|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 27, @01:47PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I am happy to see this story in print, especially after academia has come out in support of the CA NOW report.
Sigh.
Click here for details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...academia has come out in support of the CA NOW report.
Okay. Let's see what the article says....
Carrie Cuthbert, an attorney and lead author of the report, said she stands by the findings, which relied on the testimony of 40 battered women from almost every county in the state. She said all had similar experiences: Men who abused them were often given custody or liberal visitation of the couple's children, a situation that often proved to be damaging to the youngsters and the women.
Oh this is just pathetic. Wellesley College is following the example of CA Now, and they are publishing a study that is based on flawed and bigoted research techniques.
This is a very dangerous trend for men. The radical feminist are not happy to have absolute control of all police investigative and arrest procedures, now they are seeking to seize control of the court systems. As if the current biased systems are not bad enough!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrie Cuthbert, an attorney and lead author of the report, said she stands by the findings, which relied on the testimony of 40 battered women from almost every county in the state. She said all had similar experiences: Men who abused them were often given custody or liberal visitation of the couple's children, a situation that often proved to be damaging to the youngsters and the women.
What an astonishingly eliptical set of statements. 'Almost', 'similar', 'often', 'or', 'often'... talk about leaving it to the reader to imagine what's being said! So, out of a tiny sample of women who were not representative of women in general we now 'know' the following:
Men who abused them were often given custody or liberal visitation of the couple's children... - A common feminist trick is to combine different statistics in order to make the worst seem more common. It is probably the case that very few of these abusive men were given custody. Oh, and we're not told what 'abusive' means, given that 'domestic violence' now seems to be anything that any woman wants to say it is. We're also not told what 'liberal visitation' means, given that there are those who think fathers should be denied any contact of any kind (a birthday card is harrassment, don't ya know).
...a situation that often proved to be damaging to the youngsters and the women. - 'often' means 'not always'; it may even be less than half the time or a third of the time or a quarter; we just aren't told. It seems strange that contact with these abusive men should prove undamaging to anyone. We aren't told what 'damaging' means either, or whether the damage was caused by the men or by the system that regulates their contact with their children. We know that if dad has the kids for a day and they fall asleep in the car on the way back to mom's, that means they are too tired, which must be some kind of abuse. Alternatively, they may come back all excited and talking about the neat things they did with dad, and that means they are too excited, which is also some kind of abuse.
Without any concrete information about what they mean by 'abusive' or 'damaged' or 'often' this study is just the usual feminist connect-the-dots puzzle - that's the kind where the dots aren't numbered, so you come to a conclusion based on supposition and things you feel to be true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"http://www.globe.com/dailyglobe2/330/metro/Report _assails_family_courts+.shtml
I thought the point of journalism was an honest, unemotional look into something. Not sure what school you attended, but you must have skipped out on all of your ethics classes.
Also, be sure to tell the hardcore left feminists that I said hi, and that I think your doing a great job being a shill for them.
Mitchell A. Smith"
Hope she likes it.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if oppression of men FOR BEING MEN is a relatively new phenomenon (from mid 80-s), general oppression and double standars (including that of individual men by individual women) is at least 4,000 years old. And some societys were much more extreme in oppressing the disadvantaged groups then USA is today. And in ALL of these cases many of the oppressed become DESPERADOS.
During US slavery, many slaves who were so severly abused that they preferred to be executed murdered their masters/mistresses. In feudal Europe where many serfs were terribly exploited, there was phenomeenon of bands of highway robbers. Robin Hood is the most famous one. In Ancient Rome , "more citisens were killed by their slaves then by tyrants."
PUNISHMENT AND CRIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've always experienced societal oppression of men as a result of double-standards in which men are expected to be tough, stoic, and responsible, and are mocked for any show of vulnerability as if it's normal and proper to shame and abuse men who show "weakness;" previously, this was simply seen as the price for being the dominant gender, but was endured in exchange for the advantages which properly accrued such as social superiority and power.
However, the politics of feminist convenience has since upset this balance of power in women's favor with no attached cost, via selective enforcement: as a result, women now feel absolutely no decent shame in demanding the exact same rights commonly associated with men, however at the same time likewise demand that no shame be attached to them for appearing as weak and vulnerable as they please, with no abuse tolerated in response to their freely showing their feelings in addition to expecting special attention, support and treatment.
This double-standard sends a clear message that men are some sort of second-class citizen who are forced to endure more punishment and assume greater resonsibility, but receive less reward-- and it's time this has ended.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
