|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the sentence appears substantial in this case, and it's about time; her plea that she was not a monster or a bad person apparently fell on deaf ears.
I find it incomprehenisible and hypocrital that she was teaching her own kids about good touch, bad touch, and practicing bad touches on someone else's kid.
By the way, blaming the marriage in this case is about the same as blaming the husband, in my opinion. She can offer all the excuses she wants, but, once again, it has to be pointed out that a man wouldn't have gotten by with ANY of them, nor should he.
fritzc77
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is indeed the marvelous part: in the past, women accused of crimes, no matter how horrible, could turn on the waterworks and offer the "poor-widdle-me" defense. I had PMS. I had PPD. I was taking Advil and it made me crazy. My husband made me do it. I was stressed. I was beaten by him five years ago. My mother used to call me "fatso." I didn't understand. I'm just a poor widdle woman. My children need me. Please don't make me responsible for my actions.
Finally it seems that judges are starting to see this sh*t for what it is: self-serving rationalization after the fact.
Women are all hot for "equality," but when the chips are down and "equality" means being punished for misusing their power, they (meaning most women) toss all the "equality" stuff and rules of conduct out the window and try whatever they can to wriggle out from under the hammer.
From the entry "Suffrage" in Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary: "The woman most eager to jump out of her petticoat to assert her rights is first to jump back into it when threatened with a switching for misusing them."
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
