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.
Social selection believes that no necessary and universal sex roles exist ; what each sex does is subject to negotiation in local circumstances.
But if, generation after generation, female choice weeds out males with bad genes, then eventually no bad genes should remain, which presents an internal contradiction in the logic of sexual selection... These additional schemes have never been tested much less verified.
Accordingly, a peacock's tail, a rooster's comb, etc., facilitate male-male interactions, and females are indifferent to them.(etc=a man's bank balance)Let's see, what is a suitably academic reply...ROTFLMFAOUILBCASM (rolling on the floor laughing my f-ing ass off until I lose bowel control and soil myself.)
In some species, homosexuality is mostly between males ; in others, mostly between females; and in still others, both.Okay, that's it, I am going to see if my grammar school English teacher is still alive and if she still has that ruler she used to hit me with. Sometimes mostly A, sometimes mostly B and sometimes mostly both, got it.
Well, when you have a wife who's being represented by an attorney who is a british harpie, PRO BONO.... they can easily drain you financially. The longer they drag out the divorce, they kill two birds with one stone.. they buy time to bolster credibility for her while slaying you with lawyers fees to counter every stupid little motion they file for. Believe me, it is skewed.
It IS my experience, and considered opinion at this time, that differences in gender roles are largely due to socialisation, not biology.
To take an example: stands2p, on this thread, names 'courage' as one of the masculine virtues. I'm not disagreeing with you that it has played out historically as a 'masculine trait' - but I really wonder how this can be proved, scientifically, to be innate to men. (I'm not assuming that you think that, stands2p, BTW - I can't tell from your post.)
I think legislation which sees no difference in gender, therefore, can elide the voices and experiences of those who do. But I also think legislation which recognises differences can be inherently problematic when it comes to deciding how that difference is applied to groups.
Karen Enright, president-elect of the Women's Bar of Illinois, shared similar feelings. "It's actually a disappointment to the profession and to the institution of marriage, which is something our community holds as sacred,'' she said. "Our profession, and lawyers in general, have been under attack for advertisements similar to this and I think,'' she said, pausing. "I think that it's not in good taste.''
How about using GPS monitoring to stop batterers?
By Maura Kelly
Updated Friday, May 4, 2007, at 12:38 PM ET
GPS devices may help protect victims of domestic violence
Last month, 26-year-old Rebecca Griego was shot and killed by her ex-boyfriend, Jonathan Rowan, as she sat in her administrative office at the University of Washington. Rowan had previously threatened to harm Griego, her sister, and their dogs, and she had gotten a restraining order. She'd also passed out pictures of him to her co-workers so they could serve Rowan the order if he showed up at the campus. And she'd moved to a new apartment and started working from home for two weeks before her death. None of this, of course, helped her.
What might have? In fact, Washington had a good tool in place: a state law that allows judges to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of a restraining order. When judges so order, the police can keep tabs on abusers with a technology best known to people who are bad with directions: the global positioning system.
Just as GPS can find a lost driver, it can also alert cops and targets whenever a domestic-violence offender enters a restricted zone, like the area surrounding a woman's...
...home or office. Police put an electronic bracelet on the batterer that sends a signal to computer servers at headquarters if he goes anywhere he shouldn't. Then, if he violates a restraining order, they can call the woman to let her know that he is on his uninvited...
...way. The idea is to buy women crucial time, even if it's only minutes, so they can get away. The notification loop also kicks in if the offender tries to remove or deactivate the bracelet.
In addition to their value in emergencies, GPS monitoring also may deter offenders from violating restraining orders in the first place. The Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center in Amesbury, Mass., which has been tracking the local success of GPS monitoring, has found that none of the batterers it is studying have committed any serious infractions (beyond "administrative" no-nos, like letting the batteries on their bracelets run low). Knowing the law is on to them may make batterers less likely to break it.
When you think about it from a battered woman's point of view, GPS surveillance seems like "a no-brainer,"...
... in the words of former Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, who helped to push through a monitoring law in her state. Along with Massachusetts and Washington, six other states--Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Utah--have laws that explicitly establish parameters for the electronic surveillance of batterers. Judges in other states may be able to use GPS monitoring too, under the theory that doing so would help to enforce the kind of protection that a restraining order is supposed to (but often doesn't) provide.And this lack of eagerness is the only mention of civil liberties this article contains, however...
To be sure, GPS monitoring for batterers isn't a cure-all. It raises civil liberties concerns (though I didn't find anyone who was eager to press that argument)....
... It's also possible that the occasional abuser might be so enraged by the cops keeping an electronic eyeball on him that he'd be more rather than less likely to get violent again. This issue comes up with restraining orders, too. The best solution, domestic-violence experts say, is for police to talk to victims, who can predict fairly accurately how batterers will respond to different punitive measures...The BEST solution. When a person's rights have been tossed aside, that person no longer has any incentive to act as a member of society. The vast majority of people will submit to an unjust situation but some will not. The Ditzy Twits song "Earl" is about a pair of women who murder a man because the family court system failed. It is a "you go girl" favorite for women everywhere. Adding more injustice to a screwed up system will just beget more violence. The true BEST solution is to address the gross inequities of the family court system.
In addition, victim advocates point out that GPS monitoring can't protect women from the damage abusers can do long-distance--like leaving threatening voice messages or ruining their credit rating. But the evidence from the Geiger Center argues otherwise, because none of the guys in that study have tried to harass their victims in any way. The research is small-scale and preliminary but matches the thinking of advocates, who believe GPS monitoring will deter a range of transgressions by sending a stronger message than a restraining order that the justice system takes battering seriously. ...The study merely shows that a larger percentage of people can be cowed into submission when they are faced with intrusive surveillance and police intimidation. This is not news.
The real barrier to GPS monitoring is paying for it....Well then, identifying the real barrier to anything is the first step to implementing it. Surely women have some ideas for raising the money in our robust free market to pay for something they want...
Though electronic surveillance has gotten cheaper in recent years, it still costs $10 a day--$300 a month per offender. (In addition to the bracelets themselves, the cost includes the GPS servers and software and the salaries for the people operating the computers.) Some states, like Massachusetts, plan to make offenders pay for the monitoring themselves. ...
That approach could backfire, however, in the case of a guy who's also required to pay child support. While he goes to jail if he refuses to pay for GPS monitoring, all that happens if he doesn't write his child-support check is that his wages may be garnisheed. So, an abuser low on funds might logically skip child support instead of the GPS payments. And if he does go to jail, he can't earn the money to pay the child support.
Victim advocates would prefer that the government cover the cost of monitoring.Caution, fuzzy math ahead.
They hope it will pay for itself with savings in other areas, like a reduced need for family shelters--where one-quarter of occupants are typically fleeing abuse--and fewer pricey murder trials. One potential source of funding is the federal Violence Against Women Act of 2005. VAWA is supposed to fund states to improve the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of violent crimes against women. The question is how much money Congress will put behind it. If fully funded, VAWA could mean $1 billion for the states, some of which could go toward GPS monitoring.
Still, even if well-funded, cool new technology has its limits. Before he murdered Rebecca Griego, Jonathan Rowan went into hiding. The police never found him, so they couldn't slap him with the restraining order Griego got, and they wouldn't haven't been able to track him using GPS, either. For monitoring to work, the police must first get the bracelet on the offender.
Rowan had at least three aliases and two passports
His closest friends say they knew he was conning them.
I knew he would screw me over if he had the chance, but there was always something likeable about him
Rowan would often get away with his shortcomings because he had a certain charm.
we always kind of watched over our backs a little bit because we knew there was something shady about him.
Rowan threatened him, saying he "didn't know who he was messing with.
notified the FBI of his suspicions that Rowan was in the country illegally and might be dangerous
I would have never expected this from him
A former lover of the missing wife of Linux programmer and accused spouse killer Hans Reiser has confessed to killing eight people unrelated to the case, prosecutors informed the defense last week.(emphasis added)
Sean Sturgeon, a one-time friend of Reiser's, had already been a focus of the defense team's efforts to shift suspicion off Reiser in the disappearance of his estranged wife, Nina Reiser. Sturgeon's alleged confession to a series of unrelated murders will likely complicate the trial, which is set to begin Monday.
Counselors side with women because most women can't shut the fuck up. Counselors don't side with men because men are staring at the clock and want to see results for their dollar.