|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:13 PM November 19th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Thea, could you please tell us what the point of this post is? The question of how the case would have been handled is completely open because the woman in question is dead. Are we supposed to be outraged because if she had lived you think she would have been let off easily? Are we supposed to be edified by your theory of the would-be future?
Many of your posts are angry rants and bleedingly sarcastic evaluations of feminists and sometimes women in general. Do you just want attention? Attacking your own sex just to be accepted, if that is your reason, is a display of moral weakness.
I realize that that might not be your reason, and that you could be merely expressing pent-up frustration at a campus dominated by feminist ideology. Remember, though, that words affect other people, and the words of a woman on a site like this are especially potent. Maybe you could hit a pillow or something.
I would never suggest that you stop posting; you are an intelligent person and seem to have a generally strong moral sense. I am sure you could express yourself more constructively on the site if you could find an alternate catharsis for your anger.
--Hawat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point of the post was to possibly get feedback on what one would think this situation would have gone had this woman had been alive, arrested, and taken to trial. Given the other cases concerning wives/girlfriends murdering their male significant others, I was actually curious as to how people here would think this would have played out based on similar cases of female on male domestic abuse.
How about you giving your own theory as to how you think this would have played out had she had lived, been arrested, and taken to trial, rather than making childish assasinations of my characters and motives? Radical idea, isn't it?
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I meant 'character,' singular.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:00 PM November 19th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think I attacked your character, and as for your motives I gave the two most plausible speculations I could come up with. I even favored the more generous one.
As for the murderer, I think it likely that she would have been punished less severely than a man in the same situation. That is unfortunate but probably has more to do with misguided chivalry than feminism.
--Hawat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:10 PM November 19th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I should clarify that the later parts of my original comment were not entirely directed at this particular post of yours. That might have been somewhat inappropriate, but I was trying to be helpful to you. I think there is a fine line between criticism and personal attacks, and while I didn't think I crossed it, I apologize if I offended you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just as a point of interest, I have it on good authority from an in-law who is a retired RCMP officer that the vast majority of unsolved murders that are solved years after the fact are not solved like on "cold case"or "cold squad" but rather by death bed confessions by the perpetrator. Apparently this is just part of the routine for police officers.
I am going to say something at this point that might irritate some people in this forum. I am notorious for trashing feminist trolls with mercyless invective...I do not appologise for this....it works. I have probably been an embarrassment to some of the people who participate in this and other forums because of my ruthless tongue...I do not appologise for this...it works. But I avoid participation in certain forum threads. Notably, sexual witch hunts and chants of "crucify!! Crucify!!"when someone is accused before the law.
I will not stoop to the lowest levels of the enemy.
To those in this forum who have found me to be "over the top" when I trash the trolls who come here to politically correct us...let me say, the most effective bomber in the German arsenal was the Stuka...I will use that as the analogy of sane, reasonable, rational,"respectable" approach. Unfortunately it was a turkey to be shot until the fighters established air supremacy.
The following is my reason for "telling it like it is":
In the beginning was the Plan.
And then came the Assumptions.
And the Assumptions were without Form.
And the Plan was completely without Substance.
And darkness was upon the Face of the workers.
And they spoke amongst themselves, saying:
"It is a crock of shit, and it stinketh."
And the workers went unto their supervisors and sayeth:
"It is a pail of dung and none may abide by the odor thereof."
The supervisors went unto their managers and sayeth unto them:
"It is a container of excrement and it is very strong,
Such that none may abide by it."
And the managers went unto their directors and sayeth:
"It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide by its strength."
And the directors spoke amongst themselves, saying one to another:
"It contains that which aids plant growth, and is very stong."
The directors went unto the vice-presidents to sayeth unto them:
"It promotes growth and is very powerful."
The vice-presidents went unto the president and sayeth to him:
"This new Plan will actively promote the growth and efficiency
of the company, and these areas in particular."
The president looked upon the Plan and saw that it was good.
And the Plan became policy.
"This is how Shit happens"
==========================
In other words if you are dealing with people who just cannot deal with the truth...don't loose sleep over it. But those who cannot deal with the truth MUST be deposed from power.
That having been said I must say that the swarmings that I see of those accused before the law revolt me because they smack of the enemy's mean spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know the anything about which sex does most deathbed confessions. I am interested because one of my theories about female murderers, especially the prisoners, is that some get away with it. Most male killers leave a body lying around, which is an obvious crime, whereas poison, favoured by women, often leaves someone who apparently died by natural causes. The poisoner has often killed before when finally caught and if they'd stopped earlier they wouldn't have been caught. Therefore we may be missing a lot of female killings from the statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of my younger brother's closest fiends was poisoned by his wife. This was around the time of the "Life With Billy" thing so she walked in less than two years. Kid's uncle now has custody and lives in fear of momma kidnapping kid.
Her murder method is one of those things that should perhaps be made a public warning like "date rape"drink drugging.
The method is to add a little methol hydrate to his drinks. If he is a boozer it is very hard to detect and effect is cumulative. Get a quick cremation before anyone asks for an autopsy and your tracks are covered.
I knew this woman once who worked as a "skip tracer"for a credit collection agency. She said it was impossible to skip town and just dissappear, anyone is traceable. Now there are probably career criminals who have resources for false identities but this is not something the average Joe would know how to do. So I always wonder about tales of some guy running off on his wife and disappearing without a trace. It is much easier to dispose of a body than police shows would have you believe. Just read any of the crime memoirs by gangsters who are in witness protection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:47 PM November 20th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
So true.
They never did find Jimmy Hoffa, did they?
So yeah, I would have to agree that disposal of a body IS, indeed, easier than "CSI" makes it seem.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"As for the murderer, I think it likely that she would have been punished less severely than a man in the same situation. That is unfortunate but probably has more to do with misguided chivalry than feminism."--Hawat
The woman probably would have been punished far less severely -- "I suffered abuse at the hands of my alcoholic husband for years.." is all she would have had to say.
As far as misguided chivalry, it's a flame that's constantly fanned by feminists and their friends in the media. Feminists know that they can shame men into doing their bidding.
I want to put in a good word for Thea. I think it's odd to assume that a feminist challenging woman is angry at her sex or out for attention. There are certainly numerous feminist leaning men out there who continuously slam male attitudes and behavior. I don't think that they're necessarily looking for attention or that they hate their gender. This reminds me of politically conservative blacks (especially black Republicans) who are vilified and denounced by liberals for being subservient uncle toms.
I admire Thea's criticism of victim feminism. (As a college student, she must encounter its manifestations almost everyday.) Thanks for your support, Thea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:56 PM November 20th, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Same here.
I feel Thea is in need of a good place to rant, and get things off her chest. God knows that's one of the reasons I come here. And yeah, she gets angry, but she has good reason to be.
As far as her "hateing her own gender" (Something that Pheadra accused her of too) I don't think she does. My guess is is that she hates what SOME of her gender does. And I can relate to that. I hate some of the things I have seen SOME men do, but I certainly don't hate my own gender, by a long-shot. I'm PROUD to be a man. Women should be proud to be women, as well. Difference being it's okay to have pride in being female, it's seen as wrong to be proud of being male, in today's climate. I think Thea sees that, as well, and is right to be mad about that. I like the way Thea expresses her self, she can be a bit spicey, but really funny at times. I'm glad she's here.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:57 PM November 20th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
"My guess is is that she hates what SOME of her gender does. And I can relate to that. I hate some of the things I have seen SOME men do, but I certainly don't hate my own gender, by a long-shot. I'm PROUD to be a man. Women should be proud to be women, as well. Difference being it's okay to have pride in being female, it's seen as wrong to be proud of being male, in today's climate. I think Thea sees that, as well, and is right to be mad about that."
TC:
Nice insights
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:52 PM November 21st, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Ray.
I try.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would never suggest that you stop posting; you are an intelligent person and seem to have a generally strong moral sense. I am sure you could express yourself more constructively on the site if you could find an alternate catharsis for your anger.
I don't know who you are and I can't find any other posts by you other than the negative one here about Thea's comments (which I do not think are terrible or over the top, but are more like fair commentary). One of the cries we often hear from feminists is that we should be nice and rational and politely point out the errors in feminist arguments. Not dissimilar to your post. Given 30 years of hatred I think a little ranting and raving is allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:25 PM November 19th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Given 30 years of hatred I think a little ranting and raving is allowed.
I agree. Please don't take it personally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:32 PM November 19th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"One of the cries we often hear from feminists is that we should be nice and rational and politely point out the errors in feminist arguments. Not dissimilar to your post. Given 30 years of hatred I think a little ranting and raving is allowed."
Many men's rights activist tend to be a little vituperative.
If a dog is beaten, mistreated and abused, he/she may turn into a hand biter, but that is often not the dogs natural disposition, it is just his/her conditioning.
It would seem odd that we would expect a men's activism site not to have an air of vituperation, given the outrageous abuse that so many victims of the radical/gender feminist agenda have suffered.
In other words, vituperation kind of goes with the territory (this site), and is present in a number of postings.
MENSACTIVISM is a place where "some" have unloaded a lot of their pain, including yours truly.
It would be nice to live in world where we all would be safely insulated from the battery of the radical/gender feminist agenda that is so hatefully aimed at men. Such is not the case. So long as free speech remains, MENSACTIVISM offers a refuge where many can come to share their experiences. The Mothers, GrandMothers Daughters, Sisters, and 2nd wives of loved men harmed by radical/gender feminism are also "some" of those who have found this a place to express their views.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:46 AM November 20th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I am not a feminist. I have posted here before as Jas0n of Thebes, but I lost my password. I decided I like the name Hawat more. He is the Atreides mentat in Dune.
Public forum as rage catharsis is useful within reason. When rants become too frequent they lose their cathartic effect and rage accumulates, exascerbating the rage of others, and ultimately causing an orgiastic environment of mental oblivion that can solve nothing.
This is how radical feminism was created. Feminists listened to each other rave about the evils of men until the myth of a conspiratorial Patriarchy was developed.
This is not my overall view of the site, which I have visited often and frequently find informative. What I am talking about does happen sometimes, though.
I sympathize with those of you who have been made miserable by the consequences of excessive feminism. I think the best way to heal these injustices is to smother the radical feminist agenda with heaps of cold logic and the blazing ideal of an equal humanity.
-Hawat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:14 AM November 20th, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
."This is how radical feminism was created. Feminists listened to each other rave about the evils of men until the myth of a conspiratorial Patriarchy was developed." "I think the best way to heal these injustices is to smother the radical feminist agenda with heaps of cold logic and the blazing ideal of an equal humanity."
It is true that radical/gender feminists and women's studies instructors promote a belief system that has devolved out of "women's ways of knowing.,” “connected knowing” as opposed to “separate knowing,” “emotion and feelings” as opposed to “logic and sound reason.” Women’s studies teaches that “logic and reasoning” are flawed, oppresive constructs of the patriarchal system of power and control, that unfairly favors all males in everything from jobs to education, from sports programs to family courts.
Of course Science and Math are at the forefront of that oppresive system employing logic, and must be reconstructed using “Women’s ways of knowing.” Women’s studies teaches that “emotion, feelings and women’s intuitions” are superior to “reason and logic,” and that reason and logic must be abandoned in the face of this superior methodology. As crazy as all that sounds, it is sweeping through our colleges and universities and reconstructing the landscape with the “new curriculum.” Sociology departments are most notably effected, but Psychology departments, Humanities departments and others are also being effected by this imbecilic academic cancer.
In states like California, hate crime legislation has been passed that makes it a crime if a woman feels “intimidated.” That way radical/gender feminists are free to spew their illogical hatred of men, and refutations, no matter how reasoned or calm, can always be alleged to be an intimidation of a "protected person." The law states that it is the alleged victim who is to perceive what is intimidation. This is how male-hating, radical/gender feminists in California further their agenda and silence their critics, even though the vast majority of their illogical arguments, are largely lacking any rational or logical content.
This is how hate movements like women's studies programs (and classes) are allowed to spew their man-hating rhetoric on college campuses across California. They spew the rhetoric of the misandrist radical/gender feminist agenda, while their critics must remain muzzled, because of the tyrannical oppression of their free speech through fascist laws like SB1234.
The ultimate irony I see in all of this, is that this defining of “hate crime” is all happening in large part thanks to one of the biggest hate mongers in the history of the state of California, anti-male state Senator Sheila Kuehl. It is the ultimate irony that her bill SB 1234 (hate crime legislation) was passed, and then signed by Governor Schwarzenegger. It is ironic considering the hate agenda that Sheila Kuehl has been waging a gender war against all men in the state of California for many years now, and it is ironic given the fact the Arnold Schwarzenegger should be more keenly aware of the kind of repressive hatred and prejudice, that has left such an evil stigma on all people of German ancestry to this day.
As a German-American, I am ashamed and disgusted with the moral cowardice of Arnold Schwarzenegger for signing SB 1234, a bill that is nothing more than a suppression of the free speech rights of the #1 target of hate in the state of California (men).
Even though the man in the cited article had a California connection and was murdered and packed in a freezer by a hateful woman, I would not expect to see such hateful female behavior prosecuted any time soon as a hate crime. Misandrist prejudice is fast replacing the historical rule of law in Femi-fornia, and the Femi Klux Klan (women's studies programs, women's commissions,domestic violence commissions, sexual harassment laws, etc.) appears to be the only voice politically correct enough to have the ear of Femi-fornia's elected represenatives.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawat... what angers you most about her post? That it is true? Or that you wish it were not true?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:29 PM November 19th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"The cause of death was a gunshot to the back of the head."
Of course she claims that she was a battered woman, and the entire man-hating domestic violence industry no doubt will believe her. After all, I've heared them say that most of the women in jail for killing their husbands or boy friends were just defending themselves from domestic violence.
Ray
This female modus operandi isn't new and neither is this 1st T-shirt saying.
click Ever Been Hit By Her?
click For Thousands of Years Women Have Murdered Men Their Way
click There's No Excuse for Domestic Violence Unless...
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s) All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:02 PM November 19th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"Investigators believe Kelley killed her husband in 1991 or 1992 in California's Ventura County, though she told people he died in Las Vegas after stepping in front of a car while he was drunk."
Wow, what were people who knew this woman thinnking? Was he dog that they assumed he just ran out into traffic and she left him on the curb for the Dept. of Animal Regulation to pick up? One wonders why there was not greater suspicion, more questions. Didn't he have a job where someone would have missed him and been suspicious? I'm certainly glad the daughter kept asking questions or this guy might have been thrown out for being a big rotten fish in an old defective freezer.
Glenn Sacks wrote an excellent article on the weapons that women use to commit domestic violence, and another article here.
There are more of his columes dealing with this issue on his web site.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:12 AM November 20th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Mainstream media has different ways of accounting for female domestic violence and abuse, and our judicial system is biased against men in these matters as a result.
For instance, the Boston Globe headline read something like this: Slain man discovered in storage.
If a man had done this, the headline would most likely have been - Husband killes wife in gruesome murder... And then all the victim advocates would be harping about how the judicial system needs reforms and how the cops need to get trained to handle these matters, and how they need more money so these type of things wouldn't happen...
Feminists have hardcore radical advocates who have slipped into every newspaper and media outlet. For the most part they do their job. But when issues relating to gender occur, they make sure the population is fed the bullshit feminist dogma on all matters. They do not care about equality. They care about the distortion of reality - with female supremacy as their ultimate goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:29 AM November 20th, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"If a man had done this, the headline would most likely have been - Husband killes wife in gruesome murder."
That would be the "chivalry factor" at work, man evil, woman good.
"...the Boston Globe headline read something like, "Slain man discovered in storage."
Typical deadbeat male, he's just been laying around all these years doing nothing, and now he's probably run up a sky high storage charge and will make someone else pay it. Men are so irresponsible, especially when they're dead. We should have programs to train young men to be more efficient and expedient in "eliminating" themselves. Oh, wait a minute, that's something called war isn't it?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:04 PM November 20th, 2004 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Good one, Ray.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:07 PM November 20th, 2004 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
(borrowed from mensnewsdaily)
It’s generally thought that the home is a more dangerous place for women than men. This myth is what fundamental feminists want us to believe. The fact is that our homes and neighborhoods can be a dangerous place for both males and females.
The vast majority of homicides are not committed by strangers. The majority of homicide offenders and victims are intimate/family members or acquaintances. The FBI Supplemental Homicide Report (SHR) defines intimate/family members as relatives, step-relatives, in-laws, and common law or ex-spouses.
It defines acquaintances as boyfriends, girlfriends, ex-husbands, ex-wives, employee, employer, friend, homosexual relation, neighbor, and other know individuals.
The SRC documents that between 1981 and 2000, 28,586 females were the victims of a family/intimate homicide. During that same period there were 31,509 male victims. From 1981 to 2,000, 120,095 males and 33,088 females were murdered by an acquaintance. During that same time period 49,424 males and 8,518 females were murdered by a stranger. To paraphrase Pogo, we have met the enemy and the enemy is us.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide Trends in the United States, documents that females account for 24% of the total number of all homicides victims. Of that 24%, approximately 30% of females are murdered by a husband or intimate partner Thus, female intimate partners who are murdered by their spouse or intimate partner account for approximately 7% of the total number of homicides.
The majority, but certainly not all, domestic violence homicides are committed by people who have histories of criminal behavior, long histories of violent and aberrant behavior inside and out side the family, were physically and/or sexually abused as children and/or suffer from alcohol or substance abuse.
National Institute of Justice data document that in 74% of familial murders, the murderer has a prior criminal record of arrest or conviction. In fact 44% of the victims also had a prior criminal record. A Massachusetts study documents that 91% of chronic domestic violence offenders have a history of criminal behavior. Thus these people constitute a subgroup of the population and are not reflective of the general population.
The people who do not have histories of criminal behavior and commit a smaller number of domestic violence homicides also do not represent the general populace. They often appear to be people who display extreme narcissistic behavior, have alcohol or drug problems, display pathological jealousy, become extremely depressed at the prospect of losing their partner and blame their intimate partners for the loss of their economic standing or professional and personal esteem. In fact, approximately one in every four domestic violence homicides is a murder/suicide.
Between 1976 and 1996, 64% of female intimate partner victims were killed by their husbands, 5% by ex-husbands and 32% by partners/boyfriends. Of male victims, 62% were killed by their wives, 4% by ex-wives and 34% by partners/girlfriends.
This data documents that the home is a more dangerous place for males than females. The fact that the number of male offenders is higher than the number of female offenders does not change that fact.
Approximately one third of family murders involve a female as the murder. In sibling murders they account for 15% and for the murder of parents it is 18%. In spousal murders women represent 41% of the murders. In the murder of their biological children, women account for 55% of the murders.
In fact given this data the argument can be made that given the total number of murders committed by women, the home is more dangerous for men than women and women are more dangerous in the home than are men.
Richard L. Davis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:05 PM November 20th, 2004 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Nuh uh! are not! Says you ya big smarty-pants!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:11 PM November 20th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
"Nuh uh! are not! Says you ya big smarty-pants!"
Yes it is all factual and true. Here is Mr. Davis' most recent article from MND Feminist Domestic Violence Fallacies
and here is a partial of Mr. Davis' credentials (below in italics), where are yours???
Why should your refutation have any more merit than a buffons????????????? What I'm really curious about is, "What do radical/gender feminists do when they're not being stupid??????????????????????????????????????????
Sincerely, Ray
"Richard L. Davis served in the United States Marine Corps from 1960 to 1964. He is a retired lieutenant from the Brockton, Massachusetts police department. He has a graduate degree in criminal justice from Anna Maria College and another in liberal arts from Harvard University. He has a BA from Bridgewater State College in History and he minored in secondary education. He is a member of the International Honor Society of Historians and an instructor of Criminology, Group Violence and Terrorism, Criminal Justice and Domestic Violence at Quincy College in Plymouth, MA. He is a past president of the Community Center for Non-Violence in New Bedford, Massachusetts and the vice president for Family Nonviolence, Inc."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:55 PM November 21st, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
>"Nuh uh! are not! Says you ya big smarty-pants!"
..'the Hell...???
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:48 PM November 22nd, 2004 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
What specifically, if anything, are you "Nuh-uh-ing" about??
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
