Monday, March 23, 2009

The double standard of teen "rape"

Reader James (thanks!) emailed a post at Slate that referred to this article from the Daily Beast on "The Teen Rape Double Standard:"

After a 17-year-old boy had sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend, he was charged with a felony for statutory rape. When a 17-year-old girl in the same town committed the same crime, she was charged with far less. Was the boy the victim of gender bias?...

The cases caught the attention of the local press, generating a heated debate over whether Alan is being given harsher treatment simply because he is a boy. “After all,” said Purnell, “this isn’t one district attorney in Tennessee and one in New York deciding how to charge these cases. This wasn’t even one district attorney in one county in Wisconsin and another county in Wisconsin. No, this was the same guy who charged these two cases.”

The district attorney’s office refused to comment, but experts say it would not be far-fetched to assume that Alan has been the victim of bias. According to Dr. Marty Klein, author of America's War on Sex, “the double standard is not unusual. It is unusual to find such an extraordinarily clear example of it, but the philosophy behind the phenomenon is very common.”


The post from Slate was a response to this article and made the ridiculous argument that cases like this that charge a teen with a felony are okay as long as he is male because he is an aggressor just by lieu of his gender:

Diaz-Duran asks if the "boy was a victim of gender bias." Certainly it seems that his gender influenced the charge. But maybe that's as it should be. Yes, a 17-year-old female is capable of causing harm to an innocent 14-year-old with her sexuality, just as is her male counterpart. But men tend to be bigger, stronger, and have more parts that they can force into you. That's a crucial difference, and one that explains to some extent why rape laws would (and should) treat the sexes differently.


Okay, two can play at this game. Experts are always talking about how much more mature teen girls are than boys. If one can use biology as an excuse, then why not use psychology also? Shouldn't a much more mature girl of 17 be held more liable from a psychological standpoint than a boy of 14 since boys are said to lag behind girls socially and emotionally? Isn't it probable that better skills in this area would translate into better persuasion skills to get younger boys to have sex with them? And yes, many young men are harmed by girls and women who force or persuade them against their better wishes to have sex with them.

But I don't believe that sex with one's boyfriend or girlfriend in the teen years is akin to rape, if it is not forced. It is just adolescent sex. But, if the cases are to be charged as rape (and I do not believe they should be)--then they should be tried in a fair manner. Using sex as a basis for charging a person with a felony is a slippery slope to go down. The truth is, currently, boys and men are being punished in our society for their gender as payback by feminists and their enablers, and no one cares except for their families, the men and boys who are harmed by this, and a few good men and women.

Labels: ,

104 Comments:

Blogger Rob Fedders said...

I can't help but point out that this very problem has always existed in society. It was not the result of runaway "2nd Wave Feminism" and it is not the result of some bias that has only popped up in the past 30 or 40 years.

One of the most frustrating things I find about all of these issues is that everyone assumes that the suffragettes were so noble in their cause and only recenltly, that modern day feminism has "distorted it." This is patently false.

Anyone truly interested in the Gender War and its underlying factors simply will never figure it out unless they study what went on before.

Belfort Bax wrote extensively of these very issues a century ago already. Anyone serious about learning what is going on must spend some time reading these:

The Legal Subjection of Men (1908)

The Fraud of Feminism (1913)

If there were no dates associated with Mr. Bax's works, I assure you, he could be writing the exact same things on the internet as we do today, and no-one would notice the difference.

He discussed way back then already, that courts would bias themselves against men in the cases of teen sex - where 14 year old boys would be charged with sex crimes for engaging in sex with 16 year old girls who were the aggressors.

The "If a woman were President, there would be no more wars" argument is merely a rephrasing of the argument "If women had the vote, there would be no more wars."

The argument that males were oppressing women by some vast evil conspiracy is exactly the same, and Mr. Bax illustrates quite clearly that society was not oppressive to women in any way whatsoever - with the same arguments we are using today... and that the courts, media, entertainment industry etc. (society) have been behaving exactly as we do today - in that men are subjected by all institutions to extreme bias in favour of females... and that many a man would likely be quite happy to be "oppressed" like women.

I just can't stress how important it is to read these two pieces in order to gain an understanding of what we are dealing with in society.

If everyone's foundational arguements of the modern Gender War is false, then it extends that many of the solutions put forth in the modern day will also tend to be false solutions.

Please, if you spend hours and hours on the internet railing about the Gender War, and have been doing so for years... then, it is neccessary to understand that we are arguing about the same things we have always been arguing about - and these two pieces are time well spent.

You will be shocked.

Almost every argument we hear today is merely a repeat.

1:53 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger DADvocate said...

The gender bias is obvious. I agree that a 17 year old girl could in many ways intimidate or otherwise manipulate a 14 year old boy into having sex with her. Heck, when my son was a freshman in high school, one of his smaller male classmates was beat up by a girl. My youngest sister beat up a boy her age in the 8th grade.

And, I agree with this: But I don't believe that sex with one's boyfriend or girlfriend in the teen years is akin to rape, if it is not forced. It is just adolescent sex. Which is apparently the case with Alan as he was charged with statutory rape.

2:42 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger Sad_Dad said...

The thing is, it just can't keep going in the direction it going, it is getting worse for men and more frequently men are finding themselves homeless and having no money while the whole time working. It's all about being fair that's all, I'm not denying anything about the gender wars, we just need to be more fair that's all.

3:27 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger randian said...

But men tend to be bigger, stronger, and have more parts that they can force into you. That's a crucial difference, and one that explains to some extent why rape laws would (and should) treat the sexes differently.

This person is an idiot. Since when is ability to do harm more important than intent to do harm, or actually causing harm?

5:07 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Rob Fedders,

Yeah, people should read your links carefully. It's kind of disgusting that women manipulate in the same way today.

What's even more bizarre is reading accounts of old Rome (like 2000 years ago) and coming across the same kinds of manipulation on the part of women and the same clueless men (but, one again, the same clueless men who friggin' build everything in life).

5:39 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger Words Twice said...

“This person is an idiot. Since when is ability to do harm more important than intent to do harm, or actually causing harm?”

Just because Samantha is equipped to be a prostitute doesn't mean she necessarily is one.

5:39 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

And ... today ... men still submit around 98% of all of the patents, if you look out your window, it is MEN who are putting a roof on that house or building that road.

The only difference is, women are paid as a "professor of women's studies" instead of having to leech off a man, back when she was just bitching about men to other women in a quilting bee, and the men - once again - were off building something.

5:41 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger Sparks said...

Using sex as a basis for charging a person with a felony is a slippery slope to go down.

Here they pick on the boys unfairly. In Iran, they pick on the girls unfairly.

Isn't it roughly the same thing? If there were two consenting teens, only three years apart, (and even closer if you look at "maturity" as a factor as Dr. Helen suggests it could be)...

I'm actually not sure exactly what my point is, other than to say that we're outraged when we hear how unfairly young woman (or girls) who have sex are treated by the law in Iran -- It's always her fault. Here in the states, it's usually his fault.

6:05 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Here's a woman who was nearly raped:

http://www.gastongazette.com/news/scarpone_31917___article.html/apartment_forced.html

She forced her way into an apartment and then demanded that the men have sex with her for $10.

It's interesting that the article says there was at least one female witness in the apartment - I guess that lends the ring of truth to it (men would just lie, just as all women tell the truth, like Vulcans).

6:22 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

I don't live in Iran.

Why don't we start where we're at, eh?

Today, the U.S. Tomorrow, the world!

Democratic republics for all!

6:35 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger Sparks said...

Yes, I agree br549... It was just some thought that popped into my head while reading this... I guess, I was thinking along the lines of "where's the outrage" when it comes to the men getting an unfair shake from the law... Maybe we should get Human Rights Watch on the case right here in the US. ;-)

OK, before I create more trouble, I had better get out of here. ;-)

I'm not thinking straight today.

6:59 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger Adrian said...

In Iran, they pick on the girls unfairly.

So, if a 17 yo boy has sex with a 14 yo girl, then the boy doesn't have any consequences in Iran?

7:17 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger randian said...

The only difference is, women are paid as a "professor of women's studies" instead of having to leech off a man

A professor of women's studies is still a leech, since she's getting paid from tax dollars rather than for the value she creates. She's just as much a leech as a welfare recipient claiming she's "independent" from men. Where the heck does she think those tax dollars came from?

7:51 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger randian said...

So, if a 17 yo boy has sex with a 14 yo girl, then the boy doesn't have any consequences in Iran?

No. He could forcibly rape her without any consequences too, as long as he made sure he didn't have 4 Muslim witnesses willing to rat him out.

7:55 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

"A professor of women's studies is still a leech, since she's getting paid from tax dollars rather than for the value she creates."

--

That's kind of the idea I was trying to get across.

Instead of the old days, when the husband provided for her, modern society kind of hides it and spreads it across a lot of husbands (via taxes).

The silly thing is: She is pretty much doing what women used to do in quilting bees a hundred years ago (complaining about men), the big difference I see is that the quilting bee was probably more rigorous academically than women's studies.

7:58 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger randian said...

Also, don't forget that in Iran the age of consent is 9.

7:58 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

I think we are conflating two issues. Consenting teens who have sex and are near the same age are having sex. If on of the teens is 4 or more years older, then the law calls it rape. There can be no consent in Tennessee under 12.

Teens having sex is unfortunate, an older teen having sex with a child or a much younger teen is a different matter. I do not see how gender has any bearing on the matter, age, psychological sophistication, and power do.

Trey

8:09 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger Adrian said...

So, if a 17 yo boy has sex with a 14 yo girl, then the boy doesn't have any consequences in Iran?

No. He could forcibly rape her without any consequences too, as long as he made sure he didn't have 4 Muslim witnesses willing to rat him out.

I guess I don't know what the rules of evidence are, but I thought they both got 100 lashes for fornication.

8:21 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger Rob Fedders said...

Heh, Helen's exact argument can be found on p65 of "The Fraud of Feminism":

One of the most infamous enactments indicative
of Feminist sex bias is the Criminal Law Amend-
ment Act of 1886. The Act itself was led up to
with the usual effect by an unscrupulous newspaper
agitation in the Feminist and Puritan interest,
designed to create a panic in the public mind, 65

under the influence of which legislation of this
description can generally be rushed through Parlia-
ment. The reckless disregard of the commonest
principles of justice and common-sense of this
abominable statute may be seen in the shameless sex
privilege it accords the female in the matter of
seduction. Under its provisions a boy of fourteen
years can be prosecuted and sent to gaol for an
offence to which he has been instigated by a girl just
under sixteen years, whom the law, of course, on the
basis of the aforesaid sex privilege, holds guiltless.
The outrageous infamy of this provision is especi-
ally apparent when we consider the greater
precocity of the average girl as compared with
the average boy of this age.


This is what makes me so incredibly frustrated with the MRM and its "leaders" - the most famous of which are often credentialed academics, and if not, they purport to be "experts" in some regard or another, just because - and it is nearly universal that the MRM bends over and apologizes for "thousands of years of oppression" and glorifies the noble suffragettes - who were extremely despicable bitches along the lines of Andrea Dworkin, the Great Walrus herself. They were vandals, arsons, propagandists, liars, and manipulators (and were directly affiliated with Socialism, just like today) - they were also patently dishonest in most things they claimed, because, virtually everything they claimed is exactly what they are still claiming today. If you know the arguments of today, you know the arguments against the Feminism of the 19th & early 20th century too - because nothing at all has changed.

All of the "leaders" in the MRM are running around selling us a map of the Flat Earth, when the proof that contradicts their nonsense about "equality" and that things have "just gotten out of hand" is complete crap. Fact is, it is intellectual dishonesty to claim to be an expert on "gender" (a marxist language expansion term) if you don't have the wherewithal to even make sure that the foundation of the argument is false... even when you could just, like, you know, look it up!

Marriage laws, criminal laws, manginas, feminists demanding double standards, victimology, man hatred, protection of females who murdered husbands in their sleep... it is all there. Sitting in black an white. I could find many more sources as well.

Feminists went on a campaign to have all of this labelled "misogynist" and most of it has virtually been censored into oblivion. This is something that happens throughout history as well: Women seem to tend to censor their forms of "bad deeds" out of existence. This is why you can find this re-occuring from antiquity all through to the present. Women "are" society - they control societies values, and the simply do not tolerate themselves being portrayed as anything short of angels... victimized angels.

It was obvious the past was not misogynist at all... and none of the esteemed seem to dare to ask the question, "why were things set up in the way they were throughout history?"

They just assume that men did oppress women, and that the suffragette movement was fully justified.

They also assume equality is some glorified goal, when it is not. It is totalitarian.

It seems to be the same thing as "are parents naturally oppressive to their children?" No they aren't. Its the same as men - they are not naturally oppressive to females, in fact, just the opposite. That's the problem, coupled with a more base level contempt for males from both sexes, along with much natural deception from females with "the power of weakness."

The MRM is 95% filled with stinking manginas who are quick to apologize to the world for the "horrible oppression" their sex has inflicted upon women... and women are still behaving exactly the same way, and even using the exact same arguments which they did 100 to 150 years ago.

I think there was a break in between because of the Great Depression and World War II - because suddenly it was much more beneficial for women to attach themselves to a man... but then, one generation later, WHAMMO! It just picked up exactly where it left off. When times are tough, women attach to men quite solidly. We will see this again, I'll bet, if the economic crisis gets really bad... there won't be any complaining about "housework" if the alternative is living under a bridge with a burning barrel to keep you warm, will there? (The Suffragettes demanded to be "paid" for housework too). It was also the women during the Depression that scurried the other women out of the workplace, because women got vicious towards a woman/man who were a two income family, when they themselves were a no-income family. After all their complaining, when times got tough, the ladies very quickly pushed for only men to work, so they could all share in the benefits of male labours equally.

I find the credentials and quality of work of the academics studying this kind of stuff to be atrocious.

(Lol! No offence intended personally, Helen. Angry Harry has a Ph D too, and I still respect him despite such academic afflictions - mind you, he's also one of the few who has bothered to form the integrity to be a speaker of the truth).

In fact, the MRM itself has gone out of its way to try and discredit any man who has actually taken the time and effort upon himself to study "what" and "why" from the past... while anyone who similarly would similarly take the effort, cannot come out of it without coming to the same conclusions as I do. Most could give a crap though, even though they spend years hanging out on forums, racking up thousands of posts seemingly only to hear the sound of their own voices and be part of some social club. (Lol! Mr. Bax discussed that too - men not giving a crap, and not realizing women aggress through others).

How can we accomplish anything when the fundamental premise of the entire MRM (and Feminism) is patently false?

Obviously, what is going on has a lot more to with social & psychological factors which are innate in humans... it always happens this way... until everything collapses, and then the ladies find it useful to be nice to men again.

8:24 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

I was hypnotized with the "women have been oppressed by men for thousands of years" stuff all through my public school "education".

It took me awhile as I got older to start getting the drift that things probably weren't as presented in all of that propaganda.

Just talking to my grandparents on an in-depth basis gave me a completely different view of times long gone by.

8:51 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:59 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:00 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger Rob Fedders said...

JG,

Have you read Sex and Culture yet?

It is not the easiest thing in the world to slog through (I haven't finished yet - taking it in chunks), but, the info in it is tremendous.

9:19 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Rob:

I haven't read it. I'll get to it eventually, but I've got a big stack of back reading.

9:20 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger Joe said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:33 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger Joe said...

Why has nobody else noticed that the Wisconsin law makes ANYONE having sex with a 17-year-old guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Was the 14-year-old girl charged?

11:34 PM, March 23, 2009  
Blogger Kelly said...

I live in Texas, and I remember a case in my area several years back where are woman was fighting to have decisions in a case involving her son reversed, and the young man died in a motorcycle accident... going to his grave as a registered sex offender. He'd had sex when he was 17 with a girl who was 14 and had lied about her age. The fact that she lied didn't matter... he was more than 36 months older than her, so he was a sex offender in the eyes of the law. He had to move out of his family's home because he had siblings who were legal minors. He couldn't be at family gatherings and events. His named showed up in sex offender databases, and he had to go to court ordered group counseling sessions with people who actually were child molestors and rapists.

I cannot help but worry that child sexual abuse will start to go in the same direction as mental illness. At one time, people just tended not to believe in mental illness and figured a swift kick in the butt was all somebody needed to get their attitude adjusted. Then it seemed acceptance of the need for psychiatric help in some cases could really achieve some good... right up until docotrs started diagnosing everybody who really did just need a swift kick in the butt with one vague mental illness or another and rolling pills at everybody. Now, people are less and less inclined to believe someone who really does have a mental illness needs help because they've seen too many of the "give the jerk a medical excuse" cases. So, okay, we aren't so inclined as a society to say anymore, "What did she expect, wearing a skirt that short?" But how long will it be before a girl really is abused and no one believes her because they're tired of seeing innocent guys get punished due to a girl lying about her age?

The way I see it, the liars and fakes are the true predators in society, and the total number of their victims may never be known.

12:10 AM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger paul a'barge said...

Here is Samantha Henig, author of that silly Slate piece.

What is it with statist Liberals and their fascism?

9:25 AM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Skyler said...

This is ridiculous. Name one 14 year old boy who objects to having sex with a 17 year old girl. There is no harm, calling this a crime is absurd.

There is only one reason why sex with a minor girl is illegal and that's because girls can get pregnant. That is the genesis of these kinds of laws. Beyond that risk, there really is no harm.

So, of course there's a difference in sentencing. People instinctively understand the purposes of the laws and the political correctness of applying a law to prevent minor pregnancy in girls to boys who obviously can't get pregnant.

Really, people. Fourteen year old boys really are not harmed even remotely by having "consensusual" sex. It's not necessarily a good thing to do, but it's certainly not morally criminal.

9:40 AM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Forgetfulmuse said...

Statutory rape laws are meant to protect young people from old letches (male or female), not to criminalize teen sex. Whatever one thinks of sex at 14, I don't think a 17 year-old needs to be labelled a sex offender for having consentual sex with his/her girlfriend/boyfriend. That's over the top and trivializes real sex crime, not to mention that label follows the poor person for life just for having sex as a teenager - that does happen and effects all kinds of things later on. Surely there's some room for common sense in these cases without lowering the age of consent to 12.

9:53 AM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Charlie said...

"by lieu of"? Virtue?

9:58 AM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Georgfelis said...

If I might throw a hand-grenade into this particular puddle of gasoline, this argument has been wrestled around Kansas pretty heavily for the past couple of years. Seems Dr. George Tiller has no problems performing abortions on young women below the age of consent, and then refusing to turn over any medical records to the Kansas Attorney General. There is a whole “A crime has been committed, the State has the right to investigate” vs “It is the right for any legal minor to keep *all* records of her abortion completely private despite the fact she is underage and has been the victim of statutory rape” argument that has kept the statehouse hopping, and led to multiple turnovers in the State AG office. And with Tiller supporting KS Gov. Sebelius, who is going to Washington to be in charge of our new Glorious Socialized Medical Plan (is good for you comrade, open wide..) the argument may be due to get more public debate.

10:06 AM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Elusive Wapiti said...

"Name one 14 year old boy who objects to having sex with a 17 year old girl. There is only one reason why sex with a minor girl is illegal and that's because girls can get pregnant."

I'll take this ambiguously tongue-in-cheek comment seriously.

Skyler, just because raunch culture leads boys and their adolescent friends to think they haven't been harmed or exploited by bedding an older female, doesn't mean that said harm hasn't occurred. Extramarital sex deals harm to both sexes.

Oh, and your the girls-can-get-pregnant argument is moot in the age of birth control and abortion. Girls get pregnant when they choose to get pregnant. It's not roulette anymore in the age of the Pill and PP and Plan B.

And then there is a the harm dealt by a unfathomable legal double standard. Girls mature psycho-socially two years earlier than boys, yet we hold immature males to account when it is the girls who are more able to exercise better judgment.

But I suppose you skipped the previous 30 comments.

10:07 AM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger geoffrobinson said...

People are skewed to protecting women, who we view as needing more protection. Yes, there is a double-standard. It makes sense that it should be there, if you take a traditional view of the sexes.

10:10 AM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger BobH said...

To geoffrobinson:

The "traditional view" was that, yes, men protected women, The downside for women was that their male relatives (i.e., fathers and husbands) had substantial power over the behavior of those women. The current feminazi position is that women should still be protected but male control is "oppression".

It would be more accurate to say that many/most American women want to be treated the same as men, unless being treated unequally gives women an advantage. Then women will not only allow unequal treatment, they will demand it, if they can do so without being seen as unacceptably hippocritical.

10:24 AM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Rob Fedders said...

Well, for those arguing that there should be a double standard... let's make something perfectly clear then:

You don't believe in equality, right?

It can't be a drive for equality when women are disadvantaged in regards to men, but sanctioned female sex-privilege to be overlooked when men are disadvantaged towards women.

It can be proven mathematically that "equality" can never be achieved under such a model... so... it is a method for enslaving the populations with laws and totalitarianism then, isn't it?

The equality cannard falls flat on its face once again, and proves itself an unworkable model for society.

Will you speak out against "equality"?

Or will you only speak out for female sex-privilege when females are disadvantages, yet remain deafeningly silent when women are grossly over-advantaged in regard to males?

10:33 AM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Kelly wrote: "right up until docotrs started diagnosing everybody who really did just need a swift kick in the butt with one vague mental illness or another and rolling pills at everybody."

A cogent thought, it is chilling. Part of the problem is that many of the people in child sexual abuse fields (I am one) are untreated sexual abuse survivors (I was not sexually abused.)

Having been abused is not the problem. Never receiving treatment for the abuse and then going to "help" others is a problem. Sometimes a BIG problem.

Trey

11:08 AM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Rob Fedders said...

A pound of feathers and a pound of lead still weigh the same, despite their different qualities.

Our system is based on checks and balances... to ensure that things don't get out of hand.

As soon as one acknowledges that women were not oppressed by men, and also acknowledge that women naturally are afforded more privileges/excuses from the mentality of both sexes...

Well, it would only make sense, to the rational person, that it therefore must extend that there are more checks and balances against the naturally more privileged one, doesn't it?

So, why were things set up the way they were in the past?

Was it really the evil male "patriarchy"? Or were there checks and balances in place to prevent the velvet fist of the invisible matriarchy from destroying society?

11:14 AM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Larry said...

Let's try a variation on that argument: black men are bigger on the average than white or Asian men, and therefore should be dealt with more harshly. That's fair, right?

11:19 AM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Roux said...

I have 4 kids, 2 boys and 2 girls all over 20 now. Believe me when I say that neither the 14 year old nor the 17 year old are mature. Gender makes little difference. Both my sons dated girls 2 years younger. I warned them over and over again that they'd better be careful because of the age difference. Luckily both got through that stage without any trouble.

11:21 AM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Thomas said...

But men tend to be bigger, stronger, and have more parts that they can force into you. That's a crucial difference, and one that explains to some extent why rape laws would (and should) treat the sexes differently.

If anybody's parts are being forced into anyone, then it's not statutory rape -- it's actual, forcible rape, and should be charged accordingly. You don't need an unequal statutory rape standard to take care of the problem.

12:00 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Rob Fedders said...

Bad logic, Larry.

We don't promote discrimination against blacks, whites or asians - not legally, anyway. (Well, lol, we actually do promote it against whites).

We let them run through life at the best of their ability, whatever that ability may be. That is the American way, remember?

Asians have a higher collective IQ than whites and blacks... so, it would be false to make blacks run around with 30lbs of bricks tied to their backs to make them "equal" while failing to acknowledge that asians will excel intellectually. That will naturally lead to asians being dominant and blacks being disadvantaged.

The best thing to do is to let them both excel at what they do best, and not try to hamper either one with "equality."

We do say that blacks are discriminated against naturally, however, and so attempt to remove those discriminations (although, it often morphs into affirmative action, or "positive" discrimination quite quickly... a shaky, warbly road indeed.)

Women are prefered in all regards to men, by both men and women.

If one tree is 40ft, and another is 20ft, can you suggest a way to make them "equal"?

Btw, are you certain that men oppressed women? Or do you just believe it because everyone says so? I gave some links at the top.

If our views of "inequality" were wrong in the first place, of which I have provided enough clear evidence for our purposes here, then how does any "equality" solution work? Especially if it only foists equality on one half of the equation?

Btw. What I am suggesting is that we first make sure that blacks actually are bigger, before we even begin to suggest solutions - of which the best is to just let them be bigger.

We haven't properly done this with men and women.

12:00 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Pete said...

Skyler, either women are children in the eyes of the law, and should be treated as such, or they are adults in the eyes of the law, and liable as a man for anything. Pick one.

Jesus Heironymious Christ, it's not that hard.

And as for your bogus assertion that boys are not harmed by adult women, I'd be happy to introduce you to an old friend of mine whose son of 16 years old got involved with a cougar of 34, who discarded him for a man old enough to go clubbing and buy her nice things. I'd introduce you to the son, but he hung himself shortly thereafter, because his "soulmate" rejected him suddenly and out of the blue.

The reason for statutory rape laws is to prevent an older, more mature, and worldly adult from taking sexual advantage of youthful immaturity and naivete. And to say that boys somehow don't have it - or that girls aren't as eager or aggressive in pursuing sexual gratification - is absurd in the extreme.

12:01 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

I don't see how, legally, those two 17-year-olds can be treated differently. Looks like his lawyer ought to have a slam-dunk.

I disagree, though, with whoever said that only girls are injured by underage sex. I have heard and read and thought too much to buy that one. Here's one thought to back that up: We've seen female teachers actually go to prison for this. A female teacher has to know that those boys, even if they flirt and what not, are jailbait for her. If she's willing to risk prison for what she presumably could get by going to a bar to be picked up, or standing on a streetcorner, then there is something that child can do for her that a grown man can't. And that's a pretty strong indication, to me, that the relationship is going to be emotionally exploitive, compounded by the fact that the kid has most likely sucked up the macho crap that real men ought to go after sex wherever they can get it and there's something wrong with him if he turns it down.

12:07 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

"Name one 14 year old boy who objects to having sex with a 17 year old girl. There is no harm, calling this a crime is absurd."


Skyler, ever used cocaine? I have. It was fun. And it was one of the most stupid things I ever did. But I was young and stupid and did not know any better.

Things learned and experienced during sex are deep learning and having ses with an emotionally and physically and sexually more mature person harms a growing adolescent.

Trey

12:07 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Rob Fedders said...

From p2 of Bax's the "Legal Subjection of Men."

We all know the story
of King Charles II. and the Royal Society; how
the Merry Monarch, shortly after the institution of
that learned body, propounded a problem for its
solution, to wit, why a dead fish weighed more
than a live one? Many were the explanations sug-
gested, till at length one bold man proposed that they
should come back to first principles, and have a dead
fish and a live fish respectively placed in the scales before
them. The proposition was received with horror, one
member alleging that to doubt the fact amounted to
nothing less than high treason. After much difficulty,
however, the bold man got his way; the matter was put
to the test, when, to the utter discomfiture of the loyal
members, the alleged fact which they were seeking to
explain evinced itself as but a figment of the Royal
fancy.
We propose in the following paragraphs to consider
whether the matter does not stand similarly only very
much "more so" as regards the conventional notion of
the legal and social disabilities of women. In the
present paper we shall merely confine ourselves to the
legal aspects of the question.
It will not, we think, take us long to convince our-
selves that the allegations on this subject which the
present generation, at least, has had dinned into its ears
from all sides since its infancy, are even on a less favour-
able footing as regards accuracy. Charles II. thought
the dead fish weighed heavier than the live one. The
event only proved that they weighed the same--not that 2

the live one weighed heavier than the dead one. Our
modern women's righters bewail the alleged legal op-
pression of women by men. The facts show not that
neither sex is oppressed as such, but, on the contrary,
they disclose a legalised oppression of men by women.

12:08 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Hucbald said...

Rob Fedders, you are my new hero. I knew these anti-male biases were old, but I had absolutely no idea that they had been addressed so long ago, and so eloquently. Good show, old chap. Seriously.

I say we take the vote away from women, and then things will be OK again. LOL!

12:16 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger MagicalPat said...

It's nice to know that a 14 year old girl is mature enough to get an abortion without her parents consent, but that same 14 year old girl is not mature enough to choose the act that put her into the abortion decision in the first place.

12:36 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger randian said...

Never receiving treatment for the abuse and then going to "help" others is a problem. Sometimes a BIG problem.

A different but related problem is that so many in the "sex abuse" industry are ostensibly there to help, but are really there to be activists. This activism has done great harm to both the victims and our legal institutions.

12:46 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger randian said...

We've seen female teachers actually go to prison for this

True, but don't forget there is a disturbing double standard regarding sentencing in those cases.

12:51 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Rob wrote: "Asians have a higher collective IQ than whites and blacks"

I am not sure I agree with you, although Asians do score higher on IQ tests than the other groups. But the map (the test score) is not the territory (the actual intelligence.)

Cultural issues affect IQ scores. How much time a person spends reading, the family attitudes toward education, what shows are watched on tv, what kinds of discussion there are around the dinner table, that sort of thing. The IQ tests are not perfect, so error creeps in.

I am very comfortable is agreeing that Asians, especially immigrants, are keen on learning, school achievement, and the American dream. I believe that those cultural issues have a part in the discrepency.

But your overall point makes much sense to me! Sorry for picking on the detail.

Trey

1:01 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

"It's nice to know that a 14 year old girl is mature enough to get an abortion without her parents consent, but that same 14 year old girl is not mature enough to choose the act that put her into the abortion decision in the first place."

It is magical Pat.

Trey

1:24 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger H. said...

"MagicalPat said...

It's nice to know that a 14 year old girl is mature enough to get an abortion without her parents consent, but that same 14 year old girl is not mature enough to choose the act that put her into the abortion decision in the first place."

+1

1:42 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger J.M.Cornwell said...

This is a case of the rules that were set down that made women the weaker sex and second class citizens, and still referred to and considered chattel by most of the laws on the books, biting the men that wrote them in the hind quarters. Women aren't considered adults until much later than men, although that has changed in some states. However, this is still a case of gender bias, but it's one that was set up and enforced by men not women who weren't even considered equal until the last century.

1:53 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

J.M.Cornwell,

If I take everything you say as true (... and I don't ...), then how would these evil men who wrote laws making women chattel and the weaker sex be getting bit in the hind quarters?

Wouldn't those guys be long since dead?

2:10 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Also, as a side note, feminists are notorious for misrepresenting things in the past. I don't know if I could think of an ideological group of people who would be less capable and less intelligent about history. It's not even the issue that it's Agenda Central with feminists - a lot are simply slow. Aside from the fact that ... they weren't there.

2:12 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Rob Fedders said...

Lol! Again, J.M. Cornwall... what makes you certain that this is the way it was re. second class citizens, or considered equal, or considered chattel?

Women lead through socialization, men lead through law/principles. The laws men pass are socially approved by women, and women socially agitate against men to procure the laws women want.

Men don't get anywhere unless women approve of what they are doing.

Your own gender bias is quite glaring.

Also, women are controlled through socialization and shaming (by other women) while men are controlled by principles and rules/laws (enforced by other men).

Women portray themselves as "weak" because it is their advantage to do so... it is the best way to manipulate men to do things for them.

Men aggress directly, while women aggress indirectly.

Treating men and women "equal under the law" never works, because men and women don't work under the same principles.

While a fence is good for keeping cattle, it is not good for keeping ducks.

Lol! By the way, Mr. Bax also addresses the "chattel" nonsense from the suffragettes as well in the "Fraud of Feminism." Seriously, nothing is new.

Aristotle talked about how when women were attempted to be made "equal under the law" that women actively resisted and the legislators had to abandon the cause... women lived in all sorts of intemperance and luxury, and when they were attacked, the women caused more mischeif and confusion than the enemy.

Sound familiar?

2:15 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

The only reason feminists twist history around (or just make it up) is to use the shaming that follows from that as a manipulation tool on men. There are even "chivalrous" guys on this board that go along with it; the general population is absolutely full of them.

Otherwise, the junk history of feminists would be absolutely worthless.

2:47 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2:50 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger J.M.Cornwell said...

Mr. Fedders, evidently you don't read much or you'd see what I'm talking about in the law books.

Capital Punishment: Page 158

"In 1970, for example, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a wife was 'at most a superior servant to her husband . . . only chattel with no personality, no property, and no legally recognized feelings or rights?" The 1974 George legislature approved a statute that defined the husband as "Head of the family' with the 'wife . . . subject to him; her legal existence . . . merged in the husband, except as so far as the law recognizes her separately, either for her own protection, her own benefit, or for the preservation of the public order.' Until the early 1980s, a Louisiana statute gave husbands exclusive control over the disposition of jointly owned community property."

Biting them in the hindquarters is a metaphor. It's a part of grammar.

3:05 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

J.M.Cornwell,

What case are you quoting when you say the "Ohio Supreme Court" ?

The ONLY things that came up under your quoted passage were feminists journals or articles all referencing each other. I see the "Social Science Journal", a book called Law Gender & Injustice by Joan Hoff, "PrimeTime Women" and a few other clearly feminist articles.

What was that case? I'd really like to look for myself.

3:13 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Because it could well be that the Ohio Supreme Court is quoting (what it thinks is) OTHER people's interpretations of a woman's role - and then goes on to make it clear that it's not what it thinks.

Or ... one feminist could have gotten it wrong, and then they all quote each other (just like the "Superbowl Hoax" and other feminist myths that are spread around).

Or it could be an example of a chauvanist judge in 1970.

I'd really like to see for myself, but none of the feminist "journals" or articles cite the case. It would be a number then a reporter reference then a starting page number (like: 252 N.E.2d 921).

3:20 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

In any case, the idea of women's studies people spending days and months to comb through anything and everything to find some example somewhere in which a man says something sexist ... just to keep the sisterhood suitably enraged ... would be funny if they weren't doing it on the taxpayers' (forced) dime in the form of funding for these dopey programs in colleges. It's less funny, though, in cases in which feminists just MAKE IT UP and then pass it around - and that also happens.

Why the huge need to keep the sisterhood frothing at the mouth?

3:25 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger MJ said...

"Wouldn't those guys be long since dead?

Biting them in the hindquarters is a metaphor. It's a part of grammar."

Ahhh, the irony when someone is so smug and condescending while missing the point.

3:27 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Sad_Dad said...

Rob Fedders,

You need to go to the www.glennsacks.com and use that wisdom on a couple of feminist freaks on that site. I would love to see that! There are a couple on this site too that I noticed. Good work man keep it up.

3:30 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

"Ahhh, the irony when someone is so smug and condescending while missing the point."

---

Some feminists are so mesmerized by "class theory" that they simply can't see that individual men are not equal to the group "men". To them, whatever one man does is what the whole group does, and what the whole group does is what each individual man does.

Maybe that's the problem J.M.Cornwell is having.

I don't think the tip that they (feminists) are not grounded in reality would help much.

3:34 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger J.M.Cornwell said...

JG: Stating a fact doesn't make it condescending or smug, just right.

I always find it interesting when people like you decide someone is a feminist just because they state a fact. Not true in this case, just an assumption on your part.

Personally, I believe neither teen should be arrested, charged or convicted for statutory rape. Teens have sex all the time and at all different ages. Statutory rape is still on the books for adults (those who are over the age of 21) who have sex with minors, but it is being enforced on teenagers, most often, at the behest of parents of one or the other involved in consensual sex as if they are surprised and shocked that their children even know about sex, let alone indulge in it.

Historically, young girls at the age of 14 were given in marriage to much older men prior to the 20th century, and even still in the 20th century in some areas in America. It was also expected, and even applauded (privately in the case of the upper and middle classes) when a teenage boy was sexually active, especially with an older women who could teach him the ropes. And it is also a fact that some fathers introduced their teenage sons to sex with the help of a paid professional (prostitutes).

With the current politicians trying to prove they are tough on crime, they are sweeping everything in their path, including teenage boys who are engaged in consensual sex with their teenage girlfriends, and filling the prisons with them, some of whom will be given the death penalty and/or spend most of the natural lives (40-60 years) in prison as guests of the taxpayers, warehoused, so to speak.

As for the laws, it's not difficult to find them and the passage that I quoted, as stated, from Capital Punishment, along with the page number is available from Amazon.com if you care to take a look and query the authors, or look at the index, to verify their sources. It's not new information, nor is it inaccurate, just not something you've seen before.

3:44 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger J.M.Cornwell said...

Some feminists are so mesmerized by "class theory" that they simply can't see that individual men are not equal to the group "men". To them, whatever one man does is what the whole group does, and what the whole group does is what each individual man does.

Maybe that's the problem J.M.Cornwell is having.


We're not talking about individuals but an entire system that exists throughout the country and is being made evident in this one prosecutor. Your problem is deciding, incorrectly, that I am a feminist or that I do not read, or that maybe I am a stereotypical female determined to blame men and the patriarchal system. Check your attitude at the door, JG, you're wrong on both counts. It's time to open your eyes and look farther than your own prejudices to see what's really happening here.

3:48 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

J.M.Cornwell,

You don't get it. You are asserting something, but you are not citing the source. You are citing another person (the author of Capital Punishment) who is asserting the same thing you are. There are also some feminist articles citing the same thing.

But all these people are on one ideological side, and it is a group of people with a history of misinterpreting things in their favor, of twisting anything and everything, and also of simply MAKING THINGS UP.

If a judge said that in a case, why doesn't someone cite the case?

And aside from that, a judge saying something stupid is not new, even if he said it.

3:49 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger J.M.Cornwell said...

I guess it never occurred to you, JG, that the author is male. You've access to so many law books, maybe you can find the legal citation.

3:51 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

EVEN IF a judge said something stupid back in some case in 1970, it is just moronic to bring that up to keep the sisterhood frothing (judges routinely say stupid things every day - on all sides of all issues - you should hear a few prize quotes from female judges about men).

And I'm almost starting to think that this is another "Superbowl Hoax"-type thing, where everyone just passes around the quote made up to inflame the sistas.

3:54 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

"... maybe you can find the legal citation."

---

Oh, that's cute.

You say a judge said something mean about women, but you don't know who or in what case or in what circumstances.

And then, as proof, you ask the person you are asserting that to to find out who said it, and when, and in what case, and under what circumstances.

Are you entitled or privileged? Bejeezus.

3:56 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

THAT'S feminist arguing.

Someone said something mean about women - you find out who. And in the meanwhile we're going to all be enraged about it, so give us special privileges.

3:58 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Rob Fedders said...

Lol! Yup, something that mostly gets backed up by feminist theorists themselves, as is usually the case.

It's interesting how this always comes up, and takes countless funding and university departments to create.

It's usually only verifiable by themselves, or twisted around, used as word-play, or ignores the second part or/practible outcome, as has been proven over and over again.

Lol! I've done enough researching on feminist myths and fallacies and word-play that I simply tire of it all, the result is generally the same: feminists are intellectually dishonest.

Gee, lets see:

1) Wage Gap Hoax
2) Anorexia Hoax
3) Fathers win 70% of custody Hoax
4) Dead Beat Dad Hoax/s
5) Einstein's Wife Hoax
6) Gender is Social Construct Hoax
7) Medical Research Shortchanges Women Hoax
8) Men Benefit Economically from Divorce Hoax
9) Pregnant Women Murdered by their Husbands Hoax
10) Only 2% of Rape Charges are false Hoax
11) Rule of Thumb for Wife-Beating Hoax

Lol!

Fact is, feminists & Women's Studies departments have been proven to be intellectual frauds and outright Marxists (which by definition means they are trying to destroy the State - ie. High Treason) so many times now, I simply tire from their drivel, which is why I study older stuff now.

Link please. I have provided in this thread 2 links that describe mountains of reference to case law as well as the judgements & results of said laws.

Also, I have supplied a link to an exhaustive anthropological study which (to the academic's chagrin) illustrates clearly the path to a society's rise and fall as a relation to the legal empowering of women over men, which then leads to women's unlicensed (and hostile) "sexual freedom" which then destroys the family, and thusly destroys the society. (I can provide you pretty clear evidence that destroying the family is feminist agenda).

About the only honest "oppression" which feminists can claim is that female sexuality was suppressed.

Btw. Here's some legal jargon you Marxist-feminists probably don't brag about too much:

"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, MAKE UNEQUAL TREATMENT NOT UNEQUAL AT ALL." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law," Yale Law Journal, 1991

Sounds like a pretty consistent female theme to me.

Btw, nothing I've written about here comes from, nor was funded by, the Department of Men's Studies.

4:34 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

"randian said...
We've seen female teachers actually go to prison for this

True, but don't forget there is a disturbing double standard regarding sentencing in those cases."

Double standards exist. Some benefit women and some benefit men. Neither kind has any bearing on my point.

4:37 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Rob Fedders said...

Btw, I'd like to see some criminal investigations done into many feminist "studies," because in many cases they are fudging and distorting numbers in order to get tax-funding (like for DV)... and that is fraud and ought to be investigated and treated as such. That's what we do to people like, say, Mr. Made-off.

4:56 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Rob Fedders said...

Also, I am not denying that husband and wife "own" eachother... I left a link up there as well about "being owned as chattel" which explains my position, and how the ancient contract of marriage is an economic one based upon property rights. (Romance only came into the equation fairly recently. Marriage was about survival).

I have though, never heard of an actual law referring to women as "chattel." (They weren't, not in Christendom, anyway. For then you would have the power of life or death over them, which people didn't - Cows & chickens are considered your property, and you are within your rights to kill them, because you own them. You are also not breaking any laws by smashing your own car with a baseball bat). But that people "owned" eachother is certainly true in certain regards - they had claims upon eachother. We still "own" people today, lol, because if your children don't belong to you, then exactly who do they belong to? The Village? Can I discipline your kids then if I see fit?

But, make no mistake, the wife also owned the husband - which feminists conveniently left out.

Women still "own" men today... it's what they sue for via alimony and childsupport - they "own" something intangible of the husband/father, which is the basis for their monetary claims - they "own" a claim to his labour, which is slavery at worst, indentured servitude at best.

It's really a rather hypocritical charge of the fembots to keep screeching "chattel." They are just plain idiots.

Mr. Bax deals with this quite extensively, in that during the 19th & 20th Century, from whence he lived, despite the laws on the books, a husband was effectively prevented from exercising "property rights" over his wife, but at the behest of the courts, a wife's "property rights" upon her husband was enforced rigorously, exactly as it is today.

All at a time when feminists were screaching just as loudly about "chattel," lol.

It's just like the "vote" issue. Landless White Men got the vote in the mid-1850's to mid 1860's, Black Men around 1870, Women by 1895 to 1920, Indians by the mid 1920's, and btw, many of the young soldiers sent to die in war didn't have the vote either (too young).

But, make no mistake, women have now been bitching about "the vote" longer than the amount of time that suffrage was male only. Btw. In many places in the West, land-owning women could vote too - because they paid taxes (which was the justification, originally ushered in for spinsters & widows - vigorously supported by men, I might add), although, sometimes they were required to vote by proxy.

But, I take it you read lots, so I trust you will get right on it to examine those links I provided, right?

Lol! I swear, Mr. Bax must be Angry Harry's great grandpa or something.

5:49 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

The confusion about "chattel" and all the rest may come from the old idea of coverture - which actually existed.

Feminists also misunderstand law as much as they misunderstand history and other fields. Or else they are intentionally twisting things around.

The big point feminists talk about with coverture was that a woman had to also get her husband's signature on a big purchase or loan (not for everyday items or "necessaries").

How oppressive.

But then they don't talk about WHY it was that way. Most work hundreds of years ago involved back-breaking agricultural or industrial work. Women just didn't work in those jobs - they still don't today - and there weren't many openings for professor of women's studies.

So the men obviously had to pay for their wives. That developed into an OBLIGATION on the part of the husband to pay for anything the wife incurred. Any damage she caused, any loan she took out etc. - the husband was on the hook for it, but the wife wasn't, and that was a natural extension of the fact that the wife didn't work.

If you think about it, it is only fair that the husband should know about any big loan or purchase on the part of the wife - because HE'S FRIGGIN' RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and she isn't.

Now it's interesting that these laws ("married women's property laws") have long since been overturned in every state, but some vestiges remain. As late as the 1940s, it was common for the man to be held responsible for his wife's fines when she committed a crime.

Even today, plenty of women sit home. The husband HAS TO pay for anything they run up, any damage or torts they cause etc. (who else is going to pay)?

The system is pretty good for women today: All of the benefits and none of the responsibilities. And they're still complaining and trying to use different situations in the past as leverage.

6:01 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

I picked out "coverture" because I have seen feminists misinterpret it in a myriad of ways, including to mean that the husband "owned" the wife, the wife was the property of the husband etc.

It's odd that it's a big deal when a physicist is caught fudging data in a small way (i.e. "straightening out" his curve or the like) and no one says anything (or maybe no one dares say anything) when feminists come up with the most outrageous distortions, inventions and outright lies. Bizarre.

6:08 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger John Salmon said...

Double standards aren't always a bad thing, given the inherent differnces between males and females. Yelling "double standard!" endlessly is a little silly.

6:16 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Doom said...

I just see it as the law understanding women are not equal. Much as many of the quota rules, written or not. Both are indications by the law that inferiors need... special care. It seems states go too far in one way, or too far in the other, which begs to ask why more people keep begging for more state.

I quit that argument because of the Republican response, good luck to the rest of you.

6:28 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

Maybe it's the law assuming women are not equal. Ticks me off. Here's a book: When She Was Bad. Sadly, it is out of print. It's about how women are treated like children in not being held accountable when they do truly evil and illegal things, like we just don't have the capacity for being bad people like men do. Mary Winkler would have made an excellent chapter for this book.

This kind of thing hurts us like any stereotype can. Yes, there are differences between men and women. (Lots of the differences between "the average man" and "the average woman" are less than the differences between individuals in each group, of course.) But dang, if I screw up, hold me accountable. The flip side of "look at that sweet girl, she really couldn't be at fault here" is "look at that sweet girl, she can't accomplish anything of value".

And boys are hurt by the double standard if it's assumed that underage sex never damages males.

6:54 PM, March 24, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

John Salmon wrote: "Double standards aren't always a bad thing, given the inherent differnces between males and females."

But what about when they are a bad thing John? What about when the family court's of America routinely sentence the children of divorce to a life without their father? Are you aware what that does to children? I am not talking about theories here, I am talking about hard scientific data that has been verified and repeated.

You think that might be worth complaing about and trying to fix?

We do.

And I cannot think of anything that would justify your let it go position on that issue.

Trey

8:24 AM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger Bolie Williams IV said...

I really dislike the way that laws originally about rape have now become about any sexual misconduct. As a parent of small children, I'd like to be able to use the sex offender database to see if there are any potential threats to my children in the neighborhood. But I have to wade through pages and pages of "sex offenders" who committed a crime that was either "harrassment" (which could be anything from telling a dirty joke to slapping a coworker on the ass) or statutory rape as a young person or some other offense. It's getting so that the database is clogged up with a mix of serious offendors and people who are really no threat to anyone around them.

And the whole issue of teen sex should just not be a matter for criminal courts unless assault was involved. Teenagers have sex and make dumb decisions. That's why they can't sign contracts or vote or drink. But they can be held responsible for having sex? Whoever wrote this law forgot what it was like to be a hormone-soaked teenager.

Personally, I believe the law should treat everyone equally but we should have a double-standard socially. Young boys should be taught to treat girls with respect and to be somewhat protective of them. Likewise, young girls should be taught to treat boys with respect as well and to not be offended if a boy or man holds a door for them or offers to help them carry something heavy. I can work for a woman who I respect as a professional and a coworker and a boss and still hold the door for her.

1:03 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

Sounds kind of pathetic.

You're pleading for a right to do things for women without getting treated with disrespect by them.

2nd note: No one ever brings it up, but boys / young men can also be easily manipulated by girls in some instances. And men can be manipulated by women. Maybe we ought to also teach boys to look out for themselves in that regard.

1:17 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

Women need to be taught all over again that there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a vagina.
It's OK to be female. This ranting, raving and acting out by feminists is just not necessary. Grow up already, and discard this childish penis envy.

1:23 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

"Women need to be taught all over again that there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a vagina."

This sounds like the Vagina Monologues" to me. I believe I'll skip this bit of education if you don't mind.

1:30 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

One sentence? All you can harp about is one sentence?

What about the other two sentences?
And women say men never listen.

1:43 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

Just wait until I come out with the prostate chronicles.

1:44 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

I wouldn't have characterized my brief comment as "harping".

I didn't respond to your other (three) sentences b/c I didn't think you were talking to me. I'm happy to be female. I've been knowing it's OK. I don't think I rant, rave, or act out, and I don't envy any body part you have.

2:11 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger Rob Fedders said...

Lol! OK, I have been trying to follow the circularity of the “quote” from J.M. Cornwell.

I wonder if J.M. Cornwell has actually read the book in question or is just asserting gobbledegook? I find it hard to believe that if there was such damning evidence as J.M. Cornwell indicates, that the 50 Trillion Women’s Studies Departments around the world would not have flooded the internet with it already… instead, 2 articles, both referring to eachother without actually even listing the quote itself… and then a blind reference from J.M. Cornwell to Amazon, where we ought to look it up ourselves, by ordering the book, I suppose. Even separating the sentences brings no different results. Lol! It’s all pretty flimsy, but let’s carry on.

"In 1970, for example, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a wife was 'at most a superior servant to her husband . . . only chattel with no personality, no property, and no legally recognized feelings or rights?" The 1974 George legislature approved a statute that defined the husband as "Head of the family' with the 'wife . . . subject to him; her legal existence . . . merged in the husband, except as so far as the law recognizes her separately, either for her own protection, her own benefit, or for the preservation of the public order.' Until the early 1980s, a Louisiana statute gave husbands exclusive control over the disposition of jointly owned community property."

First off, even by googling only for the first sentence, rather than the whole quote, the same two places only come up as a result. Although there is a google book about women’s legal history that comes through there, but again, it is only a mere repeat of the exact same line, and again, a pure feminist piece. I decided not to piss around reading all of that drivel just to find a sentence which I already know exists. Reading feminist filth makes me want to stick a pencil in my ear and see if I can kill myself.

Why does me thinks this is a run around wild goose chase?

In fact, the whole first sentence of the quote – notice that the first part of the sentence begins as a statement, and yet, it ends as a question? Highly suspect, wouldn’t you say?

In fact, if you go word by word into google, you will find no other reference to this until you have entered enough words that, again, the entire quote in question comes back up – lol, again referring to the same feminist sites. Weeee! Round and round we go. This is apparently the only reference to such damning evidence, and we are simpletons for not having read it.

The 1974 Georgia statute is again cherry picked. It is in reference to a divorce/custody dispute wherin the wife took the separated husband’s company vehicle, and the husband reported the missing vehicle to his company and the separated wife was reported to the police. She was subsequently arrested for theft. Lol! The charges were dropped and then the wife tried to turn around and sue the husband and the company. The statute that is in reference is over the issue of whether one spouse can sue another spouse (they were separated, not yet divorced), of which they determined cannot be done because a husband and wife are supposed to be “merged into one” and therefore a tort cannot be brought forth.

Here is what was originally said (notice the direct stating that of legal fiction?):

1. Insofar as the dismissal of Mrs. Bradley's suit against her husband is concerned, this state has long adhered to the fundamental common law concept that "a husband and wife, in legal fiction, are one person; and the common law is of force in Georgia, except where changed by the statute law of this State; and under the common law neither could maintain against the other a suit based on tort. [Cits.]" Eddleman v. Eddleman, 85 Ga. App. 721, 723 (1) (70 SE2d 152) (1952). Nevertheless, it was concluded that Code 53-501 prohibited such suits. That Code section recites that "The husband is the head of the family and the wife is subject to him; her legal civil existence is merged in the husband, except so far as the law recognizes her separately, either for her own protection, or for her benefit, or for the preservation of public order." Ga. L. 1855-1856, p. 229. [1]

Basically, they are saying they are “merged into one” and one cannot sue oneself. They are upholding the Biblical view of marriage, aren’t they? Again, marriage is intended to be a religious institution, not a government one. (You used to only, and in fact still can, get married on a family Bible, and it holds up without the State license, apparently – or so I’ve read. It’s how marriage was done until only recently, lol, about when the Fembots started screeching). Shocking – that a religious institution stating the two are to be joined as one with the husband to be the head of the family and the wife to submit to him, could actually be referred to in court as the two having been one, with the husband being the head of the family, and the wife to submit to him. Gasp! Quite frankly, I fail to see the point of the horrors.

Notice the difference in the two quotes though? The fembot one leaves out the definition “her legal CIVIL existence is merged in the husband” (and then the law goes on to say, except not really – only insofar as the definition of “family” is concerned – duh, two into one) and instead the shifty quote implies merely that “her legal existence…” and also leaves out it is intended to be legal fiction (in order to create marriage-unity/two-into-one).

I fail to see the problem. Was she illiterate, deaf, dumb and blind when she took her marriage vows? Was she brought to the altar at gun-point or did she agree to the contract of marriage? Umm… really now. Second class citizen? Chattel?

What, really then, is the point of being married if both parties stay as separate as possible? That can be accomplished by, um, staying apart, can’t it?

Are children subject to their parents? Does this mean they are not “persons under the law?” See what happens if you harm one of them, and tell me they are not “persons under the law.” (Btw. My understanding is that it was Suffragettes themselves who stated this, as they refused to be counted for the census, stating that because they could not vote, they were therefore not “persons under the law.” Which is ridiculous.)

And LOL! The third one: Until the early 1980s, a Louisiana statute gave husbands exclusive control over the disposition of jointly owned community property."

Yeah, uh huh, pooooooor women! – Until you read this: “The problem of how to preserve the individual wealth of the spouse during the continuance of the marital partnership is one of the important unsolved problems of community property law.” So wrote Professor W.O. Huie in 1953 apropos of Louisiana’s jurisprudence, which at that time attempted to protect the wife by making it difficult for the husband, the sole and exclusive manager of the community, to recover his separate estate by reimbursement. When Louisiana shifted from husband management to a general rule of equal management of the community property in 1980, gender-specific protection in the reimbursement rules was appropriately jettisoned.

Laughing.
Out.
Loud.
(With fortissimo!)

How many times have we seen this before? Laws designed specifically to protect the women are twisted by feminists to be oppressive laws foisted upon them by the “evil patriarchy.” Kinda reminds me of when a humane 8hr work-day for women and children was implemented, and feminists twisted it as men trying to hold them back, because the men were still working 16hrs a day at the bottom of the mine shafts… lol. At the time it was done because it was thought to be abusive to women and children to work 16hrs a day in an unsavoury sweat shop. But, now it was is attributed to the “evil patriarchy.”

Feminists are patently dishonest.

Btw, as far as “chattel” goes, like I said here, “ownership rights” is in regard to a woman’s sexuality and the products thereof (children), which were the basis for the marriage contract in the first place, and for which, a husband also gave ownership rights of his labour to the wife and the children. This was all knocked away in the 1800’s already, in that the husband effectively lost his rights to his wife’s sexuality, nor was even permitted to divorce her for not providing him with it, while the state upheld his end of the bargain all along, and still does today. (The spousal rape shriekers further killed this – and, I don’t care to argue about spousal rape or whatever, I am merely pointing out specifically what “ownership” was meant to be, and also, feminists conveniently leave out that wives also had (and still have) ownership rights over the husband based on the same ancient contract, and still enforced as such). All of the crapola over chattel is about a woman’s sexuality being the property of a husband… which is, of course, what marriage is about… the use of a woman’s sexuality to procure children for the husband, who pays her for it with his labour and resources.

That times have merely changed or modernized, in no way means that there was some vast conspiracy of patriarchy trying to harm women.

Dead fish. Live fish… why does the dead one weigh more?

2:40 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

Laura, I'm joking.

However, I was talking to you because you responded to my tongue in cheek post. It's a slow day at work. What can I say?

I will admit though, I didn't expect you to be the one to grab the hook.

2:45 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

With regard to the legal fiction that the "husband and wife are merged into one":

They aren't even getting biblical or anything else there. That's simply a legal fiction (principle) in torts, and it's there because it would be very easy for a husband and wife to collude.

The wife is not "really" suing the husband, if the husband loses, he doesn't pay anything, the INSURANCE COMPANY pays, and you can then see the problems that could arise for the insurance company when the plaintiff and defendant are both colluding against it.

---

I'm starting to think that a good time-saving policy is to just know that feminists are unethical, agenda-driven and not at all against outright lying to rouse people up. It isn't even worth tracking down their drivel.

3:02 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger Dave Cornutt said...

JG, there are more than just vestiges of coverage remaining... but they don't work the way the gender feminists claim. Very much the opposite. In Alabama, a married woman is automatically granted co-title to any property purchased or owned by her husband. However, the reverse is not true: a wife can buy and hold property in her own name only, and unless she explicitly grants co-title to her husband, he has no claim to it. Similarly, a wife has rights of survivorship regarding real property, but a husband does not: On a jointly held property, if the husband dies, the wife has rights of survivorship that trump any and all provisions of the husband's will for as long as she lives. However, if a wife owns the couples's residence in her own name only, and she dies and her will leaves the house to the children, then they can legally evict the husband.

3:09 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Feminists will repeat the same distortions and lies over and over and over again. And it works, because it gets into the consciousness of the general public.

A good one is: Women only earn 75 cents for every dollar a man earns FOR EXACTLY THE SAME WORK.

The first part is correct (well, 70-some-cents, maybe not 75). According to the US Department of Labor (only looking at people working more than 35 hours), women on average earn less than men on average - whatever the current figure is.

The second part in capital letters is the lie. The Department of Labor did not differentiate at all with regard to who did what work, and other studies have shown the men work longer hours and over longer chunks of their life, and work at jobs that are more dangerous and dirty.

Whether you think an engineer (typically male) and a nurse (typically female) should earn exactly the same and is not the point. The point is that these are not exactly the same jobs like the feminists keep hammering home.

It's almost ridiculous that people don't see through these tactics, but the general public eats that stuff up. Feminists are given a complete pass for some reason.

3:11 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Dave Cornutt,

I know - that applies in a number of states. What you are talking about is called "Dower Rights" (not dowry, dower). That's almost buried in the flood of other rights a woman gets on your assets when you get married.

A law was just repealed a few years ago in Florida: Under that law, a widow got a big break on property taxes, but not a widower. A poor widower actually sued, and the Florida Supreme Court upheld the law under the theory that women had been oppressed, so this was making up for it.

The legislature quietly repealed that law years later - it was just a few years ago.

3:15 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger Adrian said...

Likewise, young girls should be taught to treat boys with respect as well and to not be offended if a boy or man holds a door for them or offers to help them carry something heavy.

LOL. Young girls should be taught to treat boys with respect and be modest and faithful to their boyfriends and not lead boys on that they have no intention of dating and not emasculate or humiliate boys by, among other things, trying to suck them into their female social games and.... But, to do that, you would practically have to put an end to the American public high school.

I'm starting to think that a good time-saving policy is to just know that feminists are unethical, agenda-driven and not at all against outright lying to rouse people up. It isn't even worth tracking down their drivel.

No. You have to do it. If it goes unchallenged, then it just becomes another thing that "everybody now knows". That's what pisses me off so much about it. They get to say whatever the hell they want to while we always have to apologize profusely for telling the truth.

3:44 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3:46 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

"Laura, I'm joking."

Sorry for my lack of humor, Junior Sample.

; )

3:53 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger MJ said...

Again the smug condescenscion. Let's go through the history:

J.M.Cornwell said...
This is a case of the rules that were set down that made women the weaker sex and second class citizens, and still referred to and considered chattel by most of the laws on the books, biting the men that wrote them in the hind quarters.

And JG respnds: Wouldn't those guys be long since dead?

So the point seems to be that the men who wrote these laws hundreds of years ago are not the same men being bitten on the hindquarters now. Let's see if JM can keep up:

J.M.Cornwell says...
"JG: Stating a fact doesn't make it condescending or smug, just right."

Nope. Clueless. I propose all women be sent to jail for Augusta Gein's child abuse. Do you agree JM? If not, why do you advocate that guilt pass from one man to another but not between women?

5:33 PM, March 25, 2009  
Blogger Archivist said...

These disparities are allowed primarily because of loopy, chivalrous judges and prosecutors.

1:00 PM, March 26, 2009  
Blogger K-Man said...

J. M. Cornwell: The words in the purported Ohio supreme court ruling about a wife being chattel are actually from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765. Either the supposed Ohio case is bogus, or the court cited Blackstone to make a point or raise a question and the writer of the book Capital Punishment took the quotation deliberately out of context. I suspect the former. No one has come up with a legal citation for this Ohio case, yet you would think such an inflammatory statement supposedly made as recently as 1970 would be footnoted and the case cited.

It isn't surprising that the fembots are playing rope-a-dope with that quote. Their "research" and court citation tactics remind me of those used by the tax protesters and "sovereign citizens" in the heyday of those movements in the mid-1990s. They would cite quotations from supposed cases to make their points about how you don't owe taxes to the feds, how you aren't a US, but only a state, citizen, unless you sign vertain things unwittingly, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

The reality was this. When I checked their citations (which isn't that hard; refer to any first-year book on the law on how to look up and find cases from the citations), I found the following: (1) quotations taken out of context; (2) misrepresentation of what a case was about; (3) misrepresentation of the verdict in the case or its meaning; or even (4) completely bogus quotations--statements that actually did not appear in the cited case. Of course, the tax protesters and their allies knew that hardly anyone would bother to check their citations, yet would accept them at face value.

The fembots are doing the same thing. As Rob Fedders notes, the other two cases mentioned in the quotation from the book are not what they appeared to be. Ditto for this Ohio supreme court quote. I smell a big rodent with that one. It, too, belongs on Rob's list of feminists' spectacular misstatements and lies.

5:41 PM, March 31, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

There are some groups in society that want to appear trustworthy - and although there are occasionally glitches, they do make an attempt to tell the truth.

Women's studies at universities and feminism in general are not among those groups.

I have seen feminists time after time (this mysterious Ohio case is probably an example) either getting something completely wrong, and then publishing their version of it, or just out and out making things up. And although some of it is just due to arrogant ignorance - feminists don't understand law and history and other subjects as much as they think - a lot of it is conscious, deliberate, wilful lying and misrepresentation.

Feminism has to have an oppressed victim, so if one can't be found, one is just created.

4:16 PM, April 01, 2009  
Blogger Jaya said...

I'm making a public announcement about the double standard of teen rape and rape.I was emailing you to know more about the double standard of teen rape and rape.Why is it important to know about the double standard of teen rape and rape? what message can i give to let people understand no matter what gender you are boy or girl rape is.I defined the double standard of teen rape is when an older boy or girl goes with a younger girl or boy i defined rape is when a person is being force to have sex with a another person.I wont to know how you defined the double standard of teen rape and rape.

12:42 PM, April 30, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home