|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:43 PM July 8th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I hope the family sues the female teacher in civil court for the assault, and all the trauma that went with it.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:31 PM July 8th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
It's a standard practice in personal injury lawsuits to include trauma (humiliation, etc.) suffered. Considering how a major tennet of feminist thought is to humilitate males for alleged (imagined) abuses against females, I absolutely believe trauma suffered should be included in any action against any abusive/battering female. They need to incur shame to help them get their minds right.
I think trauma should definitely be included and and it should be emphasized and compensated for as much as possible.
Anyone who shows mercy to a female in light of the the war on males that is being conducted today in the Western world is responding inappropriately in my opinion.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The feminists are quick to point out any power differential that might be involved in an incident such as this. If the kicker was a man and he was in a position of power i.e. teacher, policeman, therapist etc then they would throw the book at him and scream bloody murder that someone in power was abusing that position in seeking "dominance and control" over the victim. Whether this is right or wrong is not really the question. The reality is that if this had been a male teacher he would surely have been shamed for his abusiveness. I think Ray is saying if it is good for the goose it needs to be good for the gander. I agree 100%.
OTOH we really don't know much about this specific situation. It could be that this women gently tapped his leg with her foot in trying to get his attention....and it could also be that she was wearing jack boots and almost broke his leg. We are at a disadvantage here since we really don't know much about what went on.
Do we have True Equality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What the hell does this have to do with gender equality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point is not the trauma--though the article doesn't mention how hard she kicked him--the point is the double standard. A male teacher could never have gotten away with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we missed an important point:
The MSM site on which the article appears is evidently organized by a feminist. Under the piece it reads: "Copyright, this may not be republished, printed or rebroadcast in any way."
Under that are two icons, one to email the article and another to print it !
Seems like feminist logic to me ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I would withhold judgement on this scenario till one knew all the pertinent information. A 'kick' could imply many different forces, it could have been a tap with the foot, or it could have been a rib splitting, bruise causing attack.
I can take an example from my own experiences. I used to be a swim coach for a summer team during highschool. I know often times while having swimmers do push-ups, I would 'kick' them when their abdomens didn't move off the group, hence doing a very poor push up. Of course this kick was merely a tap with my foot meant to remind them to keep their backs straight and do the push up correctly.
Another example was this one lady whom was driving by my fraternity house when we were cleaning at the beginning of the school year. One guy was loading an couple of old mattress into the back of a truck so it could be taken to a dumpster. Anyway the house mascot, a dog, was getting in his way so he 'kicked' the dog out of the way. Of course the kick was no harder than I do to my kids. But she stopped her car and started yelling at him "Don't kick that dog! I saw you kick that dog!" on and on. Ofcourse anyone with a dog knows what went on, if you have ever had your hands full, and the dog is in the way, you give it a shove with your leg.
Mu basic point is, it could have been a kick too 'one of those ladies'. She, or in this case he makes a big stink over nothing. On the otherhand it very well could have been a hard, innaproprate kick, but there is really no reference. So before I say that a man or woman was treated differently for the same crime. I would want to know exactly what the crime was.
However, I don't like how many people jump on the sue, sue, sue bandwagon. I think while the legal system can be useful at time but has currently become perverted from its original beneficial uses where those 'easyily offendable people' can claim 'emotional distress' over the a minor slight against them. If you do this, you are no better than women whom file sexual harashment charges because the guys at the office don't include her in their non-work related conversations and she feels left out.
Well, now that is answer would just like to say hi as this is my first post on the site. I have been reading alot of the past articles over the past week or so. I am a twenty-year old college male majoring in Aerospace and Mechanical engineering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome.
I agree with you, but also see Ray's point. I will often use his argument in similar cases, but when bringing up my son, I was always cognizant of how my actions would affect his thinking. And teaching a young male student to be or act the victim would, in my opinion, hurt this student more than the offending teacher.
If I was his father, I might press real hard to have her disciplined or criminal charges pressed based on the circumstances, but I would never teach him that such behavior was "traumatizing". Pressing such civil charges would require the student to testify in court as to how "traumatized" he was. This may be just a legal term, but when used, people start to take it's real meaning to heart and start internalizing it, truly believing that they were, in fact, traumtized. The feminist movement and all its rhetoric and how American women act these days is a prime example of this. The slightest little offense and women these days feel they've been "traumatized"!
If I were looking for a mate, I wouldn't go near an American woman with a 2000 foot pole and this victim mentality is the biggest reason. Who could expect to maintain a long-term relationship with a cry-baby. Especially with our court system now seeing everything in the same way.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You raise a valid point, but I'm having trouble coming up with a scenario that isn't violent to fit the minimal information that was in the article. In both examples you cited, a standing person (possibly with hands full) is dealing with an obstacle at their feet - either a dog or an athlete doing push-ups. From the article we know that the student was sitting with his head on his desk. Why would the teacher use a foot on a seated student to prod or goad a student gently instead of a hand?
The obvious assumption to me would be that she was wearing shoes, and wanted to use more force than was easily applied with bare hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My points were varried, that not all 'kicks' are hard.
The second with the dog, is that not all people react normally to a situation that is normal and non-harmful.
The reason the teacher kicked was as the article stated, earlier she said that she would kick. It was possibly ment in jest, and the kick was also, in jest.
However, the main point is the title, not enough info. Plain and simple, anyone could argue the could of beens or the possibly weres, but there just isn't enough to go off of in this five line article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:23 PM July 9th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
DasCoon writes, "The reason the teacher kicked was as the article stated, earlier she said that she would kick. It was possibly ment in jest, and the kick was also, in jest."
You don't get it. The feminists have removed the differentiation that used to characterize differences in use of force in our laws. ANYTHING that can be interpreted as a kick is sufficient to have a male arrested under current domestic violence law. The same is true for having child protective services seize your children.
You have much to learn about how feminist corrupted the laws.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you forget is that when called on domestic dispute distrubances some states have laws requiring an arrest, regardless of if contact occured at all.
I do get it, but my point is and still is this, not enough info. Without knowing circumstances I will not render judgement on if she is being treated fairly or unfairly. Is she being treated more leanient than a man? Hard to say, depending on the principle and how much common sense they have, it is relative to alot of information that isn't present. Not all people are corrupted with PC bullshit, and thus I try and not to think the worst of anyone until they prove otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:18 PM July 9th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
DasCoon writes, "A 'kick' could imply many different forces, it could have been a tap with the foot, or it could have been a rib splitting, bruise causing attack."
If this were 30 years ago then we could expect that people would be reasonable. However, if you are a male any of these kinds of "kick's" can get you arrested in a household situation under current domestic violence laws. It is little different at the schools for a male.
DasCoon also writes, "...Of course the kick was no harder than I do to my kids...."
Gees. This is why we need a men's issues site. DasCoon is new and doesn't realize how dramatically the feminists have changed the laws.
All that is required to get DasCoon arrested now is to know his real name and location. Then any one of us could anonymously call child protective services and have his children removed. Further, we only need to make one anonymous phone call to the police to have DasCoon arrested under the current domestic violence laws.
Any stranger, bystander, or public official can have this person thrown in jail with this kind of admission of guilt.
This is no joke.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bah, accidently closed the window after I finish typing a moderate length post. I will merely summize it as I have no desire to re-type it.
"Gees. This is why we need a men's issues site. DasCoon is new and doesn't realize how dramatically the feminists have changed the laws. "
This is why we need a reading comprehension course. Please note the context of 'my kids' they are children under my watch as a swim instructor. Also you will note I give my age, 20. Please, leave the monopoly of misquations and poor comprehension to femnazi's and their ilk.
Don't let the occasionaly poor judgement corrupt you, throughout the nation many people still follow reason and common. The way to show those that don't is not by using their same lack of logic. Instead, give them something to emulate, discuss, don't threaten.
I believe Gandi said "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth will leave the whole world blind and toothless."
While I am not advocated complatency, I am instead promoting activism without the flaws that they hold. Sometimes we must accept that some old dogs can't learn new tricks, women studying 'women's studies' may as well be chalked up as lost. However their are millions of americans whom have not become so perverted in thought. Attack, and people become defensive, leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr didn't blame, he asked for change, and painted a picture of his perfect world, and it changed. Malcom X got a following, but it was as black as the night sky, King, he gained a following that mirrored his ideals, there were people of all colors.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
