|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
could someone post a mirror here of the article referred? i don't have a nytimes account but would still like to read it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"we're sorry, the account fuckyou has already been taken. we suggest fuckyou358 instead"
try these for l/p
fuckyou111/fuckyou
fuckyou222/fuckyou
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad,
I've copied the article here for you:
Rome Fiddles, We Burn
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON — First, a confession:
For years I have been avoiding the Masses in my parish, Blessed Sacrament, celebrated by the associate pastor, the Rev. Percival D'Silva, because his homilies — forgive me, father — are on the soporific side.
Not last Sunday's.
After a Passion Play, with kids as Roman soldiers in gold plastic helmets re-enacting Jesus' crucifixion, the Bombay-born priest launched into a poignant and gutsy sermon that snapped even the least latte-ed congregants to attention.
In a church in Chevy Chase, the priest sent a message to the Church in Rome. He called for the resignation of the Boston cardinal.
"His name is Law but he is not above the law," he said, according to those who were there. "If he loves the church, it's time for him to go. He has to go."
He was upset that good priests are being tarnished by molesters and hurt by the collusion of church leaders turning a blind eye.
"I tell you I will never hurt your children," he said, his voice trembling. "I love your children."
He mourned a screening process that had let a lot of "weirdos" and "sickos" into the priesthood. And he urged the people in the pews to take back their Church.
At first the applause was soft. Then it swelled. Then people began rising in twos and threes. Finally, there was a standing ovation.
His fighting words caught the attention of newspapers and even prompted a question at the White House press briefing, where a reporter asked Ari Fleischer if the president agreed or disagreed with Father D'Silva. (Ari hedged.)
The resonance of the sermon underscores the dilemma for American Catholics: Will they continue to pick and choose privately among the Vatican's antiquated dictums on divorce, birth control and homosexuality, and suppress doubts about a celibate, all-male priesthood?
Or is it finally time for a public reckoning? Should they demand that the Vatican, which has been shrugging off the pedophilia crisis and rejecting reforms that could alleviate it, admit its failings and step into the modern world?
The Blessed Sacrament newsletter shows how far parishioners have already traveled from the medieval tenets of Rome. There are announcements for meetings of "Separated and Divorced Catholics" and for "Always Our Children," a group for parents of lesbians and gays.
The comments of Vatican officials reflect the depths of their denial about how many American priests are gay — anywhere from 30 to 50 percent by various estimates.
"People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained," the pope's spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, said recently.
Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing, and the Vatican makes matters worse by seeming to conflate the two. Moreover, child sexual abuse is not an orientation — it's a behavior and a crime.
"If a 30-year-old man abuses a 7-year-old girl, you don't hit yourself on the head and say, `That dirty heterosexual!' " says Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former Benedictine monk and priest who has written extensively about the sexuality of the clergy.
"Remember, celibacy is also a culture," he says. "If all lawyers had to be male, unmarried and practice perfect chastity, would it change the culture? Of course."
The vow of celibacy serves as a magnet for men running away from sexual feelings they are ashamed of. And the allegedly celibate society these men enter — "A Secret World," as Mr. Sipe titled one of his books — retards their sexual development, funneling their impulses in inappropriate directions.
Vatican officials don't want to deal with that. Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos recently complained about all the coverage of priests molesting kids, noting the absence of studies comparing the prevalence of pedophilia in other professions.
"That ignores the unique sway priests have over children and the extra damage they can do," says my Times colleague Frank Bruni, an author of the 1993 book "A Gospel of Shame: Children, Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church." "When a man of God abuses you, that's an awfully devastating wound."
Father D'Silva obviously gets this. Until the men above him do, the church has surrendered its state of grace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The piece isn't out-and-out man bashing; just because she doesn't mention the possibility that there are sexually deviant nuns out there doesn't make it misandrist. Her point just seems to be that the Catholic church should be more selective about whom it accepts as preists.
I would compare it more to that guy in the Washington Times who didn't mention the factoid that a man is battered every 14 seconds. That it's an actuall possiblity doesn't enter the concious mind until its been hit over the head with a board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dowd has written two or three articles in a row on the difficulties facing the Catholic Church. The undertone of all of them has been that the Catholic Church is an all-male instituion, and therefore it represents the patriarchy, and since it is flawed in character, then the patriarchy is flawed, and wouldn't we be MUCH better off without men in charge.
She's very, very subtle. But she' unquestionably anti-male and it would please me no end if we were to be able to gang up on her and have her face the same fate as that misandrist writer for the Washington Times.
Honestly, I think this is the reason that the Church is facing so much negative publicity over this. Let's remember a couple of things:
1) As was posted earlier, homosexuality is not pedophlia, and the boys that are charging assault were mostly in the 13 to 17 years old range. This still might be rightfully criminal, but it is NOT pedophilia.
2) Homosexuality among Catholic priests occurs at a much higher rate than it does in the rest of the population.
3) Many of the charges the Church is covering up MAY be false and therefore not likely to be tried in court. BUT the public exposure the Church would attract by allowing the charges to be made public would cause the charged to be convicted by the public regardless of the groundlessness of the charges.
4) The feminists control the media, and if they can use the Church as an example of the cruelty and immorality of men, then they will surely do so.
Not all of the accusations are valid. In fact, because the Church has had a history of paying "hush money" to plaintiffs, I suspect that the rate of false, or at least questionable, accusations is higher than normal, simply because smart lawyers know where the money is. So when it comes to the right to due process and protection from a public lynching, the Catholic Church is facing the same problem of false accusations that every man faces.
On the other hand, as Catholic, I expect that the Church is facing the kind of difficulties that may force it to allow priests to marry. The number of men who are willing to take a vow of celibacy is declining. Men who desire to serve Jesus Christ in a ministry are more likely to choose a sect that allows marriage. Further, all this publicity engenders a mistrust of priests and the Church in general. Since the number of priests is declining, the Church itself will decline, as the Church is really nothing without a congregation, and the primary way, maybe the ONLY way to reach and expand your congregation, is through the parish priests and ministers.
There. I've waited quite awhile for the right time and place to get that off my chest. Thanks, guys.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 30, @09:29PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you'd like to name a few cases involving sexually deviant nuns. I could name a few hundred cases of sexually deviant priests but I don't think it's necessary do you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday March 31, @06:01AM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you'd like to name a few cases involving sexually deviant nuns. I could name a few hundred cases of sexually deviant priests but I don't think it's necessary do you?
Even though we've just had a case in Scotland where Nuns have been found guilty of "cruel and unusual" abuse, and the lawyer was acting for 420 female clients against 20-30 nuns, I'll ignore your pathetic challenge.
I'm more interested that you've resorted to the "numbers" defence. i.e. men do it more than women, so the female culpability is insignificant.
On that basis, and as pointed out on the Dear Abby thread, if you want to adopt this stance, you'll obviously support the immediate cessation of all health trials on women ('cos men die of all the major diseases in greater numbers than women), concentrate all suicide concerns on men, ignore women with AIDS etc etc....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday March 31, @07:16PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
The poster was clearly asking for cases of SEXUAL abuse committed by nuns. Afterall, the article was about sexual abuse, nothing else.
Since nuns are responsible for only a tiny number of sexual abuse crimes I'd say the writer of the article was quite justified in referring only to priests.
As for resorting to the "numbers defence", the men on this site do that better than anyone, frequently mentioning the number of male firefighters killed in the world trade center as though the women killed were unimportant.
What of the female suicide victims who are forgotten when you're quoting male suicide figures?
What of the women killed in world war 2?
You're the ones who are resorting to the "numbers defense".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday April 01, @05:07AM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
What a typically bitter response, loaded with the usual feminist staples in argument - hypocrisy, comparing apples to oranges and whining about perceived neglect of female "victims".
The Nun case referred to above involved bathing naked young girls in scalding water and invasive assaults with a broom handle. By any standards, this would be sexual abuse if the genders were men and boys. You might wonder why the press referred to it as "cruel and unusual" rather than "sexual abuse".
the men on this site do that better than anyone, frequently mentioning the number of male firefighters killed in the world trade center as though the women killed were unimportant
What are you comparing here? The 345 firemen killed all had one thing in common - they were men. Since there were no female firefighters killed, I'd say that makes them unimportant for "mentioning" purposes. Unless you mean we've compared the firemen killed to the other victims who were workers in the WTC? I've never seen that comparison on this site.
What of the female suicide victims who are forgotten when you're quoting male suicide figures
What of them? By implication, since male suicide figures are being quoted, why would you mention females? Feminists always include male victims when they quote DV stats don't they?
What of the women killed in world war 2?
What of them? There were over 500,000 US men killed in action in WW2. The percentage of women killed in any form of action was "tiny" as you put it. Using your methodology then, we would be entitled to ignore them? Of course if you're talking about civilians, I believe bombs are equal opportunity killers.
Go back to the Ms. Boards where you'll get uncritical fawning and complete empathy for your rabid anti-male views. There'll be no nasty men to post facts which conflict with your US campus feminist ghetto brainwashing. They're simply not allowed on Ms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great post Anon 4-01 6:07.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps, troll, you'd like to respond to what I said instead of attempting to divert. I said, among other things, that many of the cases of alleged abuse will be found to be groundless, as many of the allegations against men are.
Respond to that or stay under your damn bridge with the spiders and snakes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday April 02, @09:32AM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
There's been an epidemic of sexual abuse of children by priests, some crimes dating back 40 years ago.
Anyone who can deny this reality must have another agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There has been an epidemic of CHARGES of sexual abuse. There have been few CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS. The Church has chosen to resolve these matters privately, paying cash for silence rather than have the charges brought into the public arena. In case you haven't noticed, there has been a rather noticeable rash of rape cases that have been overturned, having been found to be groundless with the advent of DNA evidence. From these events, we can see clearly that some charges of sexual misconduct are unfounded in the eyes of the court, and should have been judged so when they were tried. Nowadays, one only need make a CHARGE of sexual misconduct without any evidence to cause great harm to what might well be an innocent man. While the charges against the Catholic clergy are not likely to involve DNA evidence, it is clear that the likelihood of groundless charges is just as great, maybe greater because of the Church's proclivity for "resolving" these matters in private.
Further, while there are few in the way of criminal charges against abusive nuns, EVERY MAN I speak to who has attended Catholic school can tell you how violently abusive they were.
You're not adding anything to the discussion with your ramblings, honey. And your attempt to "educate" us is juvenile at best. Go back under your bridge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday April 02, @05:43PM EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
It's important to point out that the rape cases that have been overturned because of DNA evidence have NOT been found to be groundless.
All it means is that the individual in question didn't commit the crime and was mistaken for the person who did.
In regard to the priests, charges are not pressed unless there is a good chance there will be a conviction. Some of these priests have had several people accuse them of sexual abuse which would certainly ring my alarm bells.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while there are few in the way of criminal charges against abusive nuns, EVERY MAN I speak to who has attended Catholic school can tell you how violently abusive they were.
I went to a Catholic school and I can verify this. Those women brutally beat up every single boy with only one exception of which I was aware. He was a hemophiliac and they knew if they beat him he might die and then they'd get into trouble. Whatever the priests have done, I have absolutely no doubt that the crimes of the nuns were far more common and far more brutal.
I also know many men who went to other Catholic schools and they had the exact same experience. And I know at least one man who went to a lay school and had the same experience. Those women literally held the little boys in torture chambers.
Another thing that I noticed (brace yourselves, it implies something bad about women, which I know we're never supposed to do) was that the women would flare up and brutalize the boys for several days and then become relatively calm for about three or four weeks. I commented on this to my mother once and she just smiled, shook her head and said, "They get it out of their systems." Though it's politically incorrect, especially given the Glenn Sacks article listed today on MANN, it makes me wonder if there is such a thing as estrogen poisoning.
What gets me about this is that when I talk to men, who suffered this brutality at the hands of women, and I ask them if the nuns ever hit a girl, they have to think about it for several seconds before responding, "No," with a sense of wonder at having just realized it. The brutality that we saw was 100% by women against little boys, and we are so blinded by our false assumptions about the innocence of women that we didn't even see this, though we were living and suffering through it.
This troll probably thinks that this is justified in some way, and, if she does, she is a typical, pure evil feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What this troll is trying to do, along with Maureen Dowd and Gloria Steinem and the rest of the liberal press is use the moral weakness of a small minority of gay men (a small minority in themselves) as a justification to condemn the entire population of men. The media is doing much more subtly than our troll friend here, or Dowd and Steinem. They are simply "reporting the news." But they are giving this story MUCH more time than it deserves, given the numbers. Dowd and Steinem, at least, are less ambiguous in their position, abhornet as it may be.
Our troll friend here would probably scoff at all of the good works of good men that overwhelm the bad, and already does dismiss women's foibles as merely products of the patriarchy. But the reality is that demons exist in a person regardless of gender. They just reveal themselves a little differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed nobody has gone after the nuns who molest children, or talk about their vow of celebacy or running from their "sexual feelings". If anyone doubts this they can watch "The People vs Larry Flint" his wife gives a pretty detailed accounts of her abuse by nuns. She no doubt is not the only one.
Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As Cindy Struckman_johnson has said MANY times, female offendr molestation (especially against boys) is clearly the most under-reported crime of all.
You'll never hear a gender-feminist say that as they ALL support women's right to rape.
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they do? the only way i can see this as true is if it's part of the definition. as defined by CHS, gender feminism is
" the doctrine that women are in thrall to a system of male dominance variously referred to as heteropatriarchy or the sex/gender system. That is, a complex process whereby bi-sexual infants are transformed into male and female gender personalities, the one destined to command, the other to obey. "
i agree with you that it's probably under-reported. but i don't see the necessity for generalizations here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In posting this article, I was trying to highlight the double standards in the media, particularly with genfems like Maureen Dowd.
Yes, there is a small proportion of priests who have committed heinous acts, and this is a serious matter that needs to be addressed. However, Dowd goes on to make broadbrush statements about the priesthood in this editorial. Especially when she writes:
"The vow of celibacy serves as a magnet for men running away from sexual feelings they are ashamed of. And the allegedly celibate
society these men enter retards their sexual development, funneling their impulses in inappropriate directions."
It appears that men can't win one way or the other with people like Maureen Dowd. If they pursue their heterosexual feelings, they risk
committing "sexual harassment," while if they supress these feelings they are "running away from sexual feelings they are ashamed of."
In contrast, whether women express their sexuality or supress it, they're making a "choice" according to feminist doctrine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It appears that men can't win one way or the other with people like Maureen Dowd. If they pursue their heterosexual feelings, they risk
committing "sexual harassment," while if they supress these feelings they are "running away from sexual feelings they are ashamed of
This is why men have to go large scale , point out how women flirt and sexually harrass. And stand up for our rights as human beings doing natural acts. We (men) are becoming as oppressed as the women of (Afghanistan) how long before men are given curfews so women can take back the night despite the fact that men are the most suseptible to violence on all fronts of society. How long before we have to start covering our bodies and eyes, how long before we can't even get jobs period for fear of being labled harrassers. This is Sexual Harrassment, the whole presumption. That is the hostile environment. We have to stand up to this and sacrifice everything we have to fight for our rights. We have to bankrupt the system and battle it on all fronts. We have to stop legislation and people like Dowd from generalizing all men into catogories with the typical "stereotyping ignorance" that women Like Dowd seem to distain when it lashes out at women. Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 30, @09:57PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
This may come as a surprise to you but there are many men who can express their sexuality without sexually harassing women. Sexuality and harassment are two intirely different things you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>
The trouble is, the onus for approaching the opposite sex is still mostly on men. Sexual harassment has been defined in such a broad manner that any unwanted approaches can be construed as such. As it isn't always clear to a man whether his advances are wanted (until after the fact), the man risks comitting sexual harassment from the perspective of the woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sexual harassment has been defined in such a broad manner that any unwanted approaches can be construed as such.
You're right. I recently flew with a female Captain who I actually know quite well and get on well with. We were sitting at the gate at the airport after arriving and we were chatting while shutting down. She told me that she really had to try and get the Anastacia CD for her daughter from the terminal. Then she mentioned that she quite liked the singer as well. When I asked why, she replied that she liked the fact that she was "feisty, confident and didn't take any crap". I wondered aloud whether it was that or her music that was the attraction, to which she replied (half jokingly) "You don't have a problem with powerful women, do you?" I immediately backed down largely due to the fact that Female Captains are not that common, and as such, can sometimes have a slight chip on their shoulder about how hard they've had to work to get there. Aside from that, Captain and First Officer dynamics are such in my company that it never pays to piss off a Captain (irrespective of gender).
Anyway, on the Crew bus to the hotel, in response to a question from one of the cabin crew, she replied that it was a good flight apart from some "sexual harassment at the end". She was joking mainly to take advantage of the virtually all female cabin crew sympathy vote, but while most people laughed, I was uncomfortable and annoyed.
What concerns me most is that a highly educated woman with a fairly powerful (relatively) position could make any causal link in our conversation to SH terms, even if she was doing it for comic effect.
Of course, it's all one way. There is a pretty well know current situation in another large UK airline where a female first officer accused a training Captain of SH after he recommended her for "further training" after a couple of incidents. She responded by claiming that he "stared at her breasts", a claim later retracted in front of Human Resources. She also told the Captain in question, that she had made the claim to protect herself and would do so again if she felt threatened in future - again in front of HR. He has taken early retirement, she flies on and almost every male Captain in the fleet is now quite wary of flying with her. If anyone is interested, I can post a link to the story with more info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She was joking mainly to take advantage of the virtually all female cabin crew sympathy vote, but while most people laughed, I was uncomfortable and annoyed.
Sounds like she was doing all the sexual harrassing. There is a book out there with an excelent anecdote by Kate Fillion, the story goes on to describe a date rape incedent. In the end it was the women who was doing the "pressuring". But that doesnt count I guess, and so many stats have proven that girls sexually harrass as much as boys in highschool, are we to assume that by some twist of fate, that women change over night when entering the work force and simpley turn away from those aggressive behavoirs?? Not likely, sexual harrassment is the most bogus accusation in our society today mainly because of its leveraging power. The accusation is a form of assault, and those who perpetrate it should be convicted and sent to prison or sued for everything they have. Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Im not surprised and thats my point, its getting to the point when you say "hi" to a women the only thing you have on your mind is sex. And really this is only in the work place, and its so comical cause the women who complain about it most men wouldnt cross the street to talk to her but cause they work with her they thought they would be nice and say hi or have a joke with her. I guess hell is paved with good intentions. Or is it that when oppurtunity knocks i.e. a way to get ahead with a sexual harressment allegation, women better answer, cause it beats actually working for it. Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point Brad is "Gender-Feminist." That is those in the women's movement who support women's rights by creating and supporting oppression of men.
Such as in the Vagina Dialogues, the dialog of the girl, supports women's right to molest girls.
Such as in most statistical discussions of rape and family violence, the idea of male victimization is downplayed, minimized and mocked.
The fact that men could have any complaitns about how they are treated in society is openly mocked and ridiculed.
Misandry is openly denied while being proudly promoted
Gender-feminism is a hate movement in no way different from any other hate movement. Sorry, there is one idfference: Gender-feminists get government money and most feminists are sufficiently afraid of them that little is said in the women's press and or in women's opinion.
Also, large and powerful groups such as the Southern Baptist Poverty Organization and Amnesty International are afraid of the gender-feminists. That speaks volumes about the power of the gender-feminist ideas and power.
I have little problem with Equity-Feminists or Individual-Feminists: My only complaint being they do not take a strong stand agaisnt gender-feminist hate, bigotry and demonization.
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...gender-feminist[s] ... ALL support women's right to rape..."
Now THAT's an interesting sound byte. Can we get that on a bumper sticker?
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
damn. i keep forgetting that < a/ >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with those stats is that the girls were never directly asked if they were raped. It was the assesors who decided that the girls were. We must always look at the way the tests are down, how they are skewd, and by default how the other gender was asked. Most find that if they aske the same thing to boys that they asked girls you will find that the same numbers appear. Women are far more sexual and powerful then we give them credit for. Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed nobody has gone after the nuns who molest children
I also have a friend who was violently sexually assaulted by a nun. Neither he nor I are doing anything about our brutalization at the hands of these women because in our hatefully anti-male society we believe it would cost a lot of time and money and would almost certainly accomplish nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Screw em, its up to you, but maybe you should tell someone. If not forget it and move on. Forgive and forget. Because you probably loved it I mean why would you your a man, and thats like free sex right???? Sorry about that, the truth is I have been sexually molested by female babysitters along with family members, and didnt realize it until I started comparing what they would accuse men of on large scale. I realized thats what they did, its the same thing, the dam same thing. I played along cause it was a game, didnt think anything of it and even liked it (cause I was told that I should). I think that the main reason they care so much when it happens to girls is when it stems back to who would have to take care of the baby if she got pregnant, and thats the truth of it. If women or girls didnt get pregnant and have the responsibilty of a possible child nobody would really care half as much as they do. Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe you should tell someone. If not forget it and move on.
I had pretty much moved on, but it bothers me today to see men vilified for the actions of priests, while the crimes of the nuns were so much more common and severe.
Ah, well, we are turning the tide against the sickoids.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your totally right, they are more common and more severe, probably because there is more of them. I wonder if it was a magnet for lesbiens who couldnt deal with there sexuality????????? And thats not women bashing its common sence. Anyways the cathlic church and most any church or religeon is dominated by men because men mostly were the ones who sacrificed their lives to create it, for the good of the community, to ironically protect women. Does it surpress women?? Not in its original format NO it does not. Its a lot like politicians trying to dig up crap on their percieved enemies and vice versa of course. It was just a smear campaign. Is there a problem with large scale pedophelia in the catholic church, maybe. But what concerns me is that the cash settlements are so high, the motivation to accuse is extreme. This is by no means meant to trivialize what has happened to you Thomas, maybe it will help to get it out to tell people that they don't have the right to demonize men just because of it. Sacks wrote that article about woman bashing, but by telling the truth is not woman bashing its simply showing the other side. Also in these times of Propaganda doing the fighting, it might be nessesary to use the same techniques to bring them to the "table" so to speak, so we can have some real negotiations. Is it unethical, yes, but call it a 'nessesary evil'. Hope you realize I wasnt making fun of you or anything. DAN LYNCH
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hope you realize I wasnt making fun of you or anything.
Rest assured, I took no offense, Dan. It's always a pleasure to read your comments.
You make an interesting point about the cash settlements. I wonder if any lawyers would be willing to take a case with payment contingent upon winning. We could probably quickly round up thousands of men who would testify about their brutalization at the hands of the nuns. Granted, if payment were contingent upon winning, the lawyers would probably demand a high percentage, but that would be alright with me. Anyone have any ideas? I'd like to take action at this point largely to get the truth out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly, I think taking women to court, over sex abuse and sexual harrassment maybe the answer. I have no intention of taking my highschool teacher, or my babysitter to court. But I got to tell you, I also am getting sick of being accused of being a sexual predator simply because Im a man. Not on a personnal basis, but in large whenever you turn on the tv, is just about how men brutilize women with the "misandric movive of the week". Or the after school speacial that only depicts boys of bullying and harrassing, and those poor girls. Man I tell you they never went to my school, I lived in fear of some of those chicks. One exgirlfriend used to kick me in the shin everytime she saw me, I used to take the long way to class. I later found out she still liked me. On another note, I was at the bar on friday having a good time, my ass was grabbed and my arm was felt up a little provocatively. It was a sexual grope by some girl just walking by. We are into tits they are into arms and chests. I will live, no doubt. And many of you who read this will maybe say "so whats the prob?" The prob is the double standard. To bad District Attorneys and Crown Attorneys are to f**king stupid to care. Or is it just a self serving institute???? Or is it just juries wont convict. I do not feel that if I had grabbed some chicks ass things would be the same , regardless if she liked it or not, society tells her that her role is to press charges or lash out, society tells men that their role is to be thankful and except it, cause it means we're studs, and we should hope we get laid. Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was at the bar on friday having a good time, my ass was grabbed and my arm was felt up a little provocatively.
Funny you mention this. A few months ago, my ass was grabbed and fondled quite harshly by a woman in a bar. This matriarchy under which we live not only vilifies men and boys, it encourages females to assault men and boys.
Anyway, back to the point of taking matters to court... Does anyone know an attorney who might take, on a contingent basis, the case of assault by nuns against little boys?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a gay friend who actually complains that he never had a "priest, scoutmaster,or teacher" molest him. As far as feminism is concerned, when it comes to abusing sexually, their goal is to turn women in general against men, so that they themselves (lesbians) can have a larger pool of women to PREY ON themselves. Their goal is to turn women into lesbians and it is they themselves (LESBIANS)that are the predators, seeking vulnrability and oppurtunity on unsupecting young women. They love the chance to slame men in general, Brad, as an organized lobby group for Lesbian culture. Men are the only enemy they have. They have a loud voice and have educated themselves to censor negative feedback. Thats why you don't hear about the sexual exploitations of young children by women. Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Painting with a broad brush there, aren't you? Most lesbians get along fine with men - they just aren't sexually attracted to men. The idea that "lesbian==manhater" is invalid. However, if you want to claim that some ideological feminists encourage ideological lesbianism as a means of seperating men and women, I can certainly see that. Lets try to avoid the kind of stereotyping feminists use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday March 31, @12:11AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Not that I claim lesbians are more man-hating than women at large, but...
> Lets try to avoid the kind of stereotyping
> feminists use.
Why?
Because "real men"[1] don't mind compounding a difficult fight against entrenched anti-male stereotypes with self-imposed rhetorical handicaps?
Because men have to be so committed to rationality that we must avoid the kind of emotional venting that women view as an entitlement? (and then women complain that we repress our feelings...)
Because appealing to the listener's/reader's similar feelings and experiences instead of carefully, pedanticly picking apart the logical flaws in the opponent's arguments is too effective, too easy, and therefore too feminine?
Because tossing out a carelessly cruel remark with no concern for accuracy or truth that will in seconds accomplish a political or social result that hours of carefully-documented counterargument can't undo is yet another of those sacred wimmenz mysteries that men dare not claim an equal right to?
Because, in order to feel truly masculine, a man must be so entranced by the romantic ideal of a battle against disproportionately poor odds that he'll unbalance those odds further by trying to fight with both hands tied behind his back?
Because a "real man" has been trained to such total horror at the thought of turning his manly bulging biceps against a puny woman that he can't bring himself to oppose a woman directly, using exactly the methods she uses, even in a verbal context where the number of reps he does in the gym is absolutely irrelevant?
Yes indeedy, a "real man" forgets about his own interests and carefully avoids any tools that women describe to him as theirs alone and too good for him. If he keeps the collar around his neck well shined maybe she'll toss him a bone.
[1] "real man" - one who denies his own nature and interests so as to avoid setting off the Matriarchy's character-assassinating gossip network.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Lets try to avoid the kind of stereotyping
> feminists use.
Why?
Because stereotyping often prevents one from seeing and using advantages - and we need every advantage we can get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday April 01, @01:00AM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
> Because stereotyping often prevents one from
> seeing and using advantages - and we need every
> advantage we can get.
I didn't claim a man must believe a stereotype in order to use that stereotype for rhetorical purposes.
Do you think rabid feminazis really believe all the crazy things they say? Or has your own stereotype that men (but presumably not women) must be consistently truthful blind you to the usefulness and power of exaggeration and claims made "just for the sake of argument"?
Let me summarize and restate my previous argument: A man who refuses to make a statement he doesn't fully believe in support of a position he does believe is needlessly depriving himself of a tool that women use regularly. Such a man should consider whether unyielding commitment to truth in the details will betray his commitment to truth in the big picture.
Total commitment to truth may look honorable at first glance but no human can even know all truth in all circumstances, much less state it in a way that can't be misunderstood. Are honor and truth served best by aiming for each statement to be independently as true as possible or by aiming for the most truthful and accurate understanding in the mind of a reasonable listener? The trees or the forest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks to me as if you are arguing both sides here - good way to make sure you win. I don't hold the opinions you've imputed to me, for the record. (Assuming that matters to you).
Have a look here for some information that might be helpful to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It wasnt an arguement, it was a point, although comedic, He said it and I thought it unusual. But I thought I'd mention it to see what people would say. If you were talking to me tparker. Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matriarchy's character-assassinating gossip network.
Thats just the point isnt it. Lesbians have nothing to lose at destroying and demonizing men on a whole. And so what if they get along with us on a personal basis, by and large we are still competing for the same goods arnt we? When you go out to pick up women don't you infact diss other men that are interested in the same women you are. In form of competition? Cause if you say you don't than your unable to look at yourself objectively. But men can't do this large scale like Lesbians can because it falls back on themselves. Lesbians have nothing to lose so they can demonize men at will, large scale, on billboards, on tv, in books, in women's study courses everywhere, thats the broad brush of reality. Lesbians do it to seduce and cattle women. Maybe thats your problem you can't look at women as aggressors. Let me tell you something just because the woman is lieing on her back it doesnt mean she's not the one controling the seduction, no matter how vulnerable she looks or acts.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Let me tell you something just because the woman is lieing on her back it doesnt mean she's not the one controling the seduction, no matter how vulnerable she looks or acts."
This is true. Very true. In fact in my opinion the one on the bottom is the one being served while the one on top does the work. But this has little to do with stereotyping all lesbians. I know lesbians who are far more supportive of men's rights than alot of straight women and men alike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks marc, "I know lesbians who are far more supportive of men's rights than alot of straight women and men alike. " Sometimes I need to be reminded of stuff like that. Its just that there are so many attacks on men, in general, and much of it is specifically by Lesbian ideology. And what I was trying to point out was the observation that as a group lesbians are competing against men for the same thing (hetro men) And that on a very basic level maybe even subconciously lesbians are ridiculing and demonizing men simply to give reason why women should avoid them altogether. I don't know if Dowd is even gay, but the fact remains Misandry has become popular culture and lesbianism is a significant reason for it. The reason it doesnt go the other way is because to many gay men rely on women for their careers, i.e. hairdressing, interior decorating, fashion etc... I know this is exactly what stereotyping is, but it is far to significant to ignore. And really you know what Im tired of being blamed for every little thing that has gone in the universe because I was stereotypically born male. Is preist hood a magnet for gay men, is scoutmastering a magnet for gay men? As far as I can tell activists have said almost every job or career choice is a magnet for sexual preditors from janitors on up to the presidentcy. Its just what ever happens to be in the papers that week that they can latch onto. I don't think its right to molest little children, but they are blaming me because Im male and thats because in the end all you really hear is that same sound bit "men are scum". Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday March 31, @08:26PM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
The only lesbians who support you are the porn lovers. I'm a bisexual woman who definately does not support the likes of you.
The rights of women come before my self-gratification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yawn, you should read the entire dialogue before you make statements bisexual woman. Because you have mostly proven my point.
Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lesbian porn does nothing for me. And Im assuming your saying that because the women are really just cashing in on their bodies, which is their right. But I am asking out of curiosity and not intending to start a fight, but, isnt your fight for women's rights really just self-gratification? Are you able to look beyound your gender and see the bigger picture? I know my comments are real Darwinistic, but they are meant as an observation in contrast to Nazisim and their racial obscuration of the Jews. The formual is identical, and it is government funded. Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey there dan. how's it going? i'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. would it be possible to go into further detail to explain your points?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 30, @03:47PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
christianity, and indeed all organized religious sects in the west, are holy-owned subsidiaries of the matriarchy
hidden tools of feminism, fronted by weak males
the idea that these institutions promote, or serve, authentic male values – based on a titular “priesthood” – is a form of denial, in direct contradiction of observable reality
it’s about as credible as the argument that because most legislators are male, we live in a patriarchy
anyone still going for that? please see me about some fabulous bridge-buying opportunites!
men in america still think they can "take back" the church, the family, and the culture in general
dream on
take a stroll into your friendly neighborhood church on any weekend – pick a denomination, any denomination
note well which gender fills the pews and collection plates
note whose interests are served by the sermons, and indeed by the canons themselves
note whose interests are served by the “networking”
note the makes and models of the cars they drive
note the clothes and jewelry they wear
note the fine houses in which parishioners and pastors alike live
support by “masculists” of the “church” is support of continued, and ever-increasing, gyneocracy
period
it’s like calling for – and expecting – revolution, while at the same time wanting to hold onto MY little piece of power, MY self-serving dogma, MY infantilized institutionalism
appeal to modern “religion” to free masculinity has as much chance of success as appeal to the courts, the legislatures, the media, or the wardens
zippo, zilch, zee-row, and hoo-haw, respectively
barf!! out that foulness, boys, and take a long, deep drink of clean water
baptist john
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How ironic, because the original benefit of the church before it grew into this sort of family forum, was for man to realize his identity. Not as patriarchial oppression over women, but his understanding of his role within the community. This is a submissive tone and a self sacrificing one. Such as the sacrificial lamb that we are learning about this very weekend. Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth discuss this to great extent.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 30, @06:06PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
i disagree in part, mr lynch
the original “benefit” of religious systems, particularly in the judeo-christian tradition, is clear from incident after incident in the old testament, the apocrypha, and related documents --many of which are secular, by the way
“religion” grew from the spiritual networks of paleolithic males, bonded for one purpose, and for one purpose only – the protection of boys, especially infant boys, from domination and brutality under the self-deified matriarchate
that’s where “religion,” secret societies, brotherhoods, fatherhood as kinship concept, and indeed masculinity itself are rooted
prehistory and the early historical periods are spattered – drenched, actually – in the blood of boys and men, serving as sacrificial offerings under various forms of gyneocracy
ending the total supremacy of the feminine, and the blood-sacrifice of males, was not only the intent of abraham and jesus, but of all “patriarchs” that came between and after, and of the many forgotten heroes that came before
when “religion” fails to protect boys and men from the powerlust of the feminine, it ceases legitimacy, and merely morphs, ever so silently, into vehicles for gynocracy – weak “men” running around in the gowns of priestesses, serving the old, old powers
when the concern of the parishioners and “priests” is strictly for tribal girls in the congo undergoing clitoridectomy -- while around the corner eight-day-old boys scream in the circumstraints – we may say with certainty that “religion” has ceased to function, and thus, to exist
what remains is a corrupt tool of dominance and power, no matter what pretty name it awards itself
“religion” as currently organized and practiced in america is the beast in proper dress, a torturer of children and a cancer upon masculinity
knife-wielders in the vestibule, rapists in the rectory
any new spiritual system attempting to establish itself must make its first priority the protection, nurturance and shepherding of the sons of this nation
anything less straps us right back into the circumstraint
baptist john
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what exactly do you dissagree with me on? I thought that was my point . That the origin of these rituals and rites were for men, to learn about manhood and transend into spiritual beings. This is as alien to women as giving birth to a child is to men. Yet ironically the two are locked into the hard to obtain tradition of returning to "paradise". The crucifix itself is a symbol of the gateway. Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, Dan.
E-mail me. I need to chat with you about something and I've misplaced your e-mail address.
nightmist@mensactivism.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday March 31, @02:38PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
whoops, i misunderstood, apparently we do agree
my apologies, mr lynch
"The crucifix itself is a symbol of the gateway"
yes it is
"sacrifice is the code of the road" -- bob dylan
christ, amongst others, forced the male sacrifice
into collective consciousness, and also separated it irretrieveably from coercive "sacrifice" under the matriarchies
the use and symbolic value of the cross long preceded christianity -- it derives largely from the "sacrificial oak" -- see james frazer, et al.
john
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion 'Stonehenge' was also the same significant symbol of the gateway, something I call "the calling of the bride". Unfortunatly I feel Im getting off topic so if your interested in continuing please email me at dan047@sympatico.ca . Take care everyone hope you had a great easter despite the religous contraversy of Dowd. Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday March 31, @09:51PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
perhaps the calling of the bride has a place on a men's board, under a thread discussing the spiritual authorization of the "priesthood," and its paradox of flesh
on the other hand, no doubt we are boring
thank you for your offer and i am indeed interested in your views
john
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baptist John wrote:
“religion” grew from the spiritual networks of paleolithic males, bonded for one purpose, and for one purpose only – the protection of boys, especially infant boys, from domination and brutality under the self-deified matriarchate
--------------------------
Got that right, John. What has changed though, with the Industrial Revolution, is a shift back to the matriarchial, by ironically the topmost patriarchial to control men to work their factories. And what better control than through their matriarchial sublevel?
Originally, the defining distinction between the West and that of the East, was that the East tended to go with the flow of history & to fit in with Mother Nature's chaos, including disease & death, as well as birth.
In contrast, the definition of the West was to directly confront Nature, and to alter it and control it as much as humanly possible. Thereby ending 'Natural' disease and the endless Birth & Death cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The (not so) strange problem with female's raping men is that the federal law supports the common belief that women can not rape men. It falls in to the line of thinking of the old (and semi-tasteless) joke that "you cann't rape the willing." (There is actually a study that follows this line of thinking "proving" that boys are not harmed by sex with older women while it assumes girls are harmed by sex with older men.) This common belief allows for the common person to easily dismiss any inappropriate behavior or touching of a woman as non-sexual or in the worst cases, desired by the vctims. Since women are expected to take a nurturing roles in a child/adult relationship they are not seen as a threat. Rarely is intimate touching between women or women and children question. This touching is seen as part of the "natural" nurturing relationship between mother (women) and child. If similar touching occurred between a male and a child there would be "alarms" and "warning bells" going of in people viewing this relationship. Priests are allowed some leeway in the area of touching and this is probably why these warnings often go unheeded.
There are several books (the titles escape me at the moment) that talk about the molestation that occurred between mother and child at a not so young ages (sometimes well into the teens) but was overlooked by the child and society due to the "natural" role of a mother.
I would challenge anyone to think seriously how easily it could be for a woman to touch an infnat or child in an inappropriate manner and have it go unnoticed by society and child alike. (think about situations like bathing, going to the bathroom, changing clothes, spankings etc.)
Just because there are examples of men who have molested and raped does NOT meant that women are not guilty of these crimes in equal numbers. A similar situation of equalization of statistics is occurring with the numbers in domesitic violence situations. Just because there is no "proof" (ie we don't know much about it) that nuns or women haven't raped or sexually assualted boys and girls does not mean it hasn't happened.
On a side note: I am getting rather sick of people not using a name and posting anon. I find this childish and rude. From now on unless the individual makes an exceptional point I will ignore them. I also wish there was a flag I could use to have them not show on my list of comments. (hint hint)
hope everyone had a good easter
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some good points, Tony.
However, I do think that part of the problem we face is that we've under-defined "sexual abuse". A lot of this stuff really is in the eye of the beholder, and it is debatable how much harm single "incidents" of such abuse can do. People have been arrested for inappropriate touching, for God's sake, while changing diapers. We lost our way when we decided not to give the benefit of the doubt in any but the most unambiguous cases.
As for the rest of this sad topic: anal penetration by a nun is just as bad and abusive to a child as anal penetration by a priest. It's a sick society that punishes by gender rather than by justice.
:(
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday April 01, @02:19PM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
"On a side note: I am getting rather sick of people not using a name and posting anon. I find this childish and rude. From now on unless the individual makes an exceptional point I will ignore them. I also wish there was a flag I could use to have them not show on my list of comments. (hint hint)”
lotsa thread police on this site
(hint hint)
i find folks who can’t locate the paragraph key "childish and rude," as well – but i don’t advocate the imposition of flags and deletions as solution
(hint hint)
some folks wouldn't know an "exceptional point" if it shit in their cornflakes
(hint hint)
let’s silence anyone who doesn’t say what i want, the way i want it said
(hint hint)
anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's ignore this spoiled child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except that the silencing of dissent is routinely the first step towards the corruption of a movement or cause, Thomas.
Remember -- that's their tactic.
In fact, we need to do better than just that: we need to listen harder
I'll be the first to agree that some folks couldn't parse their way out of a wet paper syllogism, and are even a drag on resources at times, BUT.
When I see a call for mass ostracism, my Acksey Sense goes off like a three-alarm fire. It's one thing for an individual to tell someone else that they personally aren't going to listen to them anymore. That's useful feedback.
However, calling for everybody around to join in is another thing entirely. And something that men's issues activists should approach with extreme caution. . .because not being listened to, en masse, is one of the main reasons we're all here in the first place.
And doing that ourselves raises congruency and integrity questions that we ignore and sideline at our great peril. . .because, as I said -- the silencing of dissent is routinely the first step towards the corruption of a movement or cause.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your mind really works strange. Congrads, the only way out of this bag, different route than most.
"I'll be the first to agree that some folks couldn't parse their way out of a wet paper syllogism"
A=B=C logic, the whole alphabet, kiddies.
And: What kind of Latin is that, too? U forced me to resuscitate my pone again. Mouth to mouth. Let's see,,, what does the book say? You're either a Jesuit gone to hell in Spain in the wrong century. Or your Latin is bad. Mine is, too. A century old.
Back to my U2, Duran Duran, Enigma & Gregorian chants. My gf likes to strip to Enigma. Thank God we are both weird in a world gone straight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except that the silencing of dissent is routinely the first step towards the corruption of a movement or cause, Thomas.
Silencing of dissent and telling a heckler to shut up are two different things.
Remember -- that's their tactic.
In fact, we need to do better than just that: we need to listen harder
Ah - I might say that purity of purpose becoming more important than goals is one of the first signs of the stagnation of a movement, and the slide to claiming the status of perpetual victim.
I'll be the first to agree that some folks couldn't parse their way out of a wet paper syllogism, and are even a drag on resources at times, BUT... When I see a call for mass ostracism, my Acksey Sense goes off like a three-alarm fire. It's one thing for an individual to tell someone else that they personally aren't going to listen to them anymore. That's useful feedback. However, calling for everybody around to join in is another thing entirely. And something that men's issues activists should approach with extreme caution. . .because not being listened to, en masse, is one of the main reasons we're all here in the first place.
What we have a lot are trolls on here who insert pheminist comments in here, plead special victimhood, and appeal for protection a lot - trying to deflect the discussion to something else and turn people into debating themselves rather than analyzing the issues. I'd say hanging a sign that says "This is flame bait! Please Ignore" is a very good thing.
And doing that ourselves raises congruency and integrity questions that we ignore and sideline at our great peril. . .because, as I said -- the silencing of dissent is routinely the first step towards the corruption of a movement or cause.
Hey, every day is "pheminist twist and slant on the issues" day. The media is their willing lackeys. I hardly thing blowing them the raspberry here remotely qualifies as silencing. Were posts to be removed, that is silencing. Walking away from their soapbox, and not listening to shrill, strident, doctrinaire pheminist hogswallop is just common sense.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, TGK, I couldn't have put it better myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony wrote:
"There are several books (the titles escape me at the moment) that talk about the molestation that occurred between mother and child at a not so young ages (sometimes well into the teens) but was overlooked by the child and society due to the "natural" role of a mother."
Indeed, it is usually almost impossible to get authorities to consider that a mother is possibly the one at guilt. Often the mother literally has to kill several children to bring her violence to attention & intervention by society.
One of the best researched books for the layperson is writ by Patricia Gibson, "When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence".
"Everyone starts out totally dependent on a woman. The idea that she could turn out to be your enemy is terribly frightening." --Lord Astor, British philanthropist, 1993 --per Patricia Pearson, “When She Was Bad”, Viking, 1997, p 1
Gibson chose her title from the following famous passage:
** There Was A Little Girl **
There was a little girl, she had a little curl
Right in the middle of her forehead;
And when she was good, she was very, very good,
And when she was bad, she was horrid.
-Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
