Girls Charged With Animal Cruelty as Burned Cat Clings to Life

Let’s see if this story makes national TV news, I suspect not. However, if this were two boys there would be no end to the coverage. In addition, if they were boys they would be thrown in a mental inst, and labeled as potential serial killers and persecuted the remainder of their life’s. These girls will get a good talking to. I suspect this type of behavior by young teenage and preteens girls is not that rare. I think we all know about the cruelty that preteen and teenage girls exhibit. It is also interesting to note that the cat was Male.

I think it is in "Myth of Male Power" - he mentions that sometimes even animals are treated better and with more care than men. Therefore I'm wondering if it would be any bigger a deal, if the two girls had set a homeless man on fire...

-ax

Most will be disfigured and/or dismembered. Pre-teen girls can be extremely cruel - not just to dolls. An argument could also be made that there is no more deadly creature on Earth then a teen - twenty something girl.

Those boys should be treated as heroes for saving that poor helpless kitten and those girls should be treated as if they lit a human infant in a play pen on fire and laughed as the child screamed in agony. I am very much against cruelty to animals and I find stories like this every bit as repulsive as if they involved human beings as the victims.

Sure turns the old "sugar and spice and everything nice" stereotype on its head doesn't it (not that it was ever true for even a single second throughout the entirety of human existence)?

The last sentence of the article reinforces that thought:

"The community's concern for the cat has prompted anger in some Sonoma County residents, who complain that the slaying of a 16-year-old boy in the same neighborhood last year did not receive as much attention."

If it wasn't perhaps the police have two new suspects to look at...

But definitely to most news agencies the priority of reporting the murder of a teen boy (unless he happened to be raped and killed by a priest or something) definitely ranks well below the abuse of an animal.

I’m not sure that the mistreatment of men is indicative of men not having power. On the contrary, men are more likely to mistreat other men than they are to mistreat women, and to some degree encourage women to mistreat men. I like to refer to these men as ‘pussy worshipers’. Take a look at the state emblem of Virginia. There is a woman trampling a man. Meaning, there is a picture of a women standing on top of a man who is lying on his back. That’s the great state of 'vagina' for you. Remember, this is the official state emblem. What's up with that?, OUCH!

"I’m not sure that the mistreatment of men is indicative of men not having power. On the contrary, men are more likely to mistreat other men than they are to mistreat women"

Okay - so some men mistreat other men. Maybe the men doing the mistreating, are at that time in a position of power, or maybe it is someone like a poor man who is in a position of powerlessness..so what? You cannot blame men as a class for the actions of some of its members. And even if you could, that does not take away from the concept of men's powerlessness, in the sense that they do not have the absolute power as a class that is assigned to them, say by feminists, who state for example: "men are more powerful, because most politicians are men". But as Farrell points out, 85% of the homeless are also men. Is that power? Another example is women's talk of the "glass ceiling". Okay; so what about what Farrell calls the "glass cellars" of the disposable sex (men)..like how dangerous jobs such as miner and firefighter are almost all men; and that men comprise almost 99% of all workplace deaths. Is that power?
How about the fact that only men are required to register for the Selective Service..is that power? How about forced circumcision..is that power? Not having as many life options as women..power?

The list goes on and on and on..check out the book:)
-ax

We are obviously being given a misleading story here. We know that teenage girls are the most perfect beings in the history of the universe, because those wonderful feminists assure us it is so, and they are incapable of telling a lie. So it is just impossible for any female to have performed this act.

And yet it seems that the cat really was set on fire, so somebody must have done it. Therefore we must find someone to take responsibility. The girls are completely exonerated of course by virtue of being in possession of vaginas, the badge of sweet innocence and all things good.

So who really did the deed? I must admit I am baffled, as it seems that there are simply no males in the picture anywhere on whom to pin the blame. There is that 11-year old boy of course, but he only seems to have come on the scene after the mysterious and inexplicable fire had started. Damnation. If only he had been seen anywhere near the scene beforehand, we would have had our perpetrator in the bag. Why oh why didn't the girls just say they remember seeing him lurking around the cats? That would have been all the proof needed.

But no. Therefore we are forced into the only conclusion that fits all the facts, incredible though it may seem. And that conclusion is that the cat set itself on fire. Don't laugh, this is serious. It is the only explanation that works. Adam, you have been rumbled. Now the real question is this: did the cat try to commit suicide and those lovely girls just happened to be passing at the time; or did the vicious and cunning monster of a feline (it is male, after all) deliberately try to frame the poor creatures? I demand answers, and propose we immediately set up a "free the innocent Sonoma County two" campaign. That cat has a lot to answer for. This endless persecution of blameless females must be halted in its dastardly tracks. Are you with me, brothers?

Of course this had to be a male cat!

If the murder of the 16 yo boy hasn't been solved yet maybe this could give law enforcement a clue as to whom the killers are?

The cat (a male-cat!) must have attacked them and they defended themselves.
There is no other explanation, why else would _girls_ do something like that. See.

Of course n.j.! How stupid of me to have overlooked this other, most likely explanation.

The cat got out of the cage in which it was locked, attacked the girls, then climbed back into the cage and locked itself in, before they retaliated in the heat of the moment by pouring some flammable liquid that they luckily happened to have about their persons over the cat, and setting fire to it with some firelighter that they also fortunately had to hand.

A perfectly understandable reaction by those poor injured victims. Well, that's grrrrrl power for you. I bet no violent male cats will be picking on those two feisty young heroines again in a hurry.

The cat didn't need to come out of the cage just as David Letterman didn't need to come out of the TV to send Satanic threatening messages to the girls.

http://petepatriarch.wordpress.com

My point is that men are to blame for a lot of their problems. This attitude of putting women on a ‘pedestal’ is a major cultural problem. In Asian, middle-east, African, Latin America, Eastern Europe this is not as common. We passed laws that give women advantages over men in college admissions, government contracts, hiring, and legal proceedings. We don’t hold women accountable for their actions. They commit the crimes, but don’t do any time. They commit murders and we make excuses for them. This must stop! What I’m saying is that men need to take back their power in the family, government, universities, education, and legal areas of this society. This is not done by whining, but by understanding the problem and changing our attitude.

It's not a one-way street. I do agree with some of the things you said, but I just don't believe the current situation is all men's fault. Even Warren Farrell leans in that wrong direction, when he says men have failed by not speaking up for themselves. (That sounds like a vestige of his days with N.O.W.).

Men are human, they will not speak to women unless they feel like they will be listened to, and they will not feel like they will be listened to unless women show that they will actually listen. And then after listening, appropriate action must occur. Farrell seems to take kind of psychotherapist-like viewpoint, that the listening itself is the important thing. That's simply not true..listening is only a first step. It should be considered a prerequisite to correntive action being taken. And the way things are now, women simply DO NOT WANT to listen to men speak from a position of weakness, because women consider that whining, and their protectors are not supposed to whine.

-ax

There are numerous culprits:

1. Chivalrous males that worship women. Women count on this and use it against men anytime they can. Religions also pontificate about men "providing" for women. It's an outdated ideal and a weak one.

2. Female narcississm. A woman's obsessive vanity must be quelled before she will hear anything ANYONE ELSE is saying. Women have an attitude that "women are always right" no matter what and this breaks down her ability to relate to men in a relationship because she only cares for things concerning herself or those like her(i.e. other women).

Women lack a sense of justice and balance. It is always women, women, women with them.

3. The female entitlement mentality. Women believe that because they are "women" that they are entitled to a good living at the man's expense or anyone else's expense whom they can exploit. The fact is NOONE OWES WOMEN ANYTHING.

4. Capitalism without morals and ethics.

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm

*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy5