|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:22 PM September 22nd, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
What Ms. England's lawyers are attempting is to cleverly adapt the tried-and-true, reliable "Battered Woman Syndrome" argument, straight from the feminist's DV Industry manual.
To be successful, Lynndie will have to market to the fullest her "victimhood" as an innocent love-struck damsel-in-distress who was in fear for her life if she disobeyed her Evil Patriarchal boyfriend & superior officer.
The fems will love this trial!
It has all the needed ideological drama --- a masculine military culture that subjugates women; a sexually predatory environment where women are objects of rape and abuse; and a captive Muslim male prisoner population that misunderstands Lynndie's behaviors as torture, instead of the desperate appeals of a woman-in-peril.
This defense depends upon the jurors believing that Ms. England is both a moron and an infant.
There's one thing you can count on --- Kim Gandy at N.O.W. will not touch this one.... she's too busy cosnpiring on Hillary's 2008 run for Prez....
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tumescent on 09:50 PM September 22nd, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Well said Roy-- I think you summed things up completely. Sad, but true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 10:15 PM September 22nd, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"innocent love-struck damsel-in-distress"?
More like a homely chick trying to get "some" and keep it.
How many men do stupid things to maintain access to "it". My male intuition tells me more men do stupid things to keep a woman. And they cannot use it as a defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:23 AM September 23rd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Was/is he allowed to claim he was trying to please her?
What's the difference, other than all the legal establishment falling over themselves to appear sympathetic to her claim?
DV is a bit like rape in that respect. It is treated seriously "just because" a woman has claimed it.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:54 AM September 23rd, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Notice the pattern. Do something illegal, irresponsible or stupid and find a man to blame.
NOW is not for womens' rights, they are against womens' responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:08 PM September 23rd, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, this is SO typical, now-a-days.
A woman screws up and then blames a man.
GOD!
This lack of personal responsibility exhibited by so MANY women these days is SICKENING!
It wouldn't be so bad if they just didn't get by with it so often. But they DO.
WHERE is the EQUALITY? I don't see it!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 04:28 PM September 23rd, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
It was probably common in the old days also - but people then new better than to listen to a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:44 PM September 23rd, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently a "reasonable woman's" subjective impressions now provide a basis for determining if sexual harassment has happened, and a person's actions may be deemed to be sexual discrimination, even if no gender-based offense or expression occurred.
Lynndie is home free already ....
(Excerpt) -
"Under the "reasonable woman" standard devised in an earlier case, Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991), the qualitative differences in the subjective and objective effects of the behavior are the way to determine whether men and women were treated differently. Because women found the behavior subjectively more intimidating than men did, and reasonable women would do so, the conduct treats women differently...
This case means that when employers permit abusive behavior in the workplace, their toleration carries a higher risk. If the abusive behavior will be actually and reasonably perceived as disadvantageous by women, the behavior may be discrimination."
Link at --
http://www.littler.com/nwsltr/asap_MaleTantrums_9_ 05.htm
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:29 PM September 23rd, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Extraordinary. Thus female employees can successfully claim to be victims of discrimination when they are receiving the same treatment as male employees!!!!!
Therefore EQUALITY = DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN!!!!!
It's hilarious.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:01 AM September 24th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Hotspur has nailed the Catch-22 genius of feminism bang-on! (It's diabolical, elegant, and deadly for men everywhere.)
Think about it....
If in the workplace men censor their speech and modify their actions around women, then the workplace climate is discriminatory.
If men do not censor their speech or modify their actions around women --- and a woman subjectively "feels" offended or threatened by men's "unfiltered" behaviors --- then the workplace climate is discriminatory.
From now on, no woman should ever expect any male co-worker to speak to her honestly, to show any interest in her performance or career potential, to (gawd forbid) act as her mentor, or have anything other than the most superficial "professional" interactions with her.
Feminism has succeeded at last. It has cut women off from the one source of reason that might have provided a way out of the quagmire of self-destruction they seem bent on pursuing.
You GO GIRLZZZZZ!
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:33 AM September 24th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not defending England, but as a PFC she couldn't do much without higher authorization. She was clearly a pawn and a scapegoat.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Kyo writes "Private First Class Lynndie England, accused of torturing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, is attempting to shift the blame to her boyfriend by claiming that her acts were all in an effort to please him! Story at