Gynocentrism Sucks
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge
A woman cannot claim rape just because she was drunk, a top judge declared yesterday.
The Appeal Court ruling freed a young man jailed for rape after he had sex with a drunken student.
It also raised deep doubts over the Government's latest attempts to toughen rape laws.
Plans include a 'sex breathalyser' law under which a woman who had consumed a certain amount of alcohol would legally no longer be able to consent to sex.
But the Deputy Lord Chief Justice, Sir Igor Judge, and two other senior judges branded the idea unrealistic.
A woman who is very drunk may still be capable of agreeing to sex, they said.
They quashed the conviction of software engineer Benjamin Bree, 25, jailed for five years in December after a drunken evening with a 19-year-old student.
The girl drank between four and six vodka Red Bulls and two pints of cider and Mr Bree was also drinking heavily.
They returned to her hall of residence at Bournemouth University, where, she told Bournemouth Crown Court last year, she was 'continually throwing up'.
She said her next memory was waking up to find Mr Bree having sex with her. She told the jury her memory was "very patchy" and I knew I didn't want this but I didn't know how to go about stopping it".
Mr Bree told the court she had given her consent and "seemed keen".
Sir Igor, sitting with Lady Justice Hallett and Mrs Justice Gloster, quashed the conviction because he said the trial judge's directions to the jury had been "vague in the extreme".
He said the case meant the court had to examine the effect of voluntary heavy alcohol consumption.
Sir Igor said sex amounts to rape if the woman is incapable of giving consent. But things are different if she is still capable of making a decision.
He said: "If, through drink, or for any other reason, the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse, she is not consenting.
"Subject to questions about the defendant's state of mind, if the intercourse takes place this would be rape.
"However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape." The judge said it would not be right to lay down rules - "some kind of grid system" - that say a woman who has reached a set level of drunkenness is incapable of consent.
He added: "Experience shows that different individuals have a greater or lesser capacity to cope with alcohol.
"Provisions intended to protect women from sexual assaults might very well be conflated into a system which would provide patronising interference with the right of autonomous adults to make personal decisions for themselves."
Ministers had been expected to publish a paper setting out a new law on rape and alcohol early this year.
It has failed to appear and there has been speculation that the Government has run into deep opposition from the judiciary.
Earlier this year the Council of Circuit Judges, which represents 637 judges who sit in Crown Courts, said it should be left to juries to decide whether a woman is capable of consenting to sex.
Home Secretary John Reid and his ministers remain committed to pushing up the number of convictions for rape, which they say is far too low.
At present only one complaint in 20 ends in the conviction of a man in court.
The Home Office said yesterday: "We need to tackle the myths, particularly the view that victims are either partially or fully responsible for the assault they have experienced if they have been drinking.
"Rape is never the responsibility of the victim, whatever the circumstances."
The Home Office has been considering a study by the Association of Chief Police Officers which found that a "significant" number of rape and sexual assault victims had drunk at least the equivalent of eight pub glasses of wine.
This is equivalent to two and a half times the drink driving limit.
At these levels, said the ACPO study, a woman can be expected to show "marked intoxication levels".
But it warned that back calculations used to work out how drunk a woman may have been at the time of an alleged rape could give only approximate answers.
QuoteInside the family court
The family courts make crucial decisions on the custody of children that will affect them and their parents for the rest of their lives. But it is all done behind closed doors.
BBC Radio 4 has been given exclusive access.
Outside court room 2 at the family proceedings court in Wells Street, London, Jonathan breaks down in tears as he recalls with painful precision the last time he saw his daughter - 6 October at 9.38am.
In the past seven months, he has bombarded his estranged partner with letters and telephone messages pleading for contact, but has received no response.
Like everyone else in Britain, Jonathan has witnessed the anger of celebrities like Bob Geldof and campaigners such as Fathers 4 Justice who say the courts are biased against men.
Even his lawyer has warned him that non-resident parents, mainly fathers, are at a disadvantage, but coming here today is his last resort.
Minutes before the parties are due in court, Jonathan's former partner turns up with a friend but no lawyer.
Legal adviser Anne Fletcher, who has judicial authority to give directions in the case, reminds them that it is the welfare of their daughter, not their relationship with each other, that concerns the court and that it is best for children to have contact with both parents.
To Jonathan's surprise, his ex-partner agrees to bring the toddler to see him at a family centre once a fortnight.
A date is fixed for them to come back to court in three months if the arrangement is not working.
Attitudes changing
On the same day Jonathan comes to court, another father is granted a residence order for his two small children.
Audrey Damazer, Justice's Clerk for London's 17 family courts, insists that allegations of bias in the court are the result of a lack of understanding.
But although initial decisions may be free of gender bias, she admits that courts regularly fail to punish mothers who refuse to comply with contact orders as a display of power, or out of spite.
"It is incredibly difficult to enforce an order where a mother is adamant," she says.
Wells Street is the only court in England and Wales dedicated to family cases and resident District Judge Nicholas Crichton believes this gives them an advantage over other courts, which deal mainly with criminal law.
Society's attitudes are changing and many of the families who appear before family courts are from cultures with a different understanding of the norm.
"Cases are getting more and more complex and maybe that is because we are getting better at understanding the complexities. Staff here have the opportunity to become specialists," he said.
Visibly upset
It requires expertise and the wisdom of Solomon to decide whether or not to take a child from his birth parents.
In London, over a 12-month period, there has been a 20% rise in public law cases involving child protection and, as a result, there are long delays and an increasing concern about cost.
In court four, Judge Crichton sees a mother who has had one baby after another taken into care and is now battling for a last chance to prove that she can look after her seventh child.
Emotionally damaged after an abusive childhood and a succession of foster placements, she has avoided the pitfalls of crime or heavy drug use and wants to be sent with her baby to a residential centre where experts can assess her parenting skills.
The judge has to weigh up the possibility that she has transformed herself against the expense of an assessment which could last three months at £2,000 a week, and the delay it would cause in settling her child's long-term future.
He turns down her application and watches her collapse in a fit of crying.
As he leaves court, he is visibly upset.
"I think from her face she knew what would happen as the day went on. It's a personal tragedy for a number of people in these proceedings."
The names in this article have all been changed to protect the identity of the children.
Jenny Cuffe's reports, Inside the Family Court are on Radio 4 at 2000 BST on Thursday 8 and 15 June, or afterwards online at Radio 4's Listen again page. Wells Street is the only court in England and Wales dedicated to family cases and resident District Judge Nicholas Crichton believes this gives them an advantage over other courts, which deal mainly with criminal law.
Society's attitudes are changing and many of the families who appear before family courts are from cultures with a different understanding of the norm.
"Cases are getting more and more complex and maybe that is because we are getting better at understanding the complexities. Staff here have the opportunity to become specialists," he said.
Visibly upset
It requires expertise and the wisdom of Solomon to decide whether or not to take a child from his birth parents.
In London, over a 12-month period, there has been a 20% rise in public law cases involving child protection and, as a result, there are long delays and an increasing concern about cost.
In court four, Judge Crichton sees a mother who has had one baby after another taken into care and is now battling for a last chance to prove that she can look after her seventh child.
Emotionally damaged after an abusive childhood and a succession of foster placements, she has avoided the pitfalls of crime or heavy drug use and wants to be sent with her baby to a residential centre where experts can assess her parenting skills.
The judge has to weigh up the possibility that she has transformed herself against the expense of an assessment which could last three months at £2,000 a week, and the delay it would cause in settling her child's long-term future.
He turns down her application and watches her collapse in a fit of crying.
As he leaves court, he is visibly upset.
"I think from her face she knew what would happen as the day went on. It's a personal tragedy for a number of people in these proceedings."
The names in this article have all been changed to protect the identity of the children.
Jenny Cuffe's reports, Inside the Family Court are on Radio 4 at 2000 BST on Thursday 8 and 15 June, or afterwards online at Radio 4's Listen again page.
QuoteFunding fears over family courts
Attempts to cut delays in family courts are being hampered by a shortage of money, a committee of MPs has claimed.
Judges have tried to reduce the delays by pushing cases into specialist family proceedings courts.
But the MPs say they are worried the system does not have enough funding or legal advisers.
The committee also wants the traditional secrecy of the family courts to end - something ministers are already planning.
'Urgent'
Delays in handling family cases are seen as particularly damaging as they involve divorce and child custody disputes.
Department for Constitutional Affairs officials say the process has improved considerably in recent years and the delays have been cut.
But Sir Mark Potter, president of the Family Courts Division of the courts, told MPs there was an "urgent need" for extra legal advisers to be available to run the family proceeding courts.
He told the Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee extra advisers were "critical" to expanding the courts' work and reducing delays throughout the system.
Audrey Damazer, from the Justices' Clerks Society, said: "One of our fears is that if there are going to be cuts and we do not increase the number of legal advisers, or not replace the legal advisers we have, then we are not going to be able to take on this work."
Opening up?
In their report, the MPs say: "We are disappointed it appears that the department's continuing difficulties with resources seem to be preventing the judiciary from reducing the delays in the family court system."
Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman has promised a consultation paper will be published this month on throwing open the family courts to public scrutiny.
The public and media are usually banned from them - something critics say has been exploited by fathers' rights campaigners.
But the MPs say: "If a case must go to court, though, it would go a long way towards dispelling accusations of bias and restoring public confidence in the system if the process was open - with the necessary reporting restrictions in place to protect the child."
They say the press and public could be allowed into the court - with appropriate restrictions on what can be reported outside it.
The MPs also want everyone at least to meet with a mediator before going to court with their case. The government has so far resisted using compulsion.
Confidence call
Ms Harman welcomed the report, saying: "Family courts make major decisions that affect people's lives forever.
"It is hard to overstate the importance of their work and the difficult judgments they have to make.
"It is important that a system which affects so many is properly understood and commands public confidence.
"Public confidence depends on public scrutiny. It has to be seen to be believed and justice not only has to be done it has to be seen to be done - including in the family courts."
QuoteSuburban Mom Gave Mercedes To Teen After Sex
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- When a 16-year-old boy rolled into his driveway with a Mercedes-Benz no one had ever seen before, his mother got suspicious.
After some questioning, the teenager told his mother that the car was a gift from Lisa Frodella, 39. Police said their investigation revealed the married mother had two sexual encounters with the youth at Long Island hotels in March and April.
Frodella surrendered to police Wednesday on charges of rape and a criminal sexual act. A judge set bail at $40,000 cash, or $120,000 bond.
"We believe that 90 percent of what comes out of this young man's mouth is not true," said Frodella's lawyer, Michael DerGarabedian.
The boy is now 17, but police said the encounters occurred when he was 16 -- one year younger than the age of legal sexual consent with an adult at least 21 years old.
Nassau County police spokesman Detective Lt. Kevin Smith said Frodella, of Carle Place, became acquainted with the teenager because he knew her daughters.
"She started to groom him, giving him special attention and text-messaging him," Smith said.
The 2002 Mercedes was returned to Frodella, who sold it.
Excuse my remarks here, but Jesus - the kid must be desperate. She looks worse than Worzel Gummidge on a bad day.
Cambodian girls accuse women's group of coercing rape testimony against Australian
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia -- Nine Cambodian girls on Thursday recanted their accusations against a convicted Australian rapist, saying that a nonprofit women's group abused and coerced them into giving testimony that led to his conviction three years ago.
The girls told Cambodia's Appeals Court that 39-year-old Bart Lauwaert was innocent.Cambodian girls accuse women's group of coercing rape testimony against Australian
...
But in an unusual twist Thursday, the girls said they were coerced by the nonprofit Cambodian Women's Crisis Center (CWCC), which had provided them with shelter, into accusing Lauwaert of raping them.
"Bart is innocent. He is like a Buddhist monk," Khoeun Savy, now 18.
"I am dropping the charge against him because he never raped me. At the provincial court, the organization (CWCC) made me say he had raped me," she added.
Hoeung Kieng, also believed to be in her late teens, said the CWCC "detained me at their center for six months and mentally tortured me by not letting us out of the compound."
...
"I never abused or raped anyone," he said. "No one ever complained against me until the CWCC kidnapped the girls (from) my house, and they offered them money to complain against foreigners."
Cleghorn's home 'filled with girls'
The Cambodian group accused of bribing teenage girls to falsely testify against convicted Kiwi rapist Graham Cleghorn has broken its silence with claims he filled his home with girls as young as 11.
Cleghorn, 58, formerly of Petone, is serving a 20-year jail term in a Phnom Penh prison for the rape of five teenage girls. He maintains he is innocent and is the victim of a scam run by the Cambodian Women's Crisis Centre.
The centre has hit back with claims Cleghorn and his wife procured girls from poor villagers to live with them as house servants. It said some of the 10 servants were made to massage Cleghorn at night and five testified that he raped them.
The New Zealand Government raised concerns about the handling of Cleghorn's 2004 trial, which lasted just nine hours.
An appeal was conducted and dismissed without his knowledge in January. Foreign Affairs Ministry officials have held meetings with Cambodian authorities in an effort to bring about another appeal at which Cleghorn would be present.
Cleghorn claimed he owned valuable land adjacent to the ancient Angkor Wat ruins and a corrupt judge who wanted the land persuaded his sister, head of the centre, to offer teenage girls $US10,000 to press rape charges against Cleghorn. His daughter, Heidi Madeley, said the centre's allegations were "outlandish".
But the centre sent detailed explanations of its position to a New Zealander who was advocating a fair appeal for Cleghorn.
In the emails, it claimed the rape complainants were among a group of 10 girls, some as young as 11, who lived with Cleghorn. It said police questioned staff at two private clinics who said Cleghorn's wife had regularly brought the girls in for injections that prevented pregnancy.
"The five girls who testified and five others who were questioned by police were poor Cambodian girls aged 11-19 who lived with Cleghorn and his (wife), supposedly as domestic helpers.
"Why did he need 10 domestic helpers (when) one or two are enough for serving him and his (wife)?"
It also questioned the legitimacy of Cleghorn's relationship, claiming his wife, Buot Touer, was actually in a relationship with another man.
She had come to live with Cleghorn as a pubescent girl, the organisation claimed.
Cleghorn and his wife were arrested in October 2003 and found guilty in February 2004. Touer was given a three-year suspended sentence for conspiracy.
Mrs Madeley claimed she had visited the complainants' village and four of them had wanted to retract their evidence.
The girls lived with Cleghorn as employees of his shrimp farm. Many families were counting on an alleged $US10,000 bribe from the centre to buy their way out of poverty.
The organisation denied using bribery in its work in corruption-rife Cambodia.
"CWCC and a few other organisations in Cambodia stand against a tidal wave of sexual abuse of children and of abuse of women and children in general."
Karl[/url]"]QuoteWoman spanked at work awarded $1.7 million
Alarm company employee found camaraderie-building exercise humiliating
FRESNO, Calif. - A saleswoman who was spanked in front of her co-workers as part of what her employer said was a camaraderie-building exercise will get $1.7 million in damages.
A Fresno jury agreed with Janet Orlando on Friday that she suffered sexual harassment and sexual battery during the paddlings overseen by the security alarm company she worked for before quitting two years ago.
Jurors first awarded her $500,000 to compensate her for emotional distress, pain, suffering, past economic losses and future medical costs. They then added $1.2 million in punitive damages.
Employees were paddled with rival companies' yard signs as part of a contest that pitted sales teams against each other, according to court documents. The winners poked fun at the losers, throwing pies at them, feeding them baby food, making them wear diapers and swatting their buttocks.
"No reasonable middle-aged woman would want to be put up there before a group of young men, turned around to show her buttocks, get spanked and called abusive names, and told it was to increase sales and motivate employees," her lawyer, Nicholas "Butch" Wagner, said in his closing argument on Wednesday.
Lawyers for Alarm One said the spankings were part of a voluntary program to build camaraderie and were not discriminatory because they were given to both male and female workers.
"This is being done for one reason and one reason only -- money," said K. Poncho Baker, the company's lawyer.
Alarm One officials ceased the practice in 2004, the year Orlando sued, after another employee complained of being injured, according to court records.
I think $1.7m is a little silly for a spanked ass.
I can't help but wonder just much a man would have received (assuming we swap the positions and it was largely female-dominated company instead).
And, I agree - i'd say the practise was completely stupid, let alone degrading...
But, it does state - it was a Voluntary thing... sounds like nobody forced her to bear her ass for the men to see. Thereby strengthening my first point, that $1.7m is a silly figure for a voluntary spanking.
Meanwhile ...QuoteMan cleared of murder, rape to get $1 million from state
COLUMBUS, Ohio - A man who was freed from prison in December after DNA evidence cleared him of murder and rape convictions has reached a tentative settlement with the state. Clarence Elkins expects to receive slightly more than $1 million, said his wife, Melinda Elkins.
A spokesman for the Ohio attorney general's office said an informal agreement had been reached but would not confirm terms of the proposal.
An agreement must be approved by the state Court of Claims and the state controlling board.
Elkins, 43, served nearly seven years of a life sentence before DNA evidence cleared him of the 1998 murder of his mother-in-law and rape of his 6-year-old niece in Summit County.
Prosecutors now are investigating a man who was jailed a few cells down from Elkins.
Elkins secured a discarded cigarette butt from Earl Gene Mann, and DNA on it matched evidence found at the crime scene. Mann is a former neighbor of the slain woman.
So, there we have it:
A woman's feelings of embaressment are held far higher than seven (of a LIFE sentence) years of a man's life, imprisonment and degrading humilition of being named a rapist & murderer...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11152602/
Men are sick by the multitudes! Its taken you pathetic freaks months to come up with a handful of women who have done the same thing as 100+ times their number in men. If you should ever look back at the history of the women who have abused a child you will see in every case that the beginings of sexual abuse in that family line always started with a sick disgusting man! That is not an excuse for women who've done vile things. But, what's your pathetic point here? Sexual abuse of any kind has always had a start deeply rooted in a man's sick brain. You want things like this explained? Look at yourselves that's where the problem is and always has been. Sick freaks!
A good post guest, even if somewhat unnecessarily impolite & aggressive. However, there are many differences to account when looking at men who are convicted of male vs female paedophilia.
For example, the article & image you're using to 'prove' your case is a brilliant piece highlighting the problem of paedophiles, and brings to attention the dangers of online chat for minors.
As it happens, I used to be known as a "chanop" for ICQ (AOL) chat servers. My job was to 'police' the rooms I attended. This is something I'm pretty conversant with. It's rather good fortune that you happen to use an article about chat-rooms for your discussion piece. In short, a "chanop" is a step-down from "IRCOP". An IRCOP are the folks who hold the highest power on their server, ADMIN aside, of course. As chanop, you have the power to 'op' in any room you attend, even if the room is private and invisible or invite only, etc. You can remove individuals from rooms, and ban them if necessary - if things get too much, you go private with an IRCOP and the user in question 'disappears' forever (or until their gban (global network ban) is lifted) I served as chanop on irc.icq.com (port 6667) for some three years and trust me, you do find many weird & wonderful folks on these chat-services. When the MSN chat rooms closed, our server was quite literally inundated with 'newbies' coming over who had to suddenly learn a new way of enjoying and using the chat rooms. ICQ did not operate in the same manner as MSN and so, despite their technical expertise on MSN, they were as good as newbies for ICQ servers.
My experience may not mean much to you personally, but it did help shape my knowledge of online dangers to children, one of the areas I was required to 'police'. For example, the most prolific public-abuser on the network was female. And credit due, she was extremely clever. She knew how to impersonate people in many ingenious methods, and if you were not entirely irc-savvy, it would be only too easy to give out your life story or private details to her, under the impression you were talking to your best friend or some other close 'buddy'. She was vulgar. She used to make 'tagz' for her text, making them unmistakable and almost impossible to ignore, and repeatedly 'flood' the room with discussion of her used rag-towels, her yeast infection, how she would throw her yeast-infected & soiled rag at people passing under her window in the street below. That's just one of her favourite topics to discuss. There were, trust me on this, plenty others. And yes, child abuse came up in her chats. She was banned repeatedly because she was simply too sick for most people to stomach. They did not want to see her crap on their screen. Yeah, most could have used the "/ignore" command, but most users of IRC do not know all the functions & commands available to them - it's easier to spot someone wearing a 'police badge' and ask "Hey, Karl, can you do something about that freak?"
Anyway, the point I'd really like to make is the men you point out above were effectively caught only because the documentary folks who set this up are guilty of entrapment. They went out of their way to lure the men into a snare. Naturally, the article is not going to discuss any illegal matters that the documentary makers performed as that wouldn't look good for them. Then look at each case of female paedophilia on this forum and you'll see quite clearly that they are in the news because a child spoke up - there was no entrapment for these female child-sex abusers at all. I personally, and I doubt anyone else who is a member of this forum, do not scour the news pages each & every day looking for news on female paedophiles. I just grab those that I spot and copy them to this forum.
Now, aside from 'entrapment vs child speaking up', we also have many other barriers to consider. Most young boys wouldn't consider it abuse if they had an older women touching them up. Years ago, girls didn't either. But with the ongoing campaign girls have become more aware, and in today's world - even a look is considered rape. Yet boys are still generally ignored or mocked when they speak up about inappropriate actions of girls. Consider sexual assault. Most girls will have kicked or kneed some guy in the happy-sack at one time or other in their life. Often it's considered funny. There is a genuine phenomenon in that regard as only a ludicrously small amount of boys will have committed a kick, knee or almost any other aggressive action against girls genitals. The difference between boys assaulting girls and girls assaulting boys has no comparison. When I was in college, I got groped by a girl and it was witnessed by the tutor - the tutor just gave a knowing wink and smiled. I was mortified and had absolutely no interest whatsoever in the girl. I had no interest in gender politics back then, and even then I was well aware that if the sexes were swapped, the tutor would not be smiling, would not have winked, but would have carted me off to the office for a severe telling off. Females sexually assaulting boys or men, sexually taking advantage of (now let's not pretend that doesn't happen, eh?) men and such are all promoted and seen as 'empowering' or other such nonsense. Men who do any of the above are condemned and treated harshly. As a recent example, a man who had "intent" was given 21 years... 21 years for thinking! While a woman who had sex with a minor - she didn't think about sex with a minor , she HAD sex with a minor - was given 6 years. Hmmm. And this is the point of this forum, to reflect the double-standards in our society. We treat men far more harshly than we do women, despite the fact that women are as bad as men.Quote from: "sbc not so anonymous as you think you are"If you should ever look back at the history of the women who have abused a child you will see in every case that the beginings of sexual abuse in that family line always started with a sick disgusting man! That is not an excuse for women who've done vile things. But, what's your pathetic point here? Sexual abuse of any kind has always had a start deeply rooted in a man's sick brain.
I'd like to see some evidence of your claims that 'every case' began with a man and that any kind of sexual abuse start deeply rooted in a man's "sick" brain.... can you supply? :badgrin:
And as for 'everything being a mans fault', that's really old. And if that is the case, ask yourself this - in this world where fathers are routinely thrown out of their own homes for no crimes, single mothers through one night stands and such, who brought these 'sick disgusting men' up into adulthood?
Still want to blame men?
-----Original Message-----
From: lorraine fisher [mailto:******@yahoo.com]
Sent: 10 March 2006 11:08
To: [email protected]
Subject: Can you help?
Importance: High
Hi,
I'm a feature writer currently working for the Daily
Mail.
We're following up the news story from yesterday that
over 70 per cent of women wouldn't call themselves a
feminist.
I need to speak to younger women (from late teens to
late 30s) who share that view.
Is it possible you can help by putting me in touch
with some?
Thanks,
Lorraine
[/url]From [url=http://www.psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20030804-000007.html]Blatantly Bad[/url] on Psychology Today's website.QuoteWhy did my future husband dump me--after I catered to his every wish? But when he put his hand on me and became violent and I called the police, that's when he said it was over? Why doesn't he take responsibility for this bad act and say he's sorry and continue our relationship?
Good questions, but there's a better one you must ask yourself: Why are you so eager to continue a relationship with a guy who's putting up flashing neon signs that he's terrible mate material?
He can't apologize for his act because he doesn't really think it's bad. He thinks you did something much worse--betrayed him, by calling the cops. Of course, you acted to protect yourself, a smart move. He's supposed to love you, not assault you. Somehow, he's got some warped notions about relationships. One is that it's OK to control you by any means possible, including violence whenever his really hot buttons get pushed. Every couple faces difficult issues; you resolve them by talking them out, not duking it out.
By catering to his every wish you have not disabused him of the notion that he is entitled to demand whatever he wants from you...or else. There's nothing at all wrong with catering to a partner's whims--provided the partner caters to your needs and wishes, too. Relationships work only when they are two-way streets. You have made yours a one-way street and not put up any stop signs.
Your partner's actions suggest that, at the very least, you will be the one blamed for problems that arise in the future. You have legitimate needs for love, communication, respect and--above all--safety in a relationship. Search for a new partner who can meet those very basic needs.
My response:QuoteDear Psychology Today,
I am sure Hara Estroff Marano's recent articles on damaging relationships and domestic violence were well received by those who could use the advice, but one passage entitled "Blatantly Bad" is little more than jumping to conclusions. I would think "put his hand on me and became violent" is a bit vague and subject to perception. Just what action is that, exactly? A man holding a woman's hand in and argument could be described with that phrase. So how can we know he doesn't think his act is bad when we don't even know what the act was? Do we know for sure he has warped notions about relationships? Can we really assume from three short sentences written by a man's partner that he desires to control her any way he wishes?
There's just so much in these few paragraphs that is derived from nothing more than Hara Estroff Marano's imagination that I find the advice more threatening to decent men than helpful to women.
I write this not to make excuses for violent men, but because too many men have been prosecuted for mundane behavior their partners "thought" was violent. I hope you can understand my concern.
Herb M.
If someone could also put this up on SYG, I'd appreciate it.
Hi folks,
I have been reading a few topics on other forums about miscellaneous subjects and some of the people don't actually seem to be too interested in resolving issues between the sexes. I may be utterly wrong and misunderstanding of the stance, but some seem to be so blunt and obvious it's difficult to see it another way. Rather than equality or setting reasonable compromises, some just seem interested in bashing, a bit of hate-speech dotted about, and even stupid (imho) such as 'replacing' women for 'sex-dolls'.
Now, perhaps I'm just peculiar compared to some of these MRA's but I thought men's rights were not about abandoning women for over-sized cock-straps with limbs, but rather balancing the rights of our sex, finding happy-mediums and generally finding a balance in this world to better both men & women?
Have I misunderstood the men's' movement? Is it - for some at least - about removing women entirely from their life, or is it about, as I had thought, gaining some level of respect and decency in a world where there seems to be none? I had thought it was about undoing some of the damage inflicted upon us by feminism, redressing the boys educational facilities, or lack thereof, and rebalancing some of the harmful perceptions about men in general.
Where do you stand in this?
=karl,Dec 15 2005, 02:23 AM]
:whiteflag:
Hi good people,
I'm Karl... i'm fairly sarcastic in my nature - it drives my wife up the wall. I came here because i was reading through my web-logs and saw a bit of traffic coming from a hidden section of this forum. i registered to see what the interest was.
Anyway, i'm 29 atm, have three daughters (latest addition to my family is nearly 6months), one step-son & a step-daughter too. I cannot work at this time for legit reasons, but suffice to say i am gagging to get back into work. My field is PC technical engineer and PC sales. This makes me a SaHD(ad), and although i can't cook to save my life - i do get my bit around the house done. My wife works f/t so it's only reasonable that i do the home-chores while she sluggs her guts out to put 'bread on table'.
I'm doing a homecourse too that will enable me to have a professional seal on my CV (resume) instead of just plain experience. Between everything, it's a fairly busy life.
To give warning, i am anti-feminist. Not without good reason though, and my site does explain that for the first 24yrs of my life i was PRO-feminist. Experience can change a person from deep within, and my experience did just that...
Anyway, i hope this post isn't considered enough to be classed as 'feminist bashing' or 'hate-speech' and thrown straight into the trash can.
I'll be back tomorrow at some point, have a good day/night
) was an attempt at showing some level of 'friendliness' - as you will see from at least some of the reactions, no-matter how you address a feminist, you will still be banned without good cause.=clitoria,Dec 15 2005, 03:59 AM]
Quite why you think that coming here and saying you're anti feminist and sarcy, won't be viewed as a potentially hostile, I'm at a loss to understand. If you're anti feminist then I doubt you'll be particularly welcome here. You certainly aren't welcomed by me. If all you're doing is checking up on your wife I suggest you find another way of doing so.
=iseult,Dec 15 2005, 06:54 AM]
It will be us who comes across as hostile here I think. We do *not* welcome anti-feminists here. As we have said ad nauseum, this is not a debate board, its a community board. We may debate many issues but the immovable theme is that we are all feminists, pro-feminists or respectful of feminism.
=meerkat,Dec 15 2005, 07:04 AM]
Hi Karl
This is a site for feminists and profeminists. As iseult has pointed out, this isn't a debate board - I'm happy to debate feminism, but this isn't the place to do that, as it's intended to be a feminist / pro-feminist community.
Therefore, unless you've had a sudden change of heart, I'm afraid I'd have to say that it's unlikely you'll be made welcome here.
I hope you'll understand that this is not because we're evil feminists, but simply because it's unlikely that you'd be able to contribute within the general spirit of the board.
Regards
Jane
=meerkat,Dec 15 2005, 07:12 AM]
Just as a point of clarity - the post you refer to isn't in a hidden section of the site, it's in a section that is only viewable to registered members.
I'm suprised to find that you use weblogs to track traffic on your site. I'd thought that the general perspective on the web was that tracking traffic through weblogs is intrusive and violates individuals' privacy.
=karl,Dec 15 2005, 02:41 PM]
Hi all, i understand your position - and you're right meekat, it wasn't hidden per se, my bad. i should've used correct terminology. The web logs come as standard on most hosts - it's automatic and allows people to see where their traffic is coming from. With that, i was suprised to see a feminist board directing members to an antifeminist site. Regarding the invasion of privacy, i fully understand your point, and if i were 'snooping' i'd agree too, but it is standard for web hosts to give their customers logs. If i see, for example, site www.123456.com bringing me a lot of traffic, i'd then likely link to them in return as chances are they'd be linking to me. As for checking up on my wife i'm at a loss as to how that came up? And to be blunt, that sounds like someone has paranoia issues... but anyway, i appreciate that most of you have been polite and pleasant in your messages.. i can see the more 'hardcore' members here are somehwat more aggressive in their style.
It's been a pleasure
=clitoria,Dec 15 2005, 03:08 PM]
Rofl Kari. I think you're confusing assertion and aggression. Oh and thank you for your concern but no, paranoia is not something I suffer with. Though I have worked with a number of people who do. I just don't suffer fools gladly. Run along now, there's a dear. Is that sarcastic enough for you?
=Reactance55,Dec 15 2005, 03:22 PM]
Karl, I believe in honesty in relationships.
I don't like you. Go away.
=meerkat,Dec 15 2005, 04:16 PM]
Aw clitoria you're 'hardcore'. I must be all soft and squidgy... lol.
=clitoria,Dec 15 2005, 04:37 PM]
Yes that comment made me laugh in particular Jane. As you're aware, having known me for a few years now, I'm one of the more vocal and radical amongst the feminist community, as well as being known for my aggressive response to people. (I'm rolling my eyes here). Obviously I'd better take lessons from you and Keri, in 'how to behave'.
Two things are guaranteed to irritate me however. Someone introducing themselves on a feminist board saying they're anti feminist, expecting a welcome and then to be given space to debate how we've got it all wrong; secondly a man (and yes this is absolutely gendered) trying to admonish me.
Yes, I've got you all wrong Jane, you're obviously just a sweet little pussy cat in comparison...awww..
=iseult,Dec 15 2005, 04:39 PM]
I'm famous for my good behaviour and measured responses
=clitoria,Dec 15 2005, 04:41 PM]
Lol, yes, it's one of the things I so respect and admire in you. You're just so....polite...
=iseult,Dec 15 2005, 04:43 PM]
well its about time you started trying to emulate my good example then and stop being such a hardline derranged cow
=drshrinkme,Dec 15 2005, 04:48 PM]
I am curious--do people like Karl think that they are being refreshing and new coming onto a feminist board and anounncing that they against feminism? Because Karl, we get this crap a lot. So it is neither new, nor refreshing, nor welcome. There are many places on the web where you can vent anti feminist viewpoints. Go there.
=Reactance55,Dec 15 2005, 05:06 PM]
You go, Shrinkme! Tell it like it is!
=meerkat,Dec 15 2005, 05:09 PM]
I have just banned Karl, as he has clearly indicated that he has no interest in engaging a feminist community, and has posted in a hostile manner about this site on his own board. I won't lock this thread, but would ask people to please not address any further points to him, as he won't be able to respond.
Thanks
Jane
=Reactance55,Dec 15 2005, 05:11 PM]
Jane --- thank you.
=mole,Dec 16 2005, 12:55 AM]
"Quite why you think that coming here and saying you're anti feminist and sarcy, won't be viewed as a potentially hostile, I'm at a loss to understand."
I don't see anything assertive in that line given by clit.
"If you're anti feminist then I doubt you'll be particularly welcome here."
Nothing remotely assertive here either...
"You certainly aren't welcomed by me. If all you're doing is checking up on your wife I suggest you find another way of doing so."
Nopes, still nothing assertive in this line either, in fact, that looks like like nothing less than projection and assumption.
You claim Karl confuses 'assertive' with 'aggressive', but you don't seem to understand either word - you should at least ensure you make sense before posting while suffering your monthly rag. No wonder you have the nickname you've chosen.
And Jane, could you please explain how "posted in a hostile manner" was possible when all Karl did was QUOTE? What is hostile about quoting posts? Sounds like another case of projection to me...
His post on his own board has mocked the blatant stupidity of *some* of the members here who responded, but at the time you accused Karl of hostilities, he had done nothing - zero - with exception of quoting. And you respond, in your own words, by banning him for quoting! Not for being hostile - but for quoting...
WoW - and you expect normal people to believe that feminism is about equality and not anti-male in general? HA!
As one of my pals says "feminism cannot withstand an open debate" and you grrrrrls have proven beyond a doubt the wisdom of his words.
Karl please note that you are in copyright violation.
I failed to note any copyright notice, meerkat. Could you please give me the url to the copyright and i shall abide.
ps - thanks for temporarily suspending my account at your forum. Some might say it is a form of censorship... i'm sure that's not the case though on this occasion, right?
Quote=Queenie,Sep 13 2005, 07:08 PM
Right, inspired by Wyatt Earp's masterly rant over petrol protests, I'm going to let off a bucket of steam about everything that has been bugging me today!
First there is the ever present irritation of my (Alleged) parents (why couldn't I have been adopted, honest anyone would have been better that what I got).
Maybe they wish the same about you - perhaps your shitty attitude towards them is what keeps them from coming to your house - as stated further down..?QuoteWent to visit them on Sunday because the people we really wanted to see were ill. As soon as i went in the door they were picking at me for not leaving DA to sleep in the car on his own. then they let their three stinking dogs climb all over him and knock him down and said he was just a big baby for being scared of them. He wasn't scared of dogs at all until they let their mutts knock him over and nip him. But nothing, not children or fire flood or national emergencies can be allowed to stop their dogs from doing whatever they bloody want. To crown it all, my mother let the stinkiest of the dogs lick the babies face! I kicked the dog away (I know, but it wasn't hurt, and I was furious) and shouted at it to get away, and was treated to a lecture about how keeping kids away from all germs is more harmful than anything.
Hmm, so you're quite the conversationalist i see...As well as animal abuser, of course. And to think, your feminist buddies are all hugging you and patting on your back for this!QuoteI politely
Stop right there - i don't believe you were being polite, kicking someone's dog is barely considered polite...Quotereplied that I'm sure that's true, but babies can pick up some really nasty things from dogs, and mentioned the amount of time they spend licking their arses. My mother assured me that her dogs hardly ever did that (well they wouldn't would they?). My father did what he always does when i have an opinion not of his making, and stomped off in a huff.
This line, about your Father stomping off in a huff, made me laugh hard! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Not just you personally, Queenie, but your buddies on this 'feminist international' board you're all so proud of - i came on, i was polite and what do they do - ban me for quoting...Now THAT'S walking off in a huffQuoteWhile i think of it, there is no waymy dad could know if my house is spotlessly germ free, because my parents haven't come to visit me in over a bloody year!
Gee, i wonder why! :roll:QuoteMy mother drives past the end of our road to go and visit other people, but never bothers to come and see her own daughter or her grandchildren.
can't imagine why not...:roll::wink:QuoteNext is the fatuous, sneering bint
Ohh, name-calling - again...Quotewho works at the local dentists surgery. It took me three years to get an appointment , but the minute my husband rang there was suddenly a vacancy.
Maybe he's just a nicer person than you - did that ever occur to you?QuoteShe virtually pours herself over him, and totally ignores me except to sneer.
Again, maybe he's a nicer person!!! Take the hint, woman!QuoteWhile she was supposed to be helping the dentist she treated me to a lecture on my foul language (had said "bloody"!)
serves you right.Quoteand a stern talk about how she hoped I would be breastfeeding my baby.Dentist had his fingers in my mouth or she would have heard some really foul language!
then perhaps you can learn a lesson here - and fill your mouth more often to save everyone's ears, inc. your poor husbands that you clearly have no respect for as evidenced below...QuoteAnd worst of all, she mis-quotes the Bible at me. The little cow flirts with my husband, bitches at me, and then has the colossal nerve to qoute the BIBLE at me.ARGGGHHHHHH!
well, with an attitude like yours - i'd likely turn to the bible for strength too if i were dealing with you. does 'bitching at' and 'flirting with husband' actually equal "didn't like my shitty attitude, so gave me some shitty attitude back - but remained pleasant towards my better natured husband."
QuoteNo energy left for the git I married, but he's been punished anyway, since I've used his credit card to order a dishwasher, carpet ,dressmakers dummy, car seat and several dozen yards of silk.HA!
Oh you're just so oppressed by that evil husband, eh. And you're so liberated by 'punishing' him by spending HIS money that you've probably contributed [censored] all towards... you're just soooo clever.:roll:QuoteOOh, forgot another rant about my mother.(Read this and know all there is to know about why my mental health is so poor).
Ahh, you have issues - blame someone else! well done.Quotei told her today that I'm sitting my driving theory and hazard perception tests on Saturday. Her reply was that that's a shame since I'll almost certainly fail because my sister did. My sister has a fairly severe learning disability, but clearly I am less able than her to pass the bloody test.All those exam certificates clearly count for nothing, or i made them myself or something! When i was 14 I was entered for an exam a couple of years ahead of time, and wrote to my motyher to tell her about it, and said that the teacher must think i had some talent and how happy i was etc. I got a very terse reply saying that I was clearly getting a big head and I would have to come down to earth when i failed. Enough said!
perhaps she's just sick of your shitty attitude.
I'm Not a Male Nanny!
The Stay at Home Dad
by Kristopher Kaiyala
There we were at the mall, my two kids and me, pumping quarters into the mini merry-go-round when I noticed a grandmotherly woman staring at me askew. She watched us for a little while and then seemed to get up her nerve to approach us. "Are these your kids?" she asked.
I looked around. "Are you talking to me?" Uh-huh, she said, her eyes curious and piercing behind wire-rimmed glasses.
The thing is, it's kind of hard to mistake them for anyone else's children. The youngest--who just started walking--is a dead-ringer mini-me and demands that he be held pretty much wherever we go outside the house. The other--a natural-born shopper at age 6--loudly proclaims, "Daddy, daddy, daddy! Look at this!" whenever she sees something that catches her interest in a store, which is about every six seconds.
But I figured this woman hadn't observed any of the above behavior, so I wasn't particularly bothered. (Although, granted, she could have been a stalker-grandma. I once had a grandma follow me all around Costco only to finally catch up with us near the seedless watermelons, whereupon she reached into her purse and presented my son with a newly knit pair of white, boot-high yarn slippers. Another grandma once tailed us around the grocery store with a tissue in hand until she saw her chance to wipe my daughter's nose. Stalker-grandmas are out there, beware. Fortunately they're generally very nice.)
I politely told her that yes, they are my kids, the cute little buggers. It may have been an odd question for her to ask, but I wasn't too surprised by it. I get it every once in a while. The question usually comes when we're out and about during traditional working hours. Apparently there's something about seeing a dad with his kids during the day, when other men are at the office or power-lunching with peers or co-workers.
The grandma smiled and then hit me with another familiar comment. "Well, you don't look a lick over 18." Then I knew she must have thought I was a male nanny.
So, to all grandmas and others who ask The Question or who stare at me oddly when I walk into crowded downtown restaurants at lunch time with kids in tow or in arm: No, I'm not a male nanny. I'm a stay-at-home dad. There are quite a few of us around now, you know. You ought to take a closer look.
Male nannies do exist, and not just on reruns of Friends, but there aren't many of them--at least not compared to their female counterparts. Kind of like the ratio between SaHDs and SaHMs (stay-at-home moms), I suppose.
Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I doubt it. I suspect other SaHDs are similarly questioned or looked upon strangely in public during normal working hours. "Took the day off to be with the kids, huh?" "Is it take your kids to work day today?" The idea that I do this every day may not occur to someone until Job-Related Questions 1 through 7 are asked and answered. Of course I rarely get quizzed at the playground, where I'm likely to find a couple of other random dads--not exactly dressed for business--goofing off with their kids. But the world of retail and business lunches is another realm altogether.
There was a brief time, in my SaHD salad days, when I rarely ventured beyond the neighborhood with my kids, unless it was an evening or weekend. Even going to the grocery store on a Tuesday afternoon with my then-toddler daughter was an exercise in social valor. Fresh out of the business world, enjoying but slightly wary of my new lifestyle, I just wasn't prepared to deal with a culture that I was sure would look down on me for shopping for organic winter-squash baby food instead of attending an editorial meeting.
Fortunately there are some understanding people out there. Among the odd stares are a few faces that wear an expression more like acceptance. To those people, a SaHD going about his kid business in public any time or day of the week is cool. The response I often get from these people isn't "Too bad for you," but "Man, I wish I could do that" and "Your kids are lucky to have you around so much."
Sure, there are still days that I think about trading in my diaper-changing duties for a desk and an executive washroom key. The daily grind sometimes looks pretty good from this side of the fence. But overall the SaHD lifestyle is highly rewarding. I get to see my kids grow up one hour at a time. I'm not a slave to a cubicle. My wife is happy knowing the kids are under my direct care.
Besides, if it wasn't for being at the mall with my kids during the day, I'd never know the thrill of being stalked by a grandma.
Columnist Kristopher Kaiyala writes this feature from his home in Western Washington.
