[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Battered Justice, all right...
posted by Matt on 03:09 PM March 19th, 2005
Domestic Violence .. at least as far as the truth goes. The Washington Post has done it again. The author's article ends with the usual appeal to governmental chivalry with:

In fact, the history of profound gender inequality in the government's treatment of wife-beating makes the problem one of core constitutional concern. No less than police brutality, this kind of passive misconduct implicates fundamental civil rights.

Actually it's more the other way 'round really. Has a battered woman ever been made to ride backward on a donkey while crowds threw garbage at her (search on "donkey" to get to the relevant text on the page)?

See menweb.org and mediaradar.org for more resources on this topic. Also, you can read about the author of the Post article here; her e-mail address is jmeier-at-law.gwu.edu.

Eligible? How much money have you got? | Snail a dollar!  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
So does she believe VAWA is unconstitutional? (Score:2)
by Raymond Cuttill on 05:01 PM March 19th, 2005 EST (#1)
Early English common law and some U.S. courts once endorsed the right of men to beat their wives and children, on the grounds that the man was head of the household.
I suspect this is from the “Rule of Thumb” myth.
The doctrine of procedural due process derives from the principle that when a state chooses to establish a benefit or right for citizens, it may not deny such benefits in an arbitrary or unfair way.
The writer is a professor of clinical law at George Washington University and director of the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project.
So does she believe VAWA is unconstitutional?
Re:So does she believe VAWA is unconstitutional? (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 06:45 PM March 19th, 2005 EST (#2)
She's probably on the VAWA gravy train, receiving taxpayer money to demonize men. As for the WoPo, just the usually misandry.
Re:So does she believe VAWA is unconstitutional? (Score:1)
by Gang-banged on 09:53 PM March 19th, 2005 EST (#3)
(User #1714 Info)
"The doctrine of procedural due process derives from the principle that when a state chooses to establish a benefit or right for citizens, it may not deny such benefits in an arbitrary or unfair way."

Where exactly does this leave any rights men were formerly given, and, as Glenn Sacks is currently shouting about . . . the rights of our current combat troops ?
Reveille (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 10:41 PM March 19th, 2005 EST (#4)
Cases like this should be a wake-up call to all the dreamers who declare that feminism is dead or dying. They no longer have to put a hundred or so feminazis on a picket line, they have enough well placed warriors to do the job. Every week we find ourselves reacting to a severe curtailment of men's rights, supported, though not initiated, by organized feminism.

Fellas, it ain't goin' nowhere. It's getting stronger by the day, and more pervasive. A case like this will never be compared to Andrea Gates—afterall, it's about "orders of protection," right? Expect to see hundreds of these articles and a slew of lawsuits leading up to the recert of the VAWA. Meanwhile, MRAs will lazily sit behind their screens complaining that politicians didn't have the guts (or stupidity) to stand up to half million marching feminazis by themselves.

Truth is we demonstrate, march and make noise, or die. We can't expect our politicians, who will never resemble statesmen, to martyr themselves to our cause while in support we send them some encouraging e-mails as their political epitaph.

In case anyone doesn't get it, the sh*t has already hit the fan.
Skimmity riding (Score:2)
by AngryMan (end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk) on 07:51 AM March 20th, 2005 EST (#5)
I followed your link about the donkey-ride and came up with some interesting stuff. Try googling on 'charivari cuckold'. Here are some quotes:
In 18th- and 19th-century France, a husband who had been pushed around by his wife would be forced by the community to wear women's clothing and to ride through the village, sitting backwards on a donkey, holding its tail. This humiliating practice, called the charivari, was also common in other parts of Europe. In Brittany, villagers strapped wife-beaten husbands to carts and "paraded them ignominiously through a booing populace."
 
“In France most charivaris were conducted against husbands who were beaten by their wives; in England many skimmingtons were directed against husbands whose wives had been unfaithful.
 
A "wife," acted by a neighbor, rode behind the man and beat him with a stick or, in England, with the long-handled ladle used to skim cream that was known as a skimmington.
Hence the name - in England the ritual was called the skimmington, and later 'skimmity riding'.
In England it was also called ‘riding the stang’, ‘loo-belling’, ‘wooset-hunting’. In France it was called ‘charivari’, ‘scampanate’ in Italy, and the German ‘haberfeld-treiben’, ‘thierjagen’ and ‘katzenmusik’. ‘katzenmusik’ (literally cats music because the ritual often involved cat torture). Skimmity riding is also supposed to be similar to the ceremony of the Mumbo Jumbo in Africa.

The problem we have in discussing issues such as this is that feminists have got there first: These actso fo public humiliation "were designed to shame men into disciplining women and to warn women to remain obedient" ( Source)
The writer characterises the charivari as one of the bad things that society does to women. This is truly an astonishing piece of intellectual gymnastics. The husband has suffered twice over; once by being the victim of domestic violence or marital infidelity and again by being the target of ritualised public humiliation. Yet the writer maintains that the charivari is a social instrument for controlling women. Women’s marital infidelity and domestic violence against men is implicitly condoned. I do not imagine for one second that the writer would take the same lax attitude towards the ritualised public humiliation of battered women.

The practice seems only to have rather vague rules and therefore inevitable variation exists between any one procession and another. However, in all the skimmity processions, the aim was largely one and the same, although the seriousness of the performance was known to vary. But the skimmity ride was rarely a humorous event quickly forgotten by villagers. The intention of the skimmity was, most commonly, to drive the persons out of the area. As Roberts states, ‘the parties for whom they ride never lose the ridicule and disgrace which it attaches’.
The most famous account of such an occasion in Dorset is Thomas Hardy’s, in ‘The Mayor of Casterbridge’, where the skimmity ride causes the death of Lucetta Farfrae. In 1882, skimmity riding was made an offence against the Highway Act, punishable by fine and imprisonment. Apparently though, such an event occurred as recently as 1917 in Dorset. Skimmington was certainly common in rural Dorset during the nineteenth century.

Thanks, man, I've learned something new today. Feminists have remained strangely silent on the subject...


Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]