|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why can't you dinosaur, men's activists get that through your thick skulls?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the email that I sent to the Cubs. (I chose Send To: askthecubs@cubs.mlb.com.)
Dear Sirs/Madams:
I just read an article in the Chicago Tribune, which I understand is owned by Tribune Co. the owner of the Chicago Cubs. The piece can be seen at
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi- 0210310337oct31,0,2604065.column?coll=chi%2Dnews%2 Dcol.
Free registration is required.
The article seeks to excuse or at least minimize the seriousness of statutory rape, as long as the perpetrator is a woman and the victim is a boy.
My question... Do you care to distance yourself from this attempt to excuse the statutory raping of boys by women? I suspect that I am not the only fan who is interested in your stand on this matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I wanted to add...
Please feel free to use my email verbatim or change it as you see fit, but please contact them. It would be great if they actually took a stand on this.
Also, I wonder if the neighborhood where Mary Schmich lives has a neighborhood association. They should be informed of the fact that she doesn't see much wrong with her raping the boys in the neighborhood. Perhaps the local police should be informed that they have a predator in the area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oops! I also forgot to add, FWIW...
In the subject line I wrote "Statutory Rape." I figured it would get their attention, and it is, after all, the real subject of the email.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would also like to know how the players feel about such a thing? Given the chance to speak out on the subject, I'm willing to bet the Cub's team members would be outraged at such a thing as well.
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would also like to know how the players feel about such a thing?
Please contact them. You can use my email verbatim or change it as you see fit. The more of us that they hear from, the more likely they are to take a stand.
This is a chance for activism. Again, please contact them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've just emailed the Cub's organization, and the Chicago Tribune as well.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Mitchell. Anyone else?
Let's give 'em some heat on this outrage. Let us know if you've written, and let us know if you hear back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men who have sexual relations with teenage girls are predators. Women who have sexual relations with teenage boys are likelier to be doing just that--having relations, not pouncing.
She had sex with 3 teenage boys, and is married with 6 children. But she is NOT a sexual predator?
How come no one is talking about the husband she was cheating on? How HE was betrayed? How about her children? Could this situation be harming them?
It seems all that doesn't matter, because raping boys just isn't that bad a thing, according to the Chicago Tribune.
Fooling around with students isn't cool. But suspend the students too. They also knew better. And kept it quiet.
The male victims are partially to blame, because they are boys, according to this writer. The next time you see a feminist rant about "Were are all the good men?" Show them this article, the good men are being abused as children while your feminist ideals protect the perp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are absolutely, positively, undeniably correct!
This strikes at the very heart of feminism: Feminists want to be treated with equal opportunity - when it suits them.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This strikes at the very heart of feminism: Feminists want to be treated with equal opportunity - when it suits them. "
Yes, feminist don't like men using the victim status all that much. Funny that.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 01, @05:55PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Good suggestion, Dan. ("Not every man is Marc Lepine day")
I have a suggestion Too.
I am suggesting we hold a national "Men's strike"
To call attention to just this sort of problem and many others faced by males, but are completely ignored.
I submitted this idea to Scott in the "submit-a-news-story" section. If it is posted, you'll see more details on what I'm talking about.
This kind of bull s#!t MUST stop!!!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whole trouble is, Thundercloud, is that we have a "World Women's Strike Day" or some other such crap. And nobody even notices.
If we men went on strike for a day, though, civilization would collapse.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 02, @01:53PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo.
Yeah, I've heared of the "World Women's Strike Day." I've allways been suprised that it doesn't get much coverage in the media.
And true, No one seems to notice.
But, like you said if MEN went on strike for just one day, "civilization would collapse".
Now, Think about what you said. If Women go on "strike", It doesn't even make a ripple.
But if MEN were to go on "strike"...,
That TELLS you something doesn't it? (^_^)
That is why I think a "Man strike" would be so effective.
The very fact that men's contributions to society and civilization are PARAMOUNT makes such an endeavor not only effective but effective to the point it could NOT be ignored.
I admit the idea needs a bit of "smoothing out", but I truly believe it has very real possibilities!
...Or I'm insane, one or the other...,
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of my favourite feminist lines is,
"Oh, but that's different..."
I like it because it's a sure signpost, sort of like,
"Caution: Bullshit Ahead"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<"Caution: Bullshit Ahead">>
Lol. This is how true it is. Its different when its conveinant.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is forgotten, or not known, is that boys who have sex with older women are still betrayed and violated. They may not consider themselves abused, but they are exploited. Later in life there is a good chance he will have ED, have a difficult time having sex with his girl friend or wife, and feel that he does not know how to be a man. His experience was of something that he knew was wrong. His natural sex drive was expploited for the pleasure of the woman, not as an expression of caring or affection. A life time of being messed up sexually seems an awful price to pay for "getting lucky"
It is better to build healthy boys than to mend broken men."
Frederick Douglas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I submitted the above story, I forgot to include a very important point. The Chicago Tribune and the Tribune Co. recently fired syndicated columnist Bob Green because he had sex with a teenage girl of legal age. The Chicago Tribune claimed that although his actions were not illegal, firing him was the most moral, ethical, and responsible thing to do - and then they printed this crap. I'm in the process of contacting different men's groups, and soon I am going to start contacting advertisers associated with the Chicago Tribune. After I put a list together, I will try to have it posted. Any help spreading the word is appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please, let me know how I may help you.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After writing a quick response to the opinion piece (yes, it was intentionally inflammatory), I was rewarded with a return response. I will post it in obvious order:
..."How can you endorse such a comment? In the following story:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi- 0210310337oct31,0,2604065.
column?coll=chi%2Dnews%2Dcol
your columnist is blatantly stating that raping underage boys is fine and
dandy, if it is done by a woman. By a woman? She's married, with 6 children,
and had sex with 3 underage boys and she is still just a woman? She's not a
predator?
The arrogance of supposition displayed by your columnist smacks of double
standard double speak.
Please speak out against such a thing, and take due action with respect to
this type of misandry!
Mitchell A. Smith"...
The (laughable) response:
..."Dear Sir:
The fact that something appears in the newspaper does not mean that it is
endorsed. It means that it's being debated, that it's an issue for public
information and debate.
Our columnist is not saying that raping underage boys is fine and dandy if
it's done by a woman. Our columnist is saying that it's not rape, that boys
and girls are different in some very important ways and that what is rape if
done by an older man with a younger girl is not rape if the roles are
reversed. You may disagree with that and that's fine. Make an opposite
argument. But please don't ask that the debate be shut down and the other
person be forbidden to broach the idea. That sounds like the Taliban.
Thanks for writing.
Don Wycliff
Public Editor"...
Oh, and nice grammar...for an editor!
I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did the good Mr. Wicliff leave you with an email address with which to contact him? I might well like to follow up on his "reply"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mitchell:
I've been in this battle for decades now, and I feel like a seasoned vet. And so, I do not laugh or cry. I draw a deep breath and, as I exhale, I relax.
If we ever have a just society, I believe that people, who have openly promoted or excused the rape of children, should pay for their crimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 01, @07:27PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
How can there be a debate about whether rape is right or wrong?
That's just stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions."
My conclusion is that galloping misandry, as illustrated in the editor's response, causes one to be afflicted with "magical thinking" an obvious form of idiocy, especially in male editors who believe that raping young boys by women is not as bad as men raping young girls. Phooey!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
an obvious form of idiocy, especially in male editors who believe that raping young boys by women is not as bad as men raping young girls.
Herein lies the difference (and I quote the editor): "Our columnist is saying that it's not rape."
They are not saying that rape of young boys by women is not as bad as men raping young girls. They are saying that when men have consensual sex with girls it is rape, but when women have consensual sex with boys it is not rape.
You see, you silly mens activists, when men have sex with girls, the men are vile predators who seek only to oppress and harm. When women have sex with boys, the women are nurturing and loving.
Male evil / Female good. How can you be so blind as to not see that?
Excuse me. I think I need to go work out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Male evil / Female good. How can you be so blind(sic!) as to not see that?"
Actually, you don't need a keen sense of sight to notice this, just the sense of smell will suffice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Male evil / Female good. How can you be so blind(sic!) as to not see that?"
Actually, you don't need a keen sense of sight to notice this, just the sense of smell will suffice.
You made me laugh, Luek. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 02, @02:12PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Like the rest of us, here, I am asking, What the hell is the "DEBATE"?!?
If a man has sex with an under-age girl, it's rape. But if a woman has sex with an under-age BOY it's NOT rape...!
...ZHUH...????
Uh..., According to any and ALL statchatory rape laws I've ever seen, haveing sex with ANY under-age child is statchatory RAPE!
NOWHERE have I ever seen it writen to say...; "Exept for when women do it"...!!
Okay so if a man murders a teenage girl, it's murder, right?
But if a woman murders a teenage boy it's not murder, it's something else, even though it's the EXACT SAME THING, the only difference is the act was carried out by a woman...!
Oh, yeah. THAT makes sence.
...beam me up, Scotty...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yes, the wonderful issue of definition. A few years ago there was a spoof documentary series on UK television called 'Brass Eye', done by a very clever, very funny man called Chris Morris. One of the programmes was about paedophilia; more specifically, the media's handling of the issue. One of the questions asked was "Just how common is paedophilia in Britain today?" The reply went: "Defining a child as anyone under the age of thirty, a staggering 98% of people are victims of this crime." The programme caused uproar, and Morris fled to France for a bit of peace!
It's interesting how often boys and men are told in advance what responses are acceptable in a given situation. So, sex with an older woman is 'every teenage boy's fantasy', implying that a boy who doesn't feel that way is abnormal. Presumably girls don't fantasize about sex with older men, only with males of the same age - or younger! But the issue isn't about what people fantasize about. You can fantasize about being gang-raped and murdered, but that doesn't make it OK for someone to do that to you. The whole point of statutory rape laws is to protect people who are considered too young to give meaningful consent, and to prevent adults from exploiting the power differential that exists between themselves and minors. But we've all seen this so many times before, like when two fourteen year olds have sex and people start demanding that the boy be prosecuted for statutory rape. It's just the same old same old of man=bad / woman=good, and it stinks of fish.
Rape is, in many way, the jewel in feminism's crown: a crime that can only be done by a man to a woman (if you define it 'right'), and which can be indistinguishable from a normal activity (good old sex). The opportunities for criminalising men are legion - hence our (UK) dingbat Home Secretary, David Blunkett, proposing changing the nature of rape trials so that the man is seen as guilty until proven innocent when accused of the crime. The last thing feminists want is to have their fun spoilt by the introduction of female perpetrators into the equation. If only men can be accused of the crime, everything is nice and simple: men are abusers, women are victims. However, if women can be found guilty as well, everything becomes very complicated due to the 'need' to absolve women of responsibility for what they've done. If women can be found guilty of rape - even just statutory rape - it puts a limit on just how draconian the rape laws can become because there is the risk of one of the 'good people' falling victim to a miscarriage of justice. There's nothing easier than telling other people how to live, but when you have to live by the same rules it becomes a different matter. As long as feminists are the ones defining the debate, the tendency will be towards ever greater abuses of power and an increasing corruption of the justice system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uh..., According to any and ALL statchatory rape laws I've ever seen, haveing sex with ANY under-age child is statchatory RAPE!
NOWHERE have I ever seen it writen to say...; "Exept for when women do it"...!!
Uh, thats incorrect. Statuatory rape laws vary widely by State and are very gender and sexual orientation and even sexual act specific. For example in some states there is a lower AOC (age of consent) for heterosexual acts than for homosecual acts.
There are all kinds of vaiables and biases in statuatory rape laws. However, the good news is that slowly we are moving towards more uniformity and more equity in statuatory rape laws and AOC are rising from some ridiculously low ages to more reasonable ages.
This dinosaur author notwithstanding, there is progress but it is far from equal and fair .... yet. There are still a lot of dinosaurs out there but they are being publically discredited more often. (In my state some of the dinosaurs tried to LOWER the age of consent for girls to work in strip clubs from 18 to 16 in exchange for raising the AOC for intercourse from 14 to 16. Apparently young persons are viewed as fair game either way by some older persons.)
Dinosaurs still exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 07, @09:35AM EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne, since I wrote that post, I've done a bit more homework on the 'age of consent laws'. And You are right. They DO indeed vary from state to state. (...In some rather disturbing ways, in some cases.)
And yeah, ANYONE who wants to lower the age of consent for teen girls so they can work in 'strip-clubs' is not just a "Dinosaur", They are sick, twisted, perverted 'dinosaurs'.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thundercloud
"Hoka-hey!"
^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make photo copies of the documented facts. Post them in public places. Pass them out in churches. Read them to your elected city council members, send letters. Take it to the streets in protest.
Put their butts on trial in the court of public opinion, and tell them to stuff their old stereotypes, because it's a new day. Justice is coming and all that double standards and name calling is going to get them is deeper in trouble. Historically, if anybody has been behaving like the Taliban it's the bigotted media and elected politians in their treatment of men and boys.
Good Luck, now lay your ears back and take it to them,and don't stop until equal justice is a whole lot than more the lip service routinely tossed out to oppressed suckers and males.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..."Dear Sir:
The fact that something appears in the newspaper does not mean that it is endorsed. It means that it's being debated, that it's an issue for public
information and debate.
Only, the notion that women aren't held accountable for paedophilia and statutory rape is considered outside the spectrum of admissible debate.
Our columnist is not saying that raping underage boys is fine and dandy if it's done by a woman. Our columnist is saying that it's not rape, that boys and girls are different in some very important ways and that what is rape if done by an older man with a younger girl is not rape if the roles are
reversed.
The issue is whether justice is blind to gender. The editor creates a straw man by insisting that the issue is not rape if one gender does it. As the editor points out, boys and girls are different in important ways: boys are told that they are worth less than girls for many reasons; one such reason is that when older men have sex with girls, its statutory rape, but when the roles are reversed, it's a beautiful, acceptable expression of the purest form of love that ought to be encouraged, nurtured and held sacred. The law should respect the wonderful differences between the sexes by punishing the identical crime if a male commits it, and exonerating the perpetrator if she happens to be a woman. Boys and girls must learn the lesson of anti-male bias in the law when they are young and impressionable, so that girls will grow up with a profound sense of entitlement commensurate with their importance, and boys will reach adulthood habitually incapable of thinking critically about their own rights. This way, the legal and political power that women often deny they have will be further entrenched, and society will be closer to the ideal of equal rights for women only. This is the important difference between boys and girls that leads to the thinking that paedophilia is a male-only phenomenon.
Perhaps the editor secretly wishes he had learned about the wonderful differences between boys and girls through an appropriate initiation rite, when he was a boy. His initiator would have gone free.
You may disagree with that and that's fine. Make an opposite argument. But please don't ask that the debate be shut down and the other person be forbidden to broach the idea.
Spoken like a true hypocrite: all guardians of the admissible spectrum of debate love to sound reasonable--indeed, they firmly believe they are reasonable.
That sounds like the Taliban.
Thanks for writing.
But they give themselves away with such petty, gratuitous, disengenuous parting shots. I suppose that almost amounts to an admission that he's beginning to realize he's been suckered by feminist logic, and he hasn't enjoyed the slightest reproductive advantage for towing the party line.
Don Wycliff
Public Editor"...
the man is morally no better than a paedophile himself for encouraging criminals to go free.
Mars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"But please don't ask that the debate be shut down and the other person be forbidden to broach the idea. That sounds like the Taliban."
Sadly, Mr. Wycliff, I at no time in the letter actually request that the columnist be censored, or that the debate be shut down. I merely requested that the paper speak out against such a thing, and that due action be taken against this type of misandry. When on the losing side of an argument, it's always convenient to 'accuse' the other side of suppression, Mr. Wycliff.
Speaking of convenience, Mr. Wycliff, may I inquire as to where it was that you attended journalism school? What’s that? The local mini-mart? Oh, I didn’t know that you could earn a degree there. I’m sorry, what’s that again? You paid your tuition with clipped cereal box-tops no less? Good for you!
Listen…I hear howls within the chambers of your integrity. Sorry, my mistake: Your chambers are empty, and the howling is just me laughing.
Sarcasm, you gotta love it.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Editor;
Whoa, but are you ever getting talked about on the Men's boards.
Let's see - Here's the URL http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi- 0210310337oct31,0,2604065.column?coll=chi%2Dnews%2 Dcol.
Now let me get this straight - these clowns that wrote this basically says that pedophilia - the engaging of sex with children by an adult - is okay. So long as the perp is a woman. In fact, they clearly imply that the victims share fault, if not bear the brunt of fault.
I'd like a clarification - is it only acceptable if female pedophiles prey on boys, or are female pedophiles that prey on girls off the hook in their book too?
Just for the record, I think it's sick no matter which gender does it to which gender. It also makes me wonder - the Trib recently fired Bob Greene for having sex with a female of legal age, as I am sure you recall. You'll pardon me if I stand aghast at the apparent hypocrisy here. This piece by Eric Zorn and Mary Schmich is quite clearly to me opinion - did it appear in the print edition on the Op-Ed page? Or is this the position of the Tribune? C'mon now - if it didn't appear on the Op-Ed, it's fair to assume that this has the, at the very least, winked at, tacit approval of the Editorial Staff.
Enquiring minds want to know. But hey, you made AUM, Men's News Daily, and Mensactivism.org. You even got quoted, Mr. Wycliff.
-------------
I eagerly await the ressponse here.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 03, @01:05AM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't Wycliff a cartoon cat?
Oh, no wait, Thats HEATHcliff.
Never mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two days, and it looks like Mr. Wycliff can't come up with a response. I guess he must be waiting for marching orders from NOW.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two days, and it looks like Mr. Wycliff can't come up with a response.
I haven't heard back from the Cubs either -- surprise, surprise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from a cultural mentality in which men are held to have a "duty" to fight and die for the same rights and freedoms which women demand for free?
Obviously, the message this sends is that men are predators with no feelings, while women are more sensitive and civilized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to say that I am a woman in my late 30's with a husband and kids. I believe that all people should be treated the same. I live in Canada and I know from the person experience of a friend that our justice system is TOTALLY female
bias. If a woman says it's so, it must be. BULL!
Women lie just like men do.
I think that some people who have commented are a bit confused about rape and sex with a minor. Rape is a totally seperate crime about hate and power.
Adults should know better than to seduce teens-that includes adult women seducing teen boys not just adult men seducing teen girls.
I am glad to have found this web site. I am one woman who knows that men are my equal in all respects and on both sides of the law, but they are certainly not worse than women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello justiceforall:
It's good to read your comment.
Please don't take this as a self-superior lecture, I seek only to explain my use of the word "rape" in this case. While I can't speak for others, I use the word "rape" for sex between an adult and a minor, because that is the term used in law -- "statutory rape." "Statutory rape" is in fact defined in my Websters as "sexual intercourse with a person who is below the statutory age of consent." I often stick with my Websters, being a person to whom words are extremely important, therefore I consider sexual intercourse with a person who is below the statutory age of consent to be a type of rape.
I'm glad to read your post, and I hope that you will contribute more in the future. We need you far more than you may realize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am glad you responded. So far I am finding that many women are in agreement with the men on this one. Sexual abuse by either sex, upon minors of either sex, is criminal. It should also be morally reprehensible. Anything less establishes a dangerous environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 03, @12:48AM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Incredibletulkas,
It's good to see you back.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will start by admitting that this topic is one that instantly makes me see red. The argument that women having sex with boys is not rape boils down to the obscure statment that "boys and girls are different." Often this statment is all someone needs to say to have people nodding their head's in knowing agreement. Rarely if ever are these differences looked at on any serious level to see what they are and if they validate support for the belief. So here are some of the "differences" between boys and girls.
1. Boys mature physically and emotionally at a slower rate than girls do. Evidence has shown that the male brain takes longer to fully mature usually completed at ~25 years of age. While the typical girls brain tends to fully mature 4-5 years earlier. This contridicts the argument that boys are more mature sexually than girls are. Boys are neither physically or mentally more mature than boys, in the typical case. If anything the argument could be made on the side of girls having sex earlier than boys.
2. "Girls are emotionally more damaged by sex early." This argument also crumbles under any sort of examination. Case after case has proved that boys who have early sex, especially in situations where coercion was used, have higher rates of drug use, criminal activity and psychological problems. The fact is sex at an early age for either gender can create long lasting social and psychological problems.
3. We know,...? What they are implying is that we know boys are just one big hormone driven penis that is looking for sex. Sex with anyone, anytime, anywhere. This entire argument sounds suspiciously like, "She wanted it, you could tell by the way she was dressed." A comment that would inspire rabid feminist attacks from all quarters.
These are only a few of the problems with the argument that statuatory rape of boys is ok. Maybe I will write up a form letter with references that I can send to idiots who make comments like this, when I get a bit more time.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Tony, quite agree that the veiled "Boys and girls are different" reference is a bunch of BS. I wrote a note to mr wycliffe last night asking him to explain these differences he saw that might be related to the woman not being criminally accountable. I doubt I will hear back from him. As I said in the note, "I really don't think you can respond since truly this idea is based on misandry and sexism."
Boys and girls are different. Using this as a curtain to hide sexism is so lame it is laughable.
I wonder how he feels having thousands of people laughing at him? LOL
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 04, @02:12AM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah.
And maybe the one 'AU' is right, Maybe Wycliff
IS a "cartoon cat", he IS quite a CHARACTER.
PS. Leave the bad jokes to ME, 'AU'.
(Those are the only kind I know.)
(^-^)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incredibletulkas wrote:
"from a cultural mentality in which men are held to have a "duty" to fight and die for the same rights and freedoms which women demand for free?
Obviously, the message this sends is that men are predators with no feelings, while women are more sensitive and civilized."
My humble addition to that astute observation,
When I was in Vietnam during the Tet offensive I found a Marines cigarette lighter that had been left behind by it's owner. Engraved on it were the words, "To really live you must nearly die."
I can appreciate the intensity that must have accompanied the violent events leading up to that revelation, a revelation which obviously illuminated what the value of that Marines life was to him. To so nearly have your life taken from you at a young age, when so full of life, strips away the value of everything of a transient nature and opens that window of perception to those things of value that transcend the superficiality that accompanies life at a shallow and petty level.
I can think of no more tender and terrible a moment to describe the terrible burden of maleness, than when that young soldier in "All Quiet on the Western Front" reached out of his fox hole for a flower freshly opened to the sun in the midst of the horror of war. He did not live beyond that moment.
To have endured and survived such horror and still be able to ask for no more than a loving equal relationship with a woman is truly the hallmark of civilized sensitivity and altruism.
To be a woman who has never endured such circumstances and then ask for so much more than equality with a man is the hallmark of barbaric incivility and outrageous disrespect. That behavior simply betrays the shallow pettiness of the immature and superficial person who ungraciously displays it.
Sincerely,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sending them another note, with a little less fire, a little more theory. Please, everyone, send in more notes, recruit more people, men and women alike. I'm turning up my volume, how 'bout you?
How many of you have read 'The Art Of War', by Sun Tzu? If you haven't, pick up a copy (used or new...not that expensive) and read it. Very insightful, informative, true on so many levels.
Although this movement hasn't yet sounded its real battle cry, as we approach such a moment, let's be as prepared as possible.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 04, @01:17AM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
I thank you all for writing in. I'm going to ask about this article with the director for research at a traumatic and sexual assault center that I know. She works at a major hospital and I've talked to her about this kind of belief in the media before and she picks up on it as well. She's told me before that it bothers her. She's well respected.
I personally can't handle the 'female as victim role', much longer. I feel like puking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The part that saddens me (and angers me as well) is that while people can see that one set of rules for women raping boys and men raping girls is illogical they often are ambivilant to male victims. The judge that was publically admoished for his comments and subsequent release of a woman who raped a boy resentenced to a few years in jail, but suspended the sentence. The simple fact is the on an emotional level society does not feel as compassionate or caring about young men. Women are seen as caretakers of children and all their abuses are just dismissed as over exuberance of this same caretaking attitude. Male relationships with children are looked at with suspicion until proven other wise.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 05, @05:32AM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm even afraid to hug my own young nephew in public, because of the "stigma", and what consequences that "stigma" could bring.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love him or hate him, Bill not only discusses the hard issues, he's wielding some significant power with his viewer-ship.
If you've never watched his program on Fox, give it a look, and judge for yourself. 8 and 11 pm eastern standard time, each weeknight.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 05, @05:40AM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a big fan of O'Reilly, but, He does have a way of challengeing "politicaly-correct" clowns and holding their feet to the fire.
The rest of the media can't stand him. Mainly because he attacks their "sacred cows", things like feminism and stuff. They seem to view him as a threat, and he probably is.
...GOOD! (^_^)
So I do at least have respect for him, particularly in those regards.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I recieved an e-mail from Eric Zorn. I recieved it after I contacted the director of media relations at the Tribune Co. In that reply, the director thanked me for bringing it to his attention and said he would forward it to Mr. Zorn for a reply. Eric Zorn's e-mail told me I could go to his web-forum link to voice my concerns. (http://ericzorn.com/forum) As I looked it over I found most people strongly disagreed with him; however, check out the reply from Ken J. Takekoshi M.D. Department of Pathology,University of Michigan Medical Center. He hands Eric Zorn his lunch with legal and psychological information about the harmful effects of older women having sex with young boys. Mr. Zorn's reply is a joke. Everyone involved in men's issues should read it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're absolutely right about Takeoshi's post; Zorn's reply amounts to mealy-mouthed evasion. If Zorn believes his own words, then he is clearly no intellectual giant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 05, @11:53PM EST (#56)
|
|
|
|
|
author of article--"Both of us agreed the woman should have been fired."
This dumb ass also said that, and I quote, "Fooling around with student's isn't cool. But suspend the students too. They also knew better. And kept it quiet."
Now, that quote I don't really understand. He is somehow saying that it is wrong for an adult authority figure working in a high school to "fool around" (aka-having sex) with "students". And then blames the students because they "knew better" as well?
So, consenual sex should be punished because??? And if it isn't exactly "consenual" then who is it that is not in a position to consent? I'll assume it was the students who he thinks aren't exactly in a position to consent, since he wants the teacher fired and the students to be only "suspened". She would be held more responsible and thus more harshly punished. But yet, he wants the students punished as well, as if she can't 'fully' be responsible for her own actions, as if she is in a position that can't really consent.
At the end of his article he says "I recently saw a news show in which a judge asked a female teacher on trial for sex with a male student, "what were you thinking?"
"Her tearful, approximate reply: "I was thinking like a 15 year old.". 'The library aide's probably guilty of the same.' "
I think in some ways he see's her as 'the' victim in all this. Even the victims of the students, since he admittedly sees her mentally as a teenage girl, possibly being 'pounced' on by the naturally dumb predatory teenage male. I think this is how sees her as a victim of the boys as well.
I find it fascinating that he see's a teenage boy and a full adult woman as equals, and feminists aren't bitching one little bit about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Zorn's reply was both evasive and ignorant. He quickly tries to avoid a debate he is obviously ignorant about by using semantics. "What I am talking about is young men not young boys." What a crock!! Would any court in the country DARE to justify sex with a female by saying she was a young woman and not a girl if she had sex with her teacher?
In my general opinion of the Tribune has dropped and I will put Zorn on my list of idiots (in the true sense of the term) of people to ignore.
What is (not) surprising is that the gender equality juggernaut NOW has not spoken up for these boys. Not a single word of protest from them.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, see, if they'd been a year older (16) and she'd done this in Washington State, she'd be fired for unethical relations but there would be no police involvement. Washington believes (rightly, in my opinion) that 16 is old enough to know what you're getting into.
Now, when I was 16, I knew who the hell I was, and I knew what the hell I liked, and I sure as hell wouldn't have boned a 40 year old woman. I have this funny idea that intergenerational sex is disgusting. :) But I did enjoy relations with others my age, none of which involved penetration because I didn't want to be a daddy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I pitched Eric Zorn's arguments, with the genders changed and the window dressing altered, as a hypothetical to a local deputy prosecutor. The look I got was incredible; and he said he hoped I was just doing my usual trick of posing something outrageous as a means of generating a debate.
He characterized my speech as dangeous, and if printed, potentially actionable with criminal sanctions, that it might tend to be interpreted by some as encouraging such actions - which he classified as "pedophilia."
He also asked to drop the subject in public, as if overheard by the wrong people it could have career ramifications.
It's at that point I shoved a copy of the article (Copied from the Trib at the local library) in front of him, and told him I was just doing the old trick of talking to an attorney and presenting the other guy's case.
It's always amusing to see someone stunned, especially with their own words.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, very interesting. Anti-male bias is so ingrained, stunts like this are almost necessary in the beginning, to learn to perceive it.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
