worse is that everything I have said is documented and most charges are verifiable beyond any reasonable dought when the requirement in Civil court is 51%. to show this, one would have to be willing to review a stack of documents over 40" tall (( Billable Hr's) What a Case Study)). All this because I left an Abusive Alcaholic Girlfriend and we had a child together, who didn't and doesn't like his mother and who's mothers is only interested in the money. By the way she and the court system are still in control of my child after 4 years and continue to collect money ( billable hrs/court fees/child support/exc:) and My son still says he doesn't want to go back to his mother.
If you would like to address the real problem, which is the fact that the justice System is the problem I'm with Ya. if you wish to continue the failed policies which have created the problem, which continue to get worse, I would have to ask, who is dillissional here?
It is way past time for open honest discussions on the Local, State and National level, by calm cool headed Americans, who can agree to disagree, but are willing to actually listen to what the other side has to say and who are willing to judge ones self, instead of trying to push ones version. In other words the Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing but The Truth, so help me GOD!!!!
My intention isn't to insult or get people mad but more to make people think. It seems we have made it so complicated that we can't do it anymore. May I suggest that instead of going to a librery to look at thousands of books, one picks up a dictionary to define the word.
Thomas E. McMinnville, TN
PS please forgive the SP.
jim:
"You have been in family court and still come away so clueless?"
You haven't been in family court on a regular basis and still come away thinking you know so much?
"You haven't been in family court on a regular basis and still come away thinking you know so much? "
The wreckage from the Family Court system is all over society. It's in plain view.See the comment just above yours. That man's story is hardly unusual. Everyone seems to have a personal story of woe...well, maybe no one you think is important, so you don't hear the stories. The idea that you have to hang out in the courts to know what is laughable. Your stuff leaks out; after all the public is entitled to know. The personal is political, you know.
Thomas E. / anonymous 1:39 PM
If I am not mistaken, when your son reaches the age of 12, he can make his own choice with whom he wishes to live. In Tennessee, I have been through a similar situation as you face with three kids. It is absolutely unbelievable at times. You wonder if you are not stuck in a bad dream from which you cannot awaken.
With things sounding as badly as they are for you, you must try to hang in there. It is my belief the system in Tennessee is set up to punish the male, right, wrong or indifferent. Things can be said about you, with no proof offered, and it sticks. But it will clear eventually.
Time wounds all heels.
jim:
"The idea that you have to hang out in the courts to know what is laughable."
Uh, jim, YOU were the one who first suggested that perhaps I didn't know anything about this because I hadn't been anywhere near a family court. Very interesting that you are now arguing the exact opposite.
As far as the rest, the above gentleman's anecdote is just that. Anecdotal. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just means it's one man's story. And I guarantee you there's another side.
As a lawyer, I get alot of people coming in telling me their stories. Then I show up in court and, lo and behold, the evidence proves otherwise. People tell you the story that puts them in the best possible light. Few people are willing to volunteer information that reflects poorly on them. Even (and this is the part that is so confounding) EVEN when it should be obvious that you and everyone else will find out the truth.
So, any lawyer that's been in the business for more than a couple of years knows. Don't buy into any story. Look at the proof.
My husband went to school at South Doyle High School with Mary Winkler. Then she was known as Mary Carol Freeman and he said she was one of the biggest whores in the high school. He was at a party once and there were guys lined up waiting to have a turn having sex with a very drunk Mary. He had many other very colorful stories to tell about Mary. When the story first broke on the news that she had murdered her husband the first words out of my husbands mouths was "Oh my God!! I know her!! then he said, It doesn't surprise me a bit..just a little FYI..
Br549 Thanks but I can't understand the child Abuse needing to last till he is 12. Think of the Damage the system is doing to my child. Also as I understand it several years ago the legislature changed the mandates on Judges to state. If niether parent can show the other parent to be a danger to the child then the default possition for the judge is 50/50 and remember I left an abusive alcoholic.
To anonamouse the Lawyer. You have sworn an Oath to uphold the Constatutions and the Law yet the Rule of law is placed above the two most important documents in our nation every day hence making them subservient. The history of our problem is that as the Judge stated he doesn't want to see the evidence and at this point the evidence will justify the disbarment of many Attorneys and the Judge or as defence counceil informed me his friend. This I believe is called a conflict of Interest.
Once again maybe we should look at the problem, which appears to be the sytem itself and its inability to address it's own failings. Because I have been told many times that the Judge will not address or reverse prior mistakes. Even though the obviose is slapping him in the face. This take place in almost every court across our great nation every day
And still my son as well as many others children pay the price (Court sponcered Child Abuse).
We have a problem here. A huge problem
Thomas E.
McMinnville, TN
Lawyer,
I know all about lying witnesses and how people try to game the system; you are not the only one in the world who works in with witnesses.
I also know about lawyers' little stunts, such as this one:
""The idea that you have to hang out in the courts to know what is laughable."
Uh, jim, YOU were the one who first suggested that perhaps I didn't know anything about this because I hadn't been anywhere near a family court. Very interesting that you are now arguing the exact opposite."
No, actually it's quite telling that you are trying to misrepresnt my point, which was that anyone familiar with a cross-section of these cases would know that the courts are biased against fathers. Anecdotes are simply data points, but data points are what statistics are based on. The child custody statistics in this country paint a clear picture. care to dispute that? In my second comment I was disputing your contention that you had some special inside knoledge denied to the rest of that. That was clear to everyone else here presumably, except you. Or perhaps you did understand, and are simply choosing to be dishonest. Which is it?
I'm misrepresenting your point? Let's just compare your words then, jim.
Your first comment (made before you knew my profession):
"You obviously have never been anyhwere (sic) near a family court."
Your recent comment (made AFTER you knew my profession):
"The idea that you have to hang out in the courts to know what is laughable."
You can 'splain all you want. It's clear to any reader that in the first instance you were attempting (with backhanded kindness) to suggest that I simply didn't know anything about this subject. In the second instance, you were trying to backpeddle from the obvious erroneous nature of your earlier suggestion (that I didn't know anything about this subject) and make up for the fact that (to any unbiased observer) it would appear that I know a good deal more about it than you do.
Finally, I never actually stated I had any special inside knowledge. Again, YOU were the one who said, ""You have been in family court and still come away so clueless?"
And if you're so familiar with lying witnesses gaming the system, why would you refer me to the above gentleman's story, as if that was indicative of a damned thing?
And so, to sum up: You have called me misinformed and clueless--two things I certainly am not. All, it would seem, to make up for the fact that you got busted spouting pomposity on a topic you don't have any ACTUAL knowledge about.
And helen blames anonymous posters for being insulting?
I will start by appologizing but it would appear to me that the Truth The Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth is the key to the situation. Think of it like an experiment where you have a Hypothosis (in a legal case two sides) and then the experimentation/Discovery proves or disproves you Hypothosis. A very wise Judge stated that if He decided the issue neither side will be happy or he will be in the middle. That should address the "Gaming issue" on both sides.
The Lawyers have the truth through discovery and should act as middle men/women yet continue to push ones version. This everts the logic built into the justice System which should be blind. I know honest Attorneys which have and will continue to drop cases once they found their client was unethical because they weren't.
I believe the Founding Farthers were pretty smart and understood that in the English System which I think relies on the rule of law and Precidence all one needs is a freind sitting on a bench to make a bad dissission which then is compounded over time. Hence our Oaths to uphold the Constitutions and the law. Not the rule of law or Precidence. If the rule of law or Precidence allows either to be violated we once again have a problem which is compounded over time.
You can Bicker all you wish and continue to sling arrows but from what I'm reading thats all your doing. You aren't addressing the problems and are only attacking each other and dragging others in. I think I am reading that your saying their is a problem and that at least is a start. How about we define the problems then fix them (middle ground). :)
Might I suggest that we as a nation start following the Constatutions first.
Thanks TE
Lawyer,
You are still at it.
"You can 'splain all you want. "
You can misrepresent all you want. You seem to think that you can just impose your interpretation on two comments, spin them your way, and that becomes the truth. Does that kind of thing work in the courts where you are?
"And if you're so familiar with lying witnesses gaming the system, why would you refer me to the above gentleman's story, as if that was indicative of a damned thing?"
So it's off limits to refer you to a single data point unless it's a slam dunk piece of evidence. How convenient. How many slam dunk pieces of evidence do you come across in real cases? Or does preponderance of the evidence and that sort of reasoning not apply in your system of law? Are you really this unaware of patterns of research that rely on unconnected bits of information, unreliable information that has to be checked aaginst other perhap unreliable in fornmation? Of course you are; attorneys deal with real situations. So this little ploy of yours is dishonest.
"And so, to sum up: You have called me misinformed and clueless--two things I certainly am not."
You say I called you uninformed. What I said was that you were making an apopeal to authority. I will break down in small pieces for you: that is a logical fallacy. I said nothing about how much you know or don't know. You are trained in law and argumentation, so you certialy know how to recognize, and therefore employ, logical fallacies. When someone calls you on it, you spin off it osme other way. That is dishonest also.
What I am calling you is dishonest. Your twisting and misrepresentation of my comments confirms that. Thank you.
This what it comes down to. Any honest person can see the gender bias in the family court system. That was the thrust of my comment that the courst see children as the proerty of the mother. You have not refuted that contettnion at, but instead have launched a spluttering campaign even more schoolmarmish than your pompous and rude snip at Trey's spelling.
You sound irritated. That's good enough for me. Good-bye.
Walking softly, I agree with Jim to an extent. The system is biased toward the female in a divorce situation - at least where I was living when facing one.
I was in court on six different occasions, with divorce filed against me by her. Well, she never showed up. It was continued, and her lawyer (on my dollar)was told to contact her and see why she was not in court. Six times. Her lawyer eventually asked to be released from the case, and the judge agreed. My lawyer looked at the judge, and then at me, and that was the last time I saw him. Next court date, it was me all by myself. No her, no her lawyer, no my lawyer. The judge made me wait until the end of the day. After the last case it was she, me and the sheriff in the courtroom. She said without a lawyer for me, for her, and her not showing up (no warrants went out for her, by the way), there was nothing she could do. And she walked out, leaving me standing there. My lawyer never returned my calls. When all my kids finally got to come back to me, I packed us all up and left the state. Hell, there's probably a warrant out for my arrest, now.
On the other hand, if the female was in court and the male was not there, a warrant immediately went out for his arrest. I saw this numerous times during the six long days I sat in divorce court waiting and watching men get shafted. Some deserved it, at least as many did not. When a judge makes a decision that destroys someone's life, and his now ex wife yells out yes! it makes you think.
There may have been a time when it was necessary to award everything to the woman because of the way society was built then. It's different now, and fair and equitable are not the same now as they may have been then. It sure seems like punishment and revenge to me.
jim:
"You say I called you uninformed. What I said was that you were making an apopeal to authority. I will break down in small pieces for you: that is a logical fallacy. I said nothing about how much you know or don't know."
Again, let's review your words then.
you said: "That is quite simply false. I don't think you are lying, I think you are just uninformed."
And you call ME dishonest?
And finally, what are you talking about--preponderance of the evidence? A single data point IS useless. You can refer to numerous unrelated data points that might add up to mean something. But referring to that one guy's story is meaningless and silly.
"Any honest person can see the gender bias in the family court system."
Yeah, thanks jim. Your saying that really proves your point.
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..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home