|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @08:41PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I am very happy to see this story isn't going away, at least not swiftly. The California Supreme Court's ruling defies belief -- it would belong in a humor column if a young man had not already gone to jail for 6 months. (Six months, because he was a juvenile. In adults the crime is punishable by up to eight years.) I sincerely hope there is an activism project that can be built around this. The state of California should understand how much of an embarrassment this is to them. And there is no reason why women should not be charged with rape under the new law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @09:32PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
In adults the crime is punishable by up to eight years.
It's worse than that. Eight years is the mandatory minimum sentence. Rape, i.e. not stopping sex within 1.5 minutes after the women says "I have to go home," is a horrible, horrible crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @11:17PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I also hope that an activism project can be built around this outrage. However, I fear it will not materialize. We must organize and take tangible action to stop this atrocity. We must translate our words into action. This Supreme Court Ruling is to sick to be believed. We must not let this ruling stand!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @12:52AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. I doubt we can stop the outrage anytime soon. I presume there are a lot of ideologues in California who are willing to further their beliefs by sending children to jail. I hope they are proud of themselves today.
What we can do, I would think, is to treat this as an exercise. We will get stronger, we will get heard to a degree, and the momentum can build.
I believe NCFM has a letter writing committee, that coordinates sometimes with Mens Health America. Maybe that could be a start. Writing professionally, directly, and dispassionately about this topic will be a rigorous exercise of its own.
There must be Republican groups who would like to get the police out of the bedroom, and these judges off the bench. I know that conservatives can sometimes be chivalrous to a fault, but surely this must cross the line for them. The Cato Institute? The Republican Party itself? The IWF? iFeminists?
How about regular people in California. Does anyone know if this is on anyone's radar screen? Surely some people there must be wondering if their judiciary has lost its grip on sanity.
Governor Davis' address is below, although I suspect it will be in the networking, and not in attempting to convert the unrepetent, that the gains will be made. Ultimately, it will be up to the good people of California to govern themselves (or not).
Governor Gray Davis
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: 916-445-4633
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @05:15AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I have been thinking for the last few weeks that(given that Gov. Davis and a large Democratic contingent have just been re-elected in this state) this anti-male gestapo hate agenda will get far, far worse before it gets any better. Welcome to Nazifornia friends. The big difference between Nazifornia and Nazi Germany is that instead of targeting Jews, men have become the new target of demonization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What makes you so sure that the judge is a dem? I laf at people who rail against Clinton for Waco and Ruby Ridge, except that the latter happened while the first Bushie was prez.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The state of California should understand how much of an embarrassment this is to them. And there is no reason why women should not be charged with rape under the new law.
I've been talking to alot of males about this ruling. My conclusion is that these men have no balls. They are totally pathetic feminized males. This also seems to be true all over the West Coast.
They hear of the ruling and state:
1) One chivalrous Christian bigot stated, "...guess that boy should not have had sex before marriage. That boy deserves what he got."
2) Another feminized male states, "...it's all about special rights and protections for women. Everybody knows that!"
3) Another male claimed it could never happen to him. All he had to do was choose the right woman and be careful. So the ruling doesn't matter.
4) Another V.P. at a prestigious firm stated that it didn't matter because women can already falsely accuse males of rape and that such ruling are okay because that is legal. This Jewish manager had no concept that such a ruling might be an attack on men's rights.
5) My wife believes the ruling is fine because it gives her more power as a female. She believes that females are morally superior to males and incapable of making false allegations.
6) At Church, Calvary Chapel, the men believe that woman are spiritually superior to men and that they would not make such false claims. The women also believe they are spiritually superior to men and that women would never falsely accuse men of rape.
The whole damn thing makes me sick. It also really upsets me that so many members of my gender and church would hang-me-out-to-dry if I were the victim of such an allegation. I will never go back to church again. Those chivalrous males are the first to condemn and criminalize innocent males.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @06:43AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Note: These comments are from one Christian man to another, and are not intended to offend or convert people not of that faith. I recognize and respect everyone's right and privilege to believe as they choose.
Warb:
Do go back to church. Do as I do. Rub their noses in it until they get it. Embarrass and shame them for their failings in this area, but do it lovingly.
Christians do have a major problem in this area and tend to dismiss a lot of family issues in government to the realm of, "It's all a result of sin." and "This shows how much we all need Jesus." Divorce and all the problems associated with that are a stigma to the people in the church who have had one or two (as me).
Fundamentalist Christian churches (very conservative) can be insensitive to the point of being abusive in these areas. I've been to a lot of churches and now waiver between Lutheran Church Missouri synod (conservative) and Bel Air Presbyterian PCA (liberal). Each finds faults with the other.
I even ask my pastor at the Lutheran church to go to a Domestic Violence lecture where the Chief of Police lied, then I should him (Pastor) official government statistics, and scholarly research documenting the Police Chief's fallacious statements.
The New Testament says, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar and unto God the things that are God."
Christians like to use this as an excuse not to participate in government, but I tell them Jesus was interacting with a Fascist government (Roman Empire) when he said that, but we live in a participatory government (of the people, by the people for the people) and based on those same words Christians today have an obligation to participate based on fairness and "grace." Yes, "grace," since that is the dispensation of this era. "Frame your just involvement within that," I tell them.
As a Lutheran I have done a lot of research on their acquiescence during the time of Hitler and ask them if they want to have more baggage hanging over their heads, or will they like Deitrich Bonhoffer (sp?) take a stand, but a peaceful one, for what is far more reasonable?
Not everyone agrees with me about my political views, but I have a lot of support on men's issues from that little Lutheran church (almost half of that from women).
Again, what I am saying here is not for everyone, but I tell my fellow Christians, "If Christians really care about people, "Show Me." After all if you don't show that you care in tangible ways, you're not dead, you're not apathetical, you're nil, you're non-existent. The only reality, the only existence (as a Christian) is love (Agape), and if you aren't that the new testament says, "You are nothing (1Cor 13:1-2)." Personally, I have meditated on the concept of being nothing, and find love to be more warmly encompassing of my isolated oneness in this conscious existence.
All day Saturday, when I went to the march, and went into the midst of all those left leaning feminists I told myself repeatedly, "Be nice, when they're nasty. Don't repay their anger with like behavior, be caring, help them understand the truth about the egregious discrimination and injustice that men face. It's the loving thing to do for these hate filled feminists, and it's really who you are." Loving a feminist as God would is perhaps the ultimate challenge I've faced, because they work so hard to bring enmity between the sexes. I must admit to having failed in this area on previous occasions, repeatedly.
This timing is all very ironic. When I went to church on Sunday Pastor was actually preaching on Romans 13:1-4 (authority of government). This is a verse I've confronted him on previously. Some very conservative churches teach this section at face value. My comment to Pastor on one occasion was, "No way face value on this one." I told him to apply this one to Hitler or feminists if this was face value. He got it right Sunday and said (in effect) that government is not perfect due to the imperfect nature of mankind. You don't need to tell me or any man living in California about that one Pastor, we're living it.
The feminist agenda in California is having a field day destroying men, men's families, men's children, and a lot of women.
Many church members today, being inundated with feminist dogma from every sector of society, do not realize that they are like frogs being slowly boiled in water. I often tell them "Just because you're not on the plate doesn't mean you're not on the menu. Wake up and do something. You're in a lot of danger if you are any man living in California today."
We men are all being relentlessly pursued on a very dark and slippery path as we go about our existence today. If there is a little light here from me and a little light there from you, and others, perhaps we can see the way clear not to be thrown down by malevolent pursuers as we walk this earth.
Grace and Peace,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"My wife believes the ruling is fine because it gives her more power as a female. She believes that females are morally superior to males and incapable of making false allegations. "
If I found out that my wife belived this, I would leave her. I'm not necessarily suggesting you do the same, but be aware that if you have children now or plan to, then she will teach this to your children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I found out that my wife belived this, I would leave her. I'm not necessarily suggesting you do the same, but be aware that if you have children now or plan to, then she will teach this to your children.
Frank,
Show me one Christian church today that teaches that men and women are moral and spiritual equals. EVERY christian church that I know of teaches that women are more spiritual than men. There is not a single exception that I know of. Therefore, if a woman is christian she most likely believes that she is morally and spiritually superior to males. Deal!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm Catholic but not especially devout, so I can't really testify to a deep understanding of what the Church intends to teach. But I've been conscious of being taught the Catholic faith for about 42 years now (I'm 49), and NOWHERE in my recollection was I taught that women were morally superior or more spiritual than men, by the Church or anyone else, for that matter. (I wasn't taught the opposite, either.) The way I see it (somewhat myopically), is that the larger part of all this "women are morally superior" crap started out in the sixties and grew exponentially from there. Some, maybe all, of the Christian Churches may have bought into it as a matter of political correctness, a practice which if left unchecked may bring about the re-emergence of the Green Man and a serious decline of Christianity.
As to my original point, my ability to live with a woman who regards me as a lesser human being, I just couldn't knowingly do it. What feelings she carries inside herself I can't really speak to. But if she was to expose that belief to me, then she'd be expected to change it or be single again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But I've been conscious of being taught the Catholic faith for about 42 years now (I'm 49), and NOWHERE in my recollection was I taught that women were morally superior or more spiritual than men, by the Church or anyone else, for that matter.
These sorts of anti-male doctrines are all over the place. They typically take a subtle form. For example, it is common to hear the phrase that "women tend to be more spiritual than men." It all adds up to the same thing. I see it in historical doctrines going back 500 years, and yes it is found in the Catholic church.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @11:57AM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Warb:
Very, very conservative fundamentalist Christian churches lean this way: Baptist type Churches/ Grace Community Church. I have heard what you say spoken their, but not elsewhere. It could be a Calvinist thing. I have heard people at Grace Community recommend Calvary Chapel so they probably think alike. Women are not morally or spiritually superior to men. These people tend to base this error on the supposition that women are more inately intuitive to Christian spirituality and theological nuances, and that the cold logic of males somehow impedes this heightened Christian spirituallity. I think they are confusing the maternal nurturing inclinations of some women for loving and caring as our courts do. This is nothing less than an unjust stereotype and gross error in discernment on all their parts.
Oh, by the way, I consider "grace," unfortunately, to be largely a misnomer in that legalistic, judgemental church (Grace Community). As one former member said in punning the behavior of the leaders of that church, "Your saved by faith thru grace now get to work." No wonder that church is so full of Los Angeles police members. There's way too much of "Look busy Jesus is coming," going on in those places. I'm sure I've probably offended some people by now, but those are my observations based on my actual experiences in those kinds of places. I pray those places would "wise up" to the logs they carry around in their own eyes in this area as they are trying to point out the wood specks in others eyes.
I am certainly not spiritually above them or anyone else, and I certainly don't need any additional baggage, expecially untrue baggage of the type they are legalistically trying to unload on the less than perfect people who go to them for spiritual guidance. Hang in their brothers and friends.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not true of all Christians. I know it is not true of Catholics for example. Women are not considered morally/spiritually adequate to even be priests! I don't know about every Christian denomination, but historically from about the 4th Century, it was taught that women were morally INFERIOR to men. This may differ from churches you attend but I think you are misinformed on the larger scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think every Christian has had a different experience with their Church, and so I really take no issue with what Warb or Lorianne say (or others, either). I find the Churches leaning in the feminist direction now because it seem that women are the ones showing up and women are the ones driving the weekly drop in the basket. Here we go again: this sounds all too much like the case of advertising agencies.
I agree with Zubaty who says that MEN are more spiritual, while women are more 'religious.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 15, @09:28AM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
There's a nice little piece of Anti-Catholic bigotry. You are obviously unfamiliar with the Catholic catechism, Canon Law, Doctrine, and are hinging your whole opinion on the fact that women have a restriction on them.
Yes, indeed, AT ONE TIME, it was debated on women's moral standing vis-a-vis men, or even whether they had souls at all. What, however, does it say now.
Well, Male bashing and Christian bashing (especially Catholic) are the last respectable forms of bigotry, and looks like Lorriane has them in spades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are obviously unfamiliar with the Catholic catechism, Canon Law, Doctrine,
Nope I'm not unfamiliar. And I sure wouldn't assume you are an expert on them, either Mr Anonymous.
.....and are hinging your whole opinion [that the Church considers women morally/spiritually inferior to men] on the fact that women have a restriction on them.
Well, yeah, I am basing it on that.
By your logic then, if we place "restrictions" on men (say greater restrictions on them in sex) it wouldn't necessarily mean we presume certain things about all men pre-emptively. But, by all means, don't take it personally. We're not making any sweeping judgements about men when we place unilateral "restrictions" on them.
Yes, indeed, AT ONE TIME, it was debated on women's moral standing vis-a-vis men, or even whether they had souls at all. What, however, does it say now.[?]
Well, let's see ... oh yeah, the Church STILL says women can't be priests, bishops, cardinals or pope. Geez, isn't it amazing how the Church has changed over the eons?
By the way, I'm not Catholic-bashing. I was simply pointing out to Warble that his premise was wrong about Christians believeing women are morally superior to men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too am no expert, but 16 years of Catholic school did get a few things into my head.
In the recent past up to today, Women and Men were/are considered DIFFERENT by the Chuch, not one better or more "spiritual" than the other. The division of roles is an indicator of this, men are considered to be the organizers and the guinding forces, women the nurturers, the "tenders of the flock" as it were.
HOWEVER, the fact that only men can be priests is indeed a result of mysoginist activity in the early church. As I recall the early church DID have female priests until men shoved them aside and exerted full control. Early versions of the bible can be contrasted with later versions and passages that have been changed to limit the influence of women are obvious.
The heirarchy of the church knows this very well, and I'd guess within the next 50 years you'll see female priests again (perhaps sooner because of the extreme shortage of priests).
The feminists have to realize that it takes the Church 50 years to change the color of the wallpaper in the Papal bathroom, NOTHING happens fast. In these days of instant communication, gratification, and coffee we all tend to expect things to happen... well... instantly. I personally see it as a comfort that the Church doesn't jump on every bandwagon that rolls down the road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 15, @06:38PM EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
You Wrote:
"Early versions of the bible can be contrasted with later versions and passages that have been changed to limit the influence of women are obvious."
My Reply:
Respectfully, show me. I don't have any of those examples of "significant textual changes" from the Bibles in my collection, but then I'm protestant and we have tried not to add to scripture since it was put together under Constantine in the 300's A.D. Still, "protestant" Scriptural guidelines have changed with the times, but most often very slowly.
Often the people in the church change and reflect the times before the church changes, hence the back and forth echoings of "hypocrites," are often hurled at, and sometines by, the struggling sinners in the pews.
According to my understanding, Papal authority has allowed cannon law to be added to in the Catholic church, on a level with the scripture of the Bible.
What you say may be true in the Catholic church. I'm not that familiar there, except for a copy of the Douay-Rheims (Catholic Bible), which did vary from some from the earlier Latin versions (Catholic Bible). Also most significantly the Catholic Bible contains, to this day, (and recognized as scripture) those books known as the apocrypha. These books cover roughly that time around Greece's Alexander the Great and his successors (Ptolemy, and Selecus primarily) and are between the old and new Testaments. Although early protestant Bibles contained the apocrypha they did not recognize them as scripture (dueterocanonical)(sp?).
In Tischendorf's Bible, a good representative protestant bible comparing the KJV and the three earliest Greek manuscripts of the Bible (300's A.D.???) he points out all variations between those four manuscripts. Mark 16:9-20 is considered by some to be scribal addition, but does not significantly change the meaning of this account laid down in the other Gospels. The other significant passage in question, as to source, is where the woman is taken in adultery with intention to stone, John 8. Other than that I find primarily grammar and punctuation questions that do not significantly affect the overall scriptural meaning, but read it yourself and be the judge.
The most amazing thing I see in looking at all the texts from Alexandranus to Vaticanus to Sinaiaticus (all 4 th century) to Byzantine (11th century and source of the KJV) is that there are no significant differences that conflict with doctrine anywhere. Even the Geneva Bible of the Calvinists that comes from the Beza manuscript (Byzantine) is not significantly different from those already mentioned above.
Sorry for getting all theological on everyone. This stuff gets very thick, very quick.
As someone else mentioned earlier, the world these people lived in was technologically very much a different reality from our modern day pace, yet people were still people (far, far from perfect).
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, I'm not Catholic-bashing. I was simply pointing out to Warble that his premise was wrong about Christians believeing women are morally superior to men.
Yea...yea...yea... I've heard all of that before. I've seen lots of church organizations with males in authority. Authority is a different issue than spirituality or morality. Holding an office in a church like a priest does not mean that the priest is more spiritual.
For example, there are many that would claim that Mother Teresa is more spiritual than the pope and that she has done more to serve humans than the pope ever will. I don’t see the pope out there administering to the needy. Nope I saw Mother Teresa. Clearly, she is the more spiritual one. Her actions define her.
For those that have no clue:
authority spirituality
morality authority
I've seen lots of male jerks in position of authority in various churches that have no sense of spirituality or morality. In many cases they are ape-like throwbacks. I’ve also seen the same is true of women, but it is less common to have a female authority figure in a church. Nevertheless, they exist and they can be just as corrupt as their male counter parts.
Lorianne is comparing apples and oranges as usual. This is what feminist do to maintain their aura of victim hood. From the feminist perspective, if they see any evil white males in authority then it must mean that they are treating women as inferior human beings. If a male is a part of the patriarchy then that male must be evil and destroyed at all costs. We’ve all heard the hate rants before. It really gets quite old.
Wable
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Ray,
I took a college course in theology that contrasted several early Biblical texts with later ones... I'll try to find my notes (admittedly it was a while ago).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 16, @12:02PM EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, yeah, I am basing it on that.
Anything more than this, then, is dross. You believe that women and men are more or less interchangable, and where they are not it's unimportant.
At least as so far as "A woman can do anything a man can do." Whether you believe the reverse is up for the informal jury at large to devcide and you to declare.
However, your belief that this is arises from malicious intent of the Church is bashing.
So you can't be a priest. Boo-hoo. Are you even catholic? If so, why stay in a church whose doctrine differs so fundamantally from your doctrinaire stance. If not, what business is it of yours? A church is a place for faith, not secular social engineering.
And I'm a product of 17 years of catholic education, including that in a seminary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 16, @12:11PM EST (#75)
|
|
|
|
|
HOWEVER, the fact that only men can be priests is indeed a result of mysoginist activity in the early church.
Well, actually, no; originally Christians were a sect of the Jewish faith, where only men could be priests as well.
As I recall the early church DID have female priests until men shoved them aside and exerted full control.
Well, actually, no; that's a PC myth. The word used in the hebrew was mistranslated in "deacon" in the Greek, but described widows and virgins who took vows to minister to the hungry and sick - IOW, nuns.
Early versions of the bible can be contrasted with later versions and passages that have been changed to limit the influence of women are obvious.
Well, actually, no; The canon of the Bible as we know it was established long after the point where there was a structured heirarchy. You're falling for yet another myth, as the whole of the new testament can be rewritten from the quotations of the early church fathers. The modern text is consistant, if any revision has been made it is a correction backwards to the earliest extant texts.
Don't believe everything you've heard in the PC re-education propaganda blurbs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5). My wife believes the ruling is fine because it gives her more power as a female. She believes that females are morally superior to males and incapable of making false allegations.
I hope you'll explain to your wife the serious danger in such an outlook. If females are held out to be "morally superior" to males, that means anytime they do act in a less than morally superior way, they can be thought to be more seriously flawed (demons) than your ordinary garden variety human .... humans who make mistakes in judgement and mistakes in conscience (which they may later regret). You're wife is playing into the very dangerous and destructive saint/whore dicotomy and is undermining her own worth both in society and as a human being. In order to substantiate herself as "human" she must accept that like all humans she has flaws. Otherwise she sets an impossible standard no other human can meet, and a long long fall from grace for those who try but ultimately fail to be perfect.
People who insist they are superior to others on any level as a "group" are following an extremely dangerous precedent. It's a fine line between who is standing on the inside and the outside of the oven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look guys, the writing's on the wall. If you are single you would be wise to heed Kathleen Parker's (and other's)advise and seek a new country. Marriage/kids are out...your legal jeopardy is too great, too profound. Now even dating seems off limits. Rape used to be a crime of violence. Now a simple accucation that she said 'she had to go', or that she had a drink beforehand is enough to fuck your life up! A simple accusation puts you in jeopardy of years (maybe decades) behind bars. A simple accusation means you WILL be prosecuted. Under the laws, realistically, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your innocence. After arrest, do you have large sums of cash to raise bail. No...then you sit in jail a long time before trial...all because she said she 'should be going home now'. Even if acquitted, what will $50,000+ in legal bills do to your financial health. Also, under the law (which will spread to other jurisdictions) you needn't have sex with a woman for this to happen. Fail to give a woman (any woman) cash when she demands it...RAPE!!!!!!!!! We'll wait to trial to sort out the facts! No substantial change will occur in most of your lifetimes (if you are older that 30 say). Our country has gone insane. My father always told me, "never argue with an idiot"...Kapische! See ya in Mexico or Thailand, where a man can still be a man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look guys, the writing's on the wall. If you are single you would be wise to heed Kathleen Parker's (and other's)advise and seek a new country. Marriage/kids are out...your legal jeopardy is too great, too profound. Now even dating seems off limits. Rape used to be a crime of violence. Now a simple accucation that she said 'she had to go', or that she had a drink beforehand is enough to fuck your life up!
You are quite right. This is a war that the men's movement cannot possibly win at the moment. We are outfunded and outgunned at every turn. The feminist movement is sitting on literally $4 billion plus in free government funding through VAWA. Men are stupid to try to openly fight this at this time. We simply don't have the numbers nor the funding.
The best we can do is file law suits for equal protection. Damn. I hope we get a break on the justice front of this war. We need it! We can also just try to educate males so that when they get arrested they cannot claim ignorance. Any more than this is a lost cause.
To any California male that continues to have sexual relations in a dating relationship....STOP NOW! STOP before you get arrested. You cannot predict which female will go nutso on you. Don't think you can. For now you must treat all California women as potential false rape accusers. Do not marry them either. Doing so will only set you up for potential enslavement....literally.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @12:17PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
You Wrote:
Even if acquitted, what will $50,000+ in legal bills do to your financial health. Also, under the law (which will spread to other jurisdictions) you needn't have sex with a woman for this to happen. Fail to give a woman (any woman) cash when she demands it...RAPE!!!!!!!!!
My Reply:
How true. What a great thrill it has always been for vindictive females to exercise their "power and control" to completely ruin a man financially. It is still all about "power and control" as always, THEIRS. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." What a great weapon for vengeful women. I'm sure they'll have no problem wielding it with impunity. Once again their provably false accusations will go unprosecuted in our Nazi, Man Hating, Police state.
The illusional sanctity an purity of womanhood can now be preserved, and put even higher on the vestal pedastal as we increasingly villify those evil brutish men for their behavior, thoughts, and inattention to every special need of the divine woman. The whims of feminity, in all their nuances, have never expected to be more catered to than they are today.
Excuse me, the stench of the reeking whoredom of the California feminist movement in our government is turning my stomach. I have to go puke now.
If my words seem unduly harsh, then you must look again, this situation demands no less.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @02:52PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
I know we need to quit whining (like a bunch of women) and start doing something now. I honestly do not know what is best to do because I have never been an activist. However, it couldn't hurt to contact your elected representatives in government and let them know your outrage in a respectful manner. Contact the media and let them now your outrage. Better to take some action, then to just do nothing. If others have better suggestions, post them and lets do something! Our fathers fought wars and endured many hardships so we could have freedom, we cannot set back and take no action. If my father were alive today, he would express his rage (regardless of the cost) and people would have to take note.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, more power to ya! I agree, a pro-active approach is THE ONLY solution. Write your letters...you'll feel better, but it will do no good. We are faced with an ingrained, well permeated mindset and attitude that is patently anti-male. Not to mention years of legislation and judicial activism that has emasculated western men...to the core. Not until the men's movement developes a huge, formidable economic and voting bloc will there be any change. If ya haven't noticed, things are getting worse! Like I said before, change will not happen in our (ripe) lifetime, unless you are under 20 perhaps. I'll write letters, I'll financially support this website and other worthwhile vehicles of change. However, I will do it from the beaches of Phuket. Stay here, and you will be a martyr my friend. You will go down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Write your letters...you'll feel better, but it will do no good. We are faced with an ingrained, well permeated mindset and attitude that is patently anti-male.
Part of fighting a good war is knowing when to quite. Currently, the VAWA makes $4 billion available in funds to attack men's rights in the areas of domestic violence and rape.
Face it. We are out gunned in a big way. Better to put our efforts elsewhere so that we can eventually revisit this issue.
For example, lets get more Commissions and legislation to fight paternity fraud. Then after we get a few thousand Men's Commissions we can revisit this issue. For now it is a war we cannot win.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This interpertaion of the Cal. rape law may be enforceable but is grossly impracticle, and there lies its weakness.
A group should be organized in Cal. of both men and women, single and married, who's function should be to bring constant and frivilous accusations of this type of rape. Examples could be men who say they reached climax and tried to pull out but were held in by their partner or women who changed their minds after they achieved orgasam but were forced to continue by their frustrated lovers.
With enough engineered publicity, this judicial interpretaion would be great material for Jay Leno and David Letterman et al. There are a thousand jokes here.
Although we understand the seriousness of this issue it will not be rectified by rightous indignation or anger but by humor and its own absurdity. No one wants to be ridiculed and made the butt of the latest jokes. That includes the California Legislature. It's not that difficult to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @09:29PM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
I hope your right and please start the jokes immediately!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, it couldn't hurt to contact your elected representatives in government and let them know your outrage in a respectful manner. Contact the media and let them now your outrage. Better to take some action, then to just do nothing. If others have better suggestions, post them and lets do something!
Hey look! AU wants to take action! Okay. Fine. Here is a list of steps that you can take to make change:
1) Contact a good criminal attorney that can write a proposal for a new rape law that will require the female to explicitly disclose her intent to remove consent.
2) Submit the proposed language to the California Legislature by Jan. 24th, 2003. That is the deadline. You will need a sponsor and cannot be late.
3) Lobby the Assembly and Senate for one year to support the legislation. Be certain that activist show-up at every hearing to support the new bill.
4) Get the bill passed and onto Gov. Davis' desk. Then persuade him to sign it into law.
There are four basic steps to changing this law. I know because I've been through the process.
You want to make change? Fine. There is no longer any excuse. Take responsibility and take action.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @09:27PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"If I were a man, I'd find another country."
While I appreciate the sympathy, I'm not running. I'm gonna stand right here and fight for my rights as a male human being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @12:01AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Our sons will curse us if we fail to really take a stand on this issue and fight back. No more words we need action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our sons will curse us if we fail to really take a stand on this issue and fight back. No more words we need action.
What are you talking about? Our sons already curse us for our activism in men's issues. They think it is little more than a backlash movement that hates women.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @11:16AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Our sons already curse us for our activism in men's issues. They think it is little more than a backlash movement that hates women.
They've been programmed for this. However, they usually come sheepishly mumbling once they get on the short end of the stick and find out she's holding all the cards in a rigged game.
My cousin used to be an arch-feminist who was in many ways like Lorrianne. Until a couple years ago when her son's drug addict whore of an ex-wife started screwing him over on child support and visitation. You'll not hear a woman more scornful of "spoiled women and special rights" now. Nor more mournful that many of the laws putting the screws to her son are ones she marched for.
Ah shortsightedness, thy name is woman!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you,Warble, with regard to what course males should take. They should emigrate from the USA. Males do not have effective and assertive political representation to protect and promulgate that "separate and equal" status for males that is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. As far as the ruling is concerned, it is clearly unConstitutional. In the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in "Griswold v. Connecticut", the USSC ruled that sexual matters between a husband and a wife could not be regulated by government as the same would involve an unConstitutional invasion of privacy and infringement of individual freedom as prohibited by the 9th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution respectively.By implication of the statements in this ruling, the Ninth and 14th Amendments prohibit, if consent is given, the state from regulating the details of sexual behavior between consenting adults; and, these same amendments prohibit criminalizing such sexual behavior that does not conform to such regulation . The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution reads:" The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CShaw, while I agree with your sentiments, I don't find any "separate but equal" in the Declaration of Independence. Not to pick nits, but I think it's important to keep this straight, because there is a lot of misquoting and misinterpretation of our Founding Documents these days, by many, such as the feminists, who have an agenda very much counter to the intentions of the Founding Fathers. (Yes, they were fathers, and they created, at great cost to themselves, and left for us a social order unique in human history--as Ben Franklin said, "A Republic--if you can keep it.") I presume you are actually referring to the phrase "that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ... [etc.]" Of course there has been much discussion of whether Jefferson meant to include women in his "Men" (I believe he was using the word in the sense meaning "human beings"), along with much discussion of "rights," a concept widely and deliberately misunderstood these days.
If Jefferson meant to include women (and children) in "created equal," the "unalienable rights" he referred to were those generally recognized in his time, when the concept was newly coined: those of life, liberty and property--without which a person is not free. I don't believe he meant necessarily to imply, for instance, a "right" to vote: voting, or acting as an elector (citizen voting is not mentioned in the original Constitution), is not a "right" but (in a republic) a function or activity dependent on qualifications. For instance, while a child possesses the basic right of self-ownership, which cannot be violated by taking his life from him, he does not have a "right" to vote, and indeed in most places is not included in that activity. Much less, of course, did Jefferson mean to proclaim a "right to abortion," which is an oxymoron, since killing someone deprives him of his own right to life.
Of course, this ruling is unConstitutional, as you say, but so is most of what the government is doing these days, and has been doing, in fact, since about 1860, when Lincoln declared himself Dictator--all in a "good cause," of course--and the Citizens, who have the responsibility in a Republic, which is defined as a government that belongs to the people, to guard against just such usurpations, neglected to make him stop. Lincoln ruled by decree (for which there is no provision in the Constitution) and declared a "state of emergency" (for which there is no provision in the Constitution), which has been renewed by every president since. Much research has been done on this, and it is generally agreed that we are living under an extraConstitutional government, and have been so for a long time. Some researchers (e.g. Kenneth Royce) feel, indeed, that the Constitution was deliberately written--by the Hamiltonian Federalists involved, who favored strong central government--with loopholes to allow just such an outcome. See also Royce's Good-Bye April 15th! (under the name "Boston T. Party"--also found at Amazon as a "special order") for an excellent history of how we've gotten to where we are (though I would caution to read widely before following his recommendations for action).
BTW, I'd be wary of citing the so-called "14th Amendment" as the basis for any claim of "rights," as it was therein that the new category of citizen "subject to" the United States was created, which category all Americans have since been induced to "voluntarily" join. See U.S.A. The Republic!, whose author makes the vital point that the Republic still exists, just nobody lives in it. (Other good stuff on this site as well.)
Nevertheless, while I can understand the sentiment behind a desire to leave the country, and that for some individuals this may be a workable solution, I also keep in mind that the United States of America is the only country on the planet where principles such as those in the Declaration, as well as customs of Anglo-Saxon Common Law such as the presumption of innocence, right to trial by jury, etc., are given even lip service. Everywhere else, the people are subject to the government, and all of its whims, period. And it is quickly becoming clear that there is only one Government, world-wide, and we are all intended to be slaves on its plantation. That the government here even bothers to pretend that it still operates within the Constitution is a testament to the grudging respect they still feel for the stubbornly independent spirit of American people (who still own a lot of "Liberty teeth"--i.e. weapons of self-defense). These days, of course, they're hardly bothering to pretend anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @05:07AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I sent the following email to Kathleen:
"Kathleen:
You Wrote:
"Where's Daddy? Who didn't teach this girl the rules of engagement?"
My Reply:
Isn't this the area where most Dads ususally say, "You'll have to ask your Mother about that?" I think I have a suspicion where Mom may have been (Where's Mom?), off at her mean spirited feminist's meeting. It is clear where you stand on individual responsibility in the family. As you stated, in this country, men Dads) can do no right and women (Moms) can do no wrong.
Thanks for covering this critically important story. The least we can do is warn young men to avoid women at all cost. I'm sorry, that should be avoid having sexual relations with women at all costs. No, wait a minute, I think I got it right the first time. How confusing. I have to go now. You'll have to excuse me.
Ray"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree here - WHY is dad responsible for these talks? I think they were regulated to my mother - maybe he was a stay-at-home dad?
Except the "where do babies come from" one, my dad got stuck with that, and immediately said whatever cute nickname they had for 'intimate behavior' on TV/movies... I thought for years conception occured from 'making out' and was really surprised ages later that didn't have much to do with it. Heheh, poor dad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 16, @02:56AM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
How curious. I distinctly remember asking my Mom that question (Where did I come from?) and getting a completely ridiculous answer that I knew as a kid wasn't true. I had to find out from my school chums. It turns out my parents never told their children about s-e-x. I probably asked my Dad too, but it is the bizarre farication that my Mom told me that has stuck in my mind.
Mom, it's even crazier today than that story you told me just to get me out of your hair.
If I ever have to answer that tough question with a lie, I'll just tell the kid, "They come from the Supreme Court along with all other the life and death decisions that affect people's lives face." "The government is your true Mommy and Daddy." "We're just assigned caretakers."
Sleepless and Paranoid in California,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In contrast to the recent asinine ruling of the misandry plagued cali4nia supreme court about what constitutes rape, the Georgia Supreme Court to its credit has nullified a decades old sex law that prohibited sex between unmarried couples.
The accused were two 16 year olds who were BOTH!!! convicted under this law. If the article is accurate, it is a bit ambiguous, the girl had to go to a state run boot camp and the boy had to pay a fine and write an essay on the dangers of premarital sex.
At least one state high court doesn't have its head up its proverbial butt when it comes to sex.
Story at:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/1903685/detail.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see how this applies to misandry if the law was applied equally.
However, however it's likely possible that they could have been convicted for lewd and lascivious behavior in a public place, which teen-agers today often commit in flagrant violation of the rights of others; I've had this happen in my own neighborhood (i.e. kids screwing in cars in a public place), called the cops and waited, only to have the cops actually soffing the law, literally saying "what's the big deal?" attacking me despite that I was the victim here. Obviously, these cops were the same type of lowbrows as these kids, but that's no excuse to turn my backyard into a back-alley for alley-cats; however, without strict laws to protect the citizens, the cops are free to sneer in this manner at anyone who complains.
The question then becomes, where did this respective fornication take place? It certainly wasn't in their homes, since the article says they were "caught having sex;" I doubt the cops busted down the door, but rather someone came upon them going at it like rabbits in a public place, and the person called the cops; thank God that some places still respect the rights and sensibilities of the rest of us against those who attempt to turn public-community property into their personal mating-ground --which is a primitive form of territoriality displaying contempt for the equalal rights of others to occupy and enjoy the community territory in question, and which furthermore sends a message that its equally-primitive perpetrators, who have already demonstrated their disregard for the rights of others, to literally drive others away by force and intimidation, if not by the lewdness of the behavior itself and the mere display of said disregard and intent.
This sounds like the casee was simply overturned on a technicality, since the charge should have been "Lewd and Lascivious behavior by minors" or related offenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A much better article about this ruling is at CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/14/unmarried.sex.ap /index.html
The mother of the girl did catch the pair having sex in her home. And the law is centuries old (1833)rather than decades old as stated in the first article.
The legal logic is excellent as stated in this quote from one of the judges.
The ruling Monday came in the case of a 16-year-old boy discovered having sex with his girlfriend in the bedroom of her home. The young woman's mother made the discovery.
"Our opinion simply affirms that ... the government may not reach into the bedroom (sic) of a private residence and criminalize the private, noncommercial, consensual sexual acts of two persons legally capable of consenting to those acts," Chief Justice Norman Fletcher wrote.
Under Georgia law, the age of consent is 16.
Good for Georgia's Supreme Court!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see how this could have been successfully prosecuted without the defendant's admission; obviously, the actual sex itself was consensual, so the only point-of-fact in contention was whether the request for cessation took place or not, which was basically one person's word against another's, so all the guy had to do was deny it.
Even if the defendant admitted it to police, his lawyer should have coached him to recant the testimony on the witness stand, or at least claim he was undergoing an involuntary reflex or some such medibabble.
Too bad this case didn't take place in Arkansas: the kid could be president by now, while in Los Angeles he could have slit her throat, evaded the crime scene, left massive evidence at the crime scene, fled from police, and still walked free. However here we have a person sentenced to 6 months for mere "continued humping" in the same state; it just goes to show that California is, truly, the state of "fruits and nuts."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @11:28AM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the infamous LAPD is now under government supervision and routinely arrests any man based on any females false and trumped up charges, a real plus for women in divorce, child custody cases. They are fond of saying to their innocent male victims, almost apologetically, "Ever since the O.J. thing..."
Feminazis and Democrats would be more accurate these days to describe the innane, illogical and unjust behavior of the majority of the occupants of this state, since they did vote and elect this present, despicable, man hating Democrat dominated government.
Ironically a strong, overtly lesbian, feminist, Democrat connection is not absent from a large number of the hate laws that have been passed against men's rights with the full support of the Democratic party. It's just a documented fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @11:29AM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
make that Federal Government
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @12:22PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Make that: The Los Angeles police are fond of saying to their innocent male victims, almost apologetically, "Ever since the O.J. thing..." as they are arresting the man on any woman's flimsy complaint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wendy McElroy has written an article on this. While I agree with some of her points, and I am happy her article was published, the piece leaves a lot to be desired (as does Kathleen Parker's holding dad responsible but exonerating mom by not mentioning her). A few quotes from Wendy:
"It (the California Supreme Court) also ruled that statements such as "I should go home" constitute an unambiguous "no" on the woman's part."
"Seventeen-year-old Laura T. attended an otherwise all-male party at which she did not drink. After allowing two teenaged boys to undress and fondle her in a bedroom -- acts she admitted enjoying -- she had sex with each."
"The law assumes that all adults are responsible agents in sexual matters. (Laura T.'s age was not introduced as a significant factor in the court's conclusion.) The law assumes that women and men are able to make their wants known and, so, have a responsibility to do so." Here Wendy is wrong. The California Supreme Court has made it clear that the law assumes no such thing. The law assumes that only men are responsible agents in sexual matters.
"Sixties feminism deserves a lot of credit for bringing sanity to bear on the crime of rape." This is misleading. While sixties feminism may have made some good points, it also contained all the anti-male hatred that has become the dominant force in western society. People who romanticize 60s feminism are apologists for evil doers, and they make it more difficult to fight the source of crimes against humanity. They make it more difficult to fight the evil known as feminism.
"The prosecution of rape used to be skewed against women. Now it seems to be skewed against men." Notice the different terms: the unequivocal "used to be" with reference to women and the very equivocal "seems to be" with reference to men. There is no denying the fact that rape laws are now skewed against men.
Again, though, I'm glad Wendy's article was published.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it me, or is Wendy getting more paranoid lately? It seems like she's quite stressed or something.
Ah well....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists have always been guilty of selective reform, i.e. striking down only those gender-specific laws which limit women's freedoms and priveleges, while leaving intact those which render equality in terms of duty and responsibility. For example, millions of women marched and protested for various causes ranging from universal suffrage to equal opportunity, but not ONE marched or protested for the equal right to be subjected to the draft, or for men's equal right to opt out of parenthood in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. As always, men, being the essential backbone of society in terms of being conditioned to stoically accept even unfair burdens without complaint as their "duty," are muzzled by their own merits, and likewise shamed into silence and obedience even by the very females who so casually and hypocritically exempt themselves from same on the basis of their gender; here it seems that women have come to see their gender as an elite birthright rather than a privelege extended to them by the honor of gentlemen, and without which they would be at an extreme disadvantage in unbiased competition.
The problem is that men face a psychological "catch-22" in addressing this issue, since they can't speak out without violating their own values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well stated. See my comment on the earlier thread "Woman Tries to Hire Hitman to Kill Husband." Women don't fight fair. To a woman, "fair" means "I get what I want." If she doesn't get what she wants, it's "unfair." It's that simple. Men cannot deal effectively with women until this is understood. The concept of "fairness," as men understand it, is foreign and incomprehensible to the female mind. She doesn't understand the idea itself, but she does instinctively understand that she can use it to manipulate men, who feel bound by "honor"--our own self-conception and self-respect--to do things that are not in our own immediate self-interest. So women cry for "fairness" and men give them what they want, thinking that at some point, when "fairness" has been achieved, they will be satisfied. Not so. They will never be satisfied. Greed gratified merely grows even more greedy.
Notice how even with all the "advances" in female "rights" in the last several decades, the feminists are if anything even more shrill and angry now than before. They're not getting something they need; they don't know what it is, but they feel increasingly unsatisfied--and increasingly angry about it. What they are not getting is what this writer, more or less unconsciously, is referring to when she asks "Where was Daddy?" What they're not getting is what the men in their lives used to supply them--a structured environment, at best kindly but nevertheless firmly imposed, that contains and limits their impulses and desires. The "No" that she can't tell herself, thus the restraint she does not impose on her own "hormonally-charged," unconscious sexual signals.
Of course this limiting "No" is galling, but we all need it, and until we learn to do it for ourselves, we need it from others. This is what fathers used to supply in the psychological structure of the family; this is why fathers were more distant figures than mothers. Mother's love is a given--as can be seen in the stock figure of the serial killer's mother who "can't believe her boy would do such things"--but father's love must be earned, by internalizing his example of self-discipline and thus gaining his respect. Now that the father has been declared redundant--and probably abusive--and driven out of the family, this process has been aborted. Funny how everything women do to show their power seems to abort something--as the infant male circumcision program aborts a boy's chance to become a whole man, all to please Mom.
Rather than get all excited about lukewarm, half-truthful women like this writer and Wendy McElroy, I again suggest reading Camille Paglia: start with "Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art" in Sexual Personae, to gain some basic understanding of what is really happening here. I suppose there must be others like her, but probably very few. Perhaps it's because she's a lesbian--and so feels no need to maintain the illusions that support women's domination of men--as well as a woman of powerful intellect, that she tells the truth:
"Woman's current advance in society is not a voyage from myth to truth but from myth to new myth. The rise of rational, technological woman may demand the repression of unpleasant archetypal realities."
"Rousseauist psychologies like feminism assert the ultimate benevolence of human emotion. In such a system, the femme fatale logically has no place. I follow Freud, Nietzsche and Sade in my view of the amorality of the instinctual life. ... People who believe they are having pleasant, casual, uncomplex sexual encounters, whether with friend, spouse, or stranger, are blocking from consciousness the tangle of psychodynamics at work, just as they block the hostile clashings of their dream life. Family romance operates at all times. The femme fatale is one of the refinements of female narcissism, of the ambivalent self-directedness that is completed by the birth of a child or the conversion of spouse or lover into child." [Emphasis added in last sentence, which describes in a nutshell what feminism unleashed has done to American men.]
Also recommended: "No Law in the Arena" in Vamps and Tramps:
"Films of the mating behavior of most other species--a staple of public television in America--demonstrate that the female chooses. Males pursue, show off, brawl, scuffle, and make general fools of themselves for love. A major failing of most feminist ideology is its dumb, ungenerous stereotyping of men as tyrants and abusers, when in fact--as I know full well, from my own mortifying lesbian experience--men are tormented by women's flirtatiousness and hemming and hawing, their manipulations and changeableness, their humiliating rejections. Cock teasing is a universal reality. It is part of women's merciless testing and cold-eyed comparison shopping for potential mates. Men will do anything to win the favor of women. Women literally size up men--'What can you show me?'--in bed and out. If middle-class feminists think they conduct their love lives perfectly rationally, without any instinctual influences from biology, they are imbeciles."
Well, they do, and they are, as this case clearly demonstrates. This single paragraph speaks to the subject of this thread far more directly than anything in the articles referenced: this poor young jerk was just trying to make sense of this half-conscious female's typically mixed messages. We're all familiar with that dilemma, are we not? When it comes to anything important--such as sex, which in the view of Nature who rules us all, is the only thing of importance--the female is not a rational creature, anymore than Nature is rational.
The problem is that men face a psychological "catch-22" in addressing this issue, since they can't speak out without violating their own values.
Exactly. Human society has worked only because women have maintained a truce of self-restraint, recognizing that it is in their own interest to support men's internal, artificial (i.e. non-Natural) set of values--though they don't share them, as they are themselves ruled by a more fundamental law. It is these values that force men to stand against even hopeless odds to defend hearth and home, women and children. To work until they drop to support their families, to support their women "in the style to which she has become accustomed." Apparently women no longer feel the need to use men in this way. Men are now expendable not only for the old reason--because more can always be produced--but ultimately expendable, finally unnecessary. So women have abandoned the truce, and it's all-out war: a war which, of course, they cannot lose; but, being women, I suspect few of them have thought ahead to what "winning" will mean. Will they really want to live in a world populated entirely by women and children, where the basest impulses of our mostly animal nature are given free rein? "What do women want?" Well, the answer to that question is plain: What we have is what women want, because it is what they have used their power to create.
Men make a fatal mistake--fatal for women as well as for themselves--when they expect women to be rational. Women can be rational, but they are under no obligation, and will revert to their true power base at whim--and always when things get tight. For them, "fairness" is a game. Men of old understood this--read the Greeks, the Romans--but circumcised, domesticated modern men have been crushed or lulled to sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A fascinating post Philalethes. You have convinced me to read some Paglia. Sex and Violence it is. I noticed too that you have read Zubaty's work. I remember first reading The Feminisation of America and enjoying it deeply. In some ways you remind me of him.
You said: "...figure of the serial killer's mother who "can't believe her boy would do such things"--but father's love must be earned, by internalizing his example of self-discipline and thus gaining his respect."
I would quibble with this and say that a father's love is automatic but what is seen in relationship is respect which as you say must be earned. Respect is the currency of the masculine isn't it?
So glad you are here.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom, thanks for your kind words; always nice to be heard, best of all to be intellegently engaged.
Haven't read all of Zubaty's book yet, though I discovered it over a year ago and downloaded it. What I've gotten into is refreshing, good original thinking that has nourished my own.
BTW, "Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art" is not a book, it's a chapter in Sexual Personae, Camille Paglia's bombshell first book that established her presence on the intellectual scene. ("This book is a red comet in a smog-filled sky.... brilliant." - The Nation.) I first discovered Paglia in an interview with my one-time employer Stewart Brand (of The Whole Earth Catalog); anything Stewart finds interesting I figure is worth looking at, and indeed my first reaction to Paglia (on the subject of "date rape," a feminist campaign for which she vehemently has no patience) was the thought, "My God! An honest woman!"
Look her up at Amazon; I note used copies of her books seem to be cheap. I'm not nominating her as a Final Authority on anything, and I part ways with her on numerous subjects, but she's a lot of fun to read, and, I would say, a cause of a kind of grateful relief on my part: there actually are intelligent, thoughtful women out there (well, at least one, anyway), who are prepared to undertake the intellectual discipline of challenging their own thinking and changing if it proves inadequate to the test.
"At midlife, I now accept that there are fundamental sex differences based in hormones. As a fractious adolescent battling the conformist Fifties (falsely romanticized today as milkshakes and sock hops), I thought that men and women were the same and that all sexual differences were nothing but convention. In the theory of gender, I began from zero. There is no masculine power or privilege I did not covet. But slowly, step by step, decade by decade, I was forced to acknowledge that even a woman of abnormal will cannot escape her hormonal identity."
"Feminists, seeking to drive power relations out of sex, have sent themselves against nature. Sex is power."
"Modern liberalism suffers unresolved contradictions. It exalts individualism and freedom and, on its radical wing, condemns social orders as oppressive. On the other had, it expects government to provide materially for all, a feat manageable only by an expansion of authority and a swollen bureaucracy. In other words, liberalism defines government as tyrant father but demands it behave as nurturant mother." [In other words, I would say, "liberalism"--and feminist ideology, of which in fact it is a subset--is the thinking of children dressed up in adult's clothing, a pretense that falls apart when examined. Curiously, Paglia still describes herself as a liberal; here as often she seems to fail to follow the logic of her own brilliant thinking--perhaps because, I can't help thinking, as a woman she is finally unable to overcome her own emotion-based biases. She wants liberalism to be true, even though she's intelligent enough to see that it isn't, and honest enough to say so--but then seemingly forgets what she just said.]
A lot of what she writes, and writes about, is, to my mind, fluff--she is passionately obsessed with popular culture, and finds far more profound "significance" in the phenomenon of homosexuality than I think it warrants--but even in her most ephemeral writing appear frequent gems of insight, and delightful turns of phrase. And she's simply courageous, to what sometimes seems to my timid Libra moon a point of folly; the feminist Establishment despises us, but they truly hate Paglia. (Now, how's that for a recommendation?)
I would quibble with this and say that a father's love is automatic ...
Well, yes, I understand it's important to counter the pervasive feminist lie that fathers do not / cannot love their children.
... but what is seen in relationship is respect which as you say must be earned. Respect is the currency of the masculine isn't it?
Yes, well stated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification about the book title. I found it at amazon and they have the first chapter excerpted. It's a little airy for my fixed-earth moon...but I am getting the gist of it. Thanks for pointing me in that direction.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erin O'Connor has written a short blog on this. In it she comments, "One imagines that prudent men will now not only carry condoms in their wallets, but consent forms and stopwatches."
Men should be aware that consent forms are worthless. They merely show that the woman initially gave her consent. If the woman signs a consent form and later claims that during sex she said, "I want to die my hair red," the man may well face many years in prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @12:52PM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
When the f*ck are men going to start standing up for our rights!
This poor kid is obviously a victim of the new world order where a women only has to think something was 'wrong' and the man will suffer because of it.
feminism is disgusting sexism
wake up
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worried about Al Queda, worried about Bin Laden? Relax...you have a better chance of being struck by lightning. The Terror is here, and you guys are are in the midst of open season! How many tens of thousands of men are in prison on false female allegations...how many millions of men have had their lives ruined because 'cupcake' decided to file divorce. The legislatures, the agencies, family courts, and now, all courts seem to be at war with men. Our women...OUR women...look at how they treat us. LOOK AT HOW THEY TREAT US! As men we are a despised, ridiculed, and fully exploited group. If you worry about terror, just look around you. Peril at every turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Where's Daddy?" Hey, lady, aren't you paying attention? He's in "Family Court," trying to hang on to the last vestige of his two-job income, trying to find a way to not be totally alienated from his children. California is the future, as we all know, and fathers are redundant. (As a native Californian, resident elsewhere for 18 years now, I'm horrified--but not surprised--at what my home state has become. The future, indeed! PRC = People's Republic of California.)
Women are not considered morally/spiritually adequate to even be priests! Sorry, but that's not what it's about. Feminists like to make it a matter of superior/inferior, but the reason behind the male-only priesthood in conservative churches is the recognition that the sexes are different, and thus the roles they play are different. I've never been Christian, and have no particular use for the Catholic Church, but I have to say I can at least respect them for staying with things like a male priesthood and opposition to abortion, based on principle (which is what religion used to be about) rather than "going with the flow" of whatever happens to be in fashion like most of the other Christians do.
If you are single you would be wise to heed Kathleen Parker's (and others') advice and seek a new country. I decided some time ago that I wouldn't get close to another American woman. They're no fun; they're all about anger and greed. At a bare minimum, I would seek a woman from a culture that does not deliberately cripple its sons as American women do.
Wendy McElroy: "If a woman (or man) clearly says "stop" during consensual sex, then the partner should be morally and legally constrained to do just that -- stop." Give me a break, Wendy. Sex is not a parlor game. It is the passion that drives this whole show. Don't start it unless you're prepared to go through with it. This is the problem with "enlightened" feminists: they're still feminists, they still want to have their cake and eat it too. They still want to be able to abort what they started if their mood changes. McElroy and her ilk may make a little more sense than NOW, but I don't find that reason to celebrate.
Compare this piece with others by McElroy. She seems to be having a little trouble getting clear on this case; she wanders vaguely around. It's a challenge, and she doesn't meet it. "...a definition of consent that is as uncertain and shifting as the woman who wields it." Exactly. Once I would have bought this whole farce, but ironically it has been the behavior of women themselves which has brought me to see the basic common sense in the ancients' views of the female character.
Everyone has second thoughts, but an adult follows through. This may be the irreducible difference between the sexes: men instinctively know it's important to keep one's word, while to women the idea is incomprehensible. Note that it is a female "judge" who is quoted in this matter. To her, the "law" is whatever she happens to feel at any given time, and to her, the idea that it could be anything else is simply inconceivable.
Feminists want to turn the balance of power, worked out over millennia, between the two most dangerous animals on the planet, into all-out war. And they have. And in so doing have made plain their own stupidity: for one hand does not gain by cutting off the other. But they'll have to learn this for themselves.
One good thing about feminism: it's taken the wraps off the female character, in its pure form, uncontaminated by male influence. Everybody can see--if they look, which of course few will do, until it's rubbed in their faces. "We want it all!" So I say, let 'em have what they want, all of it. Let 'em make a real spectacle of themselves. Let the disease run its course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I think it's just me - if there is some good reason why one needs to stop in the middle of sex, than sex should stop. for both males and females. If a couple with children hears one crying the other room, do they not have the will power to stop for a few minutes and see what's wrong?
Though I do believe it's against the 'rules of engagement' [which mothers usually explain, fathers handle the ones about killing] to quit in the middle for no reason at all, and then if the partner fails to IMMEDIATELY stop to cry rape is wrong -- but it's also different from someone having to stop, and the partner holding them down or whatever to finish, and then claim "they gave prior consent."
I have weird chest pains, I can't breathe or move while they go on, about a minute. If I had one during sex, I'd expect my boyfriend to be able to stop for said period of time. I have and will continue to stop if he gets a nose bleed - if I pushed him down and told him to swallow the blood that would be rather inconsiderate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one's arguing this; however, the message given by the woman was more one of "hurry up and finish" than "stop."
I think most men will relate at least one experience (or more likely, too many) where a woman expresses this desire for him to "hurry up," and if this particular woman expressed no other concern than her impending tardiness, then it's hardly reasonable that any rational person would interpret this as a signal to halt a pending act altogether (at the risk of considerable discomfort), as opposed simply to indicating a desire for him to merely expedite the act's completion.
Likewise, the doctrine of "qui tacit consentire" is necessarily involved here, since a reasonable person would likewise expect the woman to express the desire to stop if she truly desired it.
Therefore, her silence on this issue, truly, indicated consent, since she should have given a clear indication for him to stop, if she truly desired it; since she failed to do so, then one can hardly fault the man for his failure as a mind-reader.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is so crazy...THIS IS NOT RAPE! Sure, whenever either partner says to stop...the other should stop, but this is not a crime!!! Are we going to subject people to life crippling trials on the basis that they did not stop fast enough. Our world has gone nuts...rape used to be about violence. I'll explain this so that the women can understand (if they already don't): A few years back me and my girl we're screwing with her on top. During intercourse I TOLD HER TO STOP! She didn't, she kept on riding me...I came too quick. Are we going to lock her up for 8 years minimum because she didn't stop when I told her to. No means no right? Stop means stop right? This ruling would put her in prison, or at the very least subjuct her to a criminal trial costing her $50,000+, not to mention a year or two in jail awaiting trial as she could not afford bail. This ruling is insane as it will lock up people as rapists WHO ARE NOT RAPISTS. Not to mention the potential for abuse. Now, any allegation results in a trial. HELLO...HELLO....can't anybody see that the King has no clothes!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"can't anybody see that the King has no clothes!"
If the King where in cali4nia the so called supreme court there would find him guilty as sin of indecent exposure, lewd and lascivious conduct, possibly contributing to the delinquency of minors, being a public nuisance, creating a public eyesore, and probably a couple of other wacko charges they would make up right off the top of their pointed heads. The dumbasses!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've looking at comments like "if you begin, you're in it until the finish line" and how stopping in a minute and a half is a miracle for a seventeen-year-old boy - I guess when the comment involves a puzzle-solving aspect... But anyway, no, I agree it wasn't rape - and even if it was, that case would never have gotten where it was if the genders were reversed - moronic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In your article "Rape California-style is a woman's prerogative," I must object to the following line:
"There are certain things you don't kid around with, and hormonally charged teenage boys and loaded guns are among the top two."
This is a shameful and shame-inducing misandrist stereotype that males -- particularly male teens-- are some type of out-of-control species; to compare them with "loaded guns" is even more an insult.
Male teens already encounter a culture stocked to the gills with shame-inducing messages, silences and taboos surrounding their developing sexuality (for which society likewise gives them no clear acceptable outlet compatible with their natural requirements); and these messages are now stronger than ever now that misandristic feminist messages, that male sexuality is "dirty and inferior" while praising female bodies and sexuality are somehow more "pure and superior," reinforcing the traditionalist puritanical messages that male sexulaity is evil and shameful, with the only non-taboo messages being patronizing and unsatisfactory.
Naturally, teenage males are often more shamed into silence than "out of control," and sexual excess is often more a means of compensation and compulsive anxiety-reaction (to i.e. desiring to engage in the feared act to resolve the very anxiety it creates), than any sort of wanton desire bordering on criminal insanity. Plainly put, the "challenge" to engage in sexual behavior as a status symbol, is more due to shaming of other forms of emotional and personal expression (and sexual non-expression), than any kind of "roid rage."
Instead of adding to this bigotry against males, why not act to dismantle the cultural ignorance which spawns it, along with mere adaptive responses which are no more than humans acting imperfectly in response to imperfect messages, i.e. should we not re-write the flawed message, rather than kill the messenger?
Finally, we can agree that what occurred in this case was definitely NOT rape, since consent was expressly given but never expressly withdrawn, and therefore there was no clear communication of lack of consent; the message "I've got to get home" would be taken by any reasonable man to simply mean "hurry up and finish--" believe it or not, but I speak from personal experience here, and most men you ask will tell you of experience with women who expressed the same "hurry up" attitude once they're no longer interested.
Therefore, the notion that this or any other such act was prompted by some stereotypical "hormonal rage" is not only without evidence, but evinces pure anti-male bigotry as well; let's make the truth clearer, not cloudier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There are certain things you don't kid around with, and hormonally charged teenage boys and loaded guns are among the top two."
This is a shameful and shame-inducing misandrist stereotype that males -- particularly male teens-- are some type of out-of-control species; to compare them with "loaded guns" is even more an insult.
Actually, this is an analogy I agree with and I would (and have) used it in discussing sex with my daughters. Yes, I believe it's extreme to a degree, and if taken literally it is misandrist, but I successfuly made my point. I certainly do recall my own teenage years, and I think I let my dick do entirely too much thinking for me, and at very critical times. And I know more than a few guys who were (maybe still are) less in control than I.
So, while it is a crude analogy, it is effective, and I believe well-cited by Ms. Parker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's important for girls (women) to recognize that men (and women themselves) reach a point in sexual arousal where self-control is diminished. I'm not an expert in the biology of sex, but I know from what I've experienced, what others have told me they experienced, and what I've read that this is true. It does not diminish the character of a man or a woman to say that the height of sexual arousal is an (temporarily) overpowering sensation. Obviously, it's not as dangerous to life and limb as a loaded gun, but I think it needs to be recognized. In fact, I think that in this particular case it ought to be a mitigating factor. I think the law ought to recognize this element of human biology and respect the notion of a point of no return. On the other hand, I will be teaching my children that when their partner asks to stop, then that ought to be respected. I just don't think the law can, or ought to, legislate it. The judgement in CA is ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's important for girls (women) to recognize that men (and women themselves) reach a point in sexual arousal where self-control is diminished.
Of course, as anyone with any experience of sex knows; you don't have to be an "expert." But that's exactly what feminists cannot and will not acknowledge, because to do so would destroy the entire foundation of their ideology. Feminism is founded on the myth that there is no significant difference between the sexes; and the most important part of that myth is the assertion that women are as capable of being aware of their own behavior and controlling the same by means of reason as are men (which may be so). And that they are as likely to do so (which is clearly false, if you are not among the brainwashed). And finally, that all areas of our human life--especially those which women control, such as sexuality--are equally amenable to reason.
In earlier, more honest times, this myth did not prevail, and that is the reason for many of the traditional "double standards" of which women complain--though they only disagree with the double standards that "disadvantaged" women, not with those that gave (and still give) them a break, such as the legal doctrines that held them less responsible for their actions than men, because it was understood they were less able to control themselves.
To enforce this myth of equal rationality on our society, women use their pre-rational, non-rational, irrational power to dominate men, not by reasoned discourse (though they're good at faking the latter), but by their Nature-endowed ability to manipulate men's behavior. As Camille Paglia points out, "We've got it. They want it." The human male is, in fact, the only male of any species who is capable, through the exercise of reason, of escaping the domination of female power. But this is rare.
Go see the opera Carmen, or the film Gone with the Wind: both these perennial classics are archetypal pictures of women using their power over men, compulsively and irrationally, and both end in self-destruction. (Rhett Butler--as I recall--finally wises up and escapes, but poor Don Jose goes down with the ship.) These and other such melodramas are most popular with women, keep in mind.
What distinguishes human beings from chimpanzees is the faculty of reason. Nevertheless, beneath the conscious veneer we are like the proverbial iceberg: the 90% below the surface is pure animal. And besides all the other differences between the sexes, this one is pivotal: due to various factors (which would take another essay to explore) men are, on average, more likely to employ reason than are women, especially when under stress. This is the real reason why, for instance, languages like English, French and German (whose speakers, by the way, created the civilization which made modern feminism possible) employ the word for "man" to mean "humanity"--although in biological terms it is the female who is most logically "the species"--because the archetypal human male best represents that about us which separates us from other animals, thus the species self-image we prefer to cherish.
Thus the no-longer-famous, out-of-fashion poem by Rudyard Kipling: "If you can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs ... you are a man, my son." Once women were proud to have sons who fit this description; now they prefer to cripple their sons in an attempt to erase the difference between sons and daughters. And the reason why the mode of social organization known as "patriarchy" developed after, and out of, the primordial matriarchy: because women recognized that a society based--however imperfectly--on reason (and order) was (and is) preferable to a society based solely on desire and impulse. Feminist "historiography," like the rest of it, is bunk.
I just don't think the law can, or ought to, legislate it.
I'm not sure the law is an effective means for regulating much of anything in sexual relations, precisely because the law is based on reason, while sexuality is totally non-reasonable. Perhaps paradoxically, I believe the only reasonable way of dealing with such matters is to recognize that they are fundamentally not amenable to reason, make the distinction clear, and organize our social life with this understanding.
This is why, for instance, though I believe abortion to be no different, morally, than murder, I do not favor making it illegal: because such a law is ultimately unenforceable, and as such diminishes the respectability of the law as a whole. Women will do what they feel like, regardless of any law; and in many areas, the law will never know. Women do control the sexual behavior of the species, but they do so in ways that are not visible to the unenlightened consciousness (including, first of all, their own), that cannot be quantified or codified, and thus that the law cannot effectively address.
I do respect women, the same way I respect an earthquake: as a power that is not under my control. But with women I can negotiate--as long as I can offer something they want, at any rate--an agreement to behave rationally and responsibly in our mutual relations, with the understanding that breaking that agreement will mean the end of the relationship. This, in essence, is the social/sexual contract that all cultures must work out, or die. What has happened in our time is that women have have decided they can break that agreement and get away with it--because men are now constrained to supply women with (most of) what they want, not by the traditional "sex contract" but by the socialist State and its divorce laws, family courts, etc. etc.--all now written and enforced by women (or men firmly under their control) like the "judges" and lawyers involved in this case. The ultimate "labor-saving device," absolving women of the need to do any work on themselves or in relationship--and like all the others, created and maintained by men on their behalf.
No, women will never "recognize" the truth in this or any other matter, so long as it is in their (perceived) self-interest to avoid it, and so long as they can get away with it. Nature does no work She can avoid. A few women, having been irreversibly contaminated by "male" values, will make the effort, for the sake of their own man-like self-respect, but I suspect they will remain few. Meanwhile, in the effort to "prove" that women are as rational as men, the law will continue to be applied in all sorts of areas where its effect will be negative at best, at worst (and often) disastrous. After all, as they keep telling us, we live in a democracy--where everyone's "vote" is the same, regardless of intelligence or other qualification--with plenty of politicians happy to demagogue for profit (including, for the "men," the nookie they get for toeing the party line).
Bottom line: They have it, we want it. Paradoxically, the very behavior apparently expected of this young man--an ability to instantly and completely control his passions--is the only thing that would/will free any of us from our slavery to the female. Only if you can truly "take it or leave it" do you have a real negotiating position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women will do what they feel like, regardless of any law... Women do control the sexual behavior of the species, but they do so in ways that are not visible to the unenlightened consciousness (including, first of all, their own)....
Ah, but once a man uses his superior reason to control these unconscious processes, then she has no choice, as her mysterious "chemistry" has spoken; to claim that men should beg at the doorstep, when they can be served in the main hall, is stone-age logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly do recall my own teenage years, and I think I let my dick do entirely too much thinking for me, and at very critical times.
There's a difference between placing a high priority on sex, and being a rapist; there's no confusion which context is being invoked here.
You sound like a hypocrite who thinks that having teenage daughters is a license to misandry, out of rejection of your own earlier self now that you've had your fun-- a phenomenon known in psycholigical circles as "projection paranoia" and which slanders others for your own benefit.
Don't try to dress up your hypocrisy as intellect, since a superior one will see right through it from a higher perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There are certain things you don't kid around with, and hormonally charged teenage boys and loaded guns are among the top two."
Of course, there's no such thing as a "hormonally-charged" teenage girl--though in every other species, as any biologist will tell you, sexual behavior is ruled by the female, her cycles, needs and signals.
As for "loaded guns," the association is obvious. It's clear that a good deal of the hysteria (look up the word: it's from the Greek "hustera," "womb") of the "gun-control" crowd is the displaced penis-phobia of un-fathered modern women, to whom the male is a frightening rather than intriguing mystery. Once understood, it's not really an insult--unless you're a feminized modern male who fears what women fear.
The female mind, like the animal, is unable to distinguish between living agents and inanimate objects; thus she holds the latter responsible for what the former do with them. The female mind, if she steps on a rake, will blame the rake for hitting her.
A "loaded gun" is a tool, no more; it's precisely because our ancestors knew how to load their guns that we have at least some freedoms today--including the freedom, for now, to speak out on these matters. Don't delude yourself that the feminists would not shut us up if they could.
"Those who turn their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 16, @04:04AM EST (#69)
|
|
|
|
|
"(look up the word: it's from the Greek "hustera," "womb")"
You sound just like a modern-day Nietzsche :)
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, sorry, I'm a poorly-educated college dropout, never read Nietzsche, so am not entirely sure what you mean. From what I've heard of him, I might not like him too much--though of course, what I've heard has been from an intellectual Establishment which clearly has no integrity, and for which I have no respect. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that his popular reputation is based on an entirely inaccurate interpretation of his message, especially if the latter embodies a commitment to intellectual honesty and realism.
Anyway, one advantage of being poorly-read is that my thoughts are my own, not "indoctrinated" from one or another "established" school of thought.
As a "war baby" and card-carrying member of the "60s generation," I was fairly well brought up to buy the whole Femmunist line; but my first commitment has always been to the truth, and I did eventually find my way out of the thicket of lies I was raised in. As I've written elsewhere, it has been the observed behavior of women themselves that has finally brought me around to see the wisdom in the Ancients' view of the female character. (Somewhat reluctantly, I might add--I would prefer living in a world of intelligent, responsible adults; but between a dream world and reality, I'll pick the latter, no matter how difficult.)
As I've always been something of an amateur philologist, I was, well, amused to discover the etymology of the word "hysteria"--which has, indeed, been something of a sore point among feminist intellectuals. Perhaps it's unkind, but then so is the circumcision program those same feminists initiated and continue to prosecute so enthusiastically. Make no mistake, fellas, this is a war we're in, and those who've declared us "The Enemy" give no quarter. If we descend to their level we will betray the best in ourselves; but we must see them for what they are, without the "hormone-induced fog" (thanks, Warren Farrell) that usually clouds the male view of the female. As another poster said, "chivalry" is an honorable tradition, but only if both sides play their parts. I'm tired of seeing men bending over backward to be "nice" to women who are knifing us in the back (or elsewhere).
As a man, with a man's impulse to fairness (as I've said, apparently not shared by most women), I am careful to, for instance, use gender-neutral pronouns (e, es, em) in place of the "inclusive masculine" he, his, him, where indicated; and "humanity" (or something similar) in place of "man" when referring to the species as a whole. But I find the word "hysteria" denotes something real, both in its dictionary definition and in its etymological origins; so I use it. Should I ever see a move among feminists to renounce their "right" to use their emotional power to trump honest inquiry (I'm not holding my breath waiting for this), I might be willing to consider retiring the word. For now, though, it is part of reality, and useful.
(I note my dictionary says: "hysteric. ... from Gk. husterikos, from hustera, womb [from the former idea that disturbances in the womb caused hysteria]." An adroit, politically-correct sidestep, appearing to refute the "idea" while never actually addressing its substance.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes... I haven't read the entire opinion just yet, but
am on page 7 of it (it's at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S10 3427.PDF
for anyone else wo wants to see it).
What so far is striking me about it is that it is
discussing rather than the actual facts of the
circumstances, instead the feelings of the victim
(which I find interesting they are using this term
"victim" while the question of the matter is still up
for grabs-- they ought to have been using the term
"original case's plaintiff", or somesuch term). They
use the phrase "felt sense of outrage" to define what
constitutes the "violation". Well, while I feel
sympathy for anyone who feels bodily or otherwise
outraged about anything, I also recognize that law
must be based on facts and measurable violations of
sensibility-- not just what someone feels happened
here or there. It's these sorts of things that allow
a police officer, for example, to shoot someone
because he "felt his life was in danger". That is
different from actually seeing and knowing that your
life is danger. This for example is how Amadou
Dialou's killers got off after turning him into human
Swiss cheese-- they merely said they felt they were in
danger of life and so were "justified" in pumping over
50 bullets into his body.
I read the facts of the case. I agree with any
assessment of this situation that the boy(s) who were
with this girl in this case were being more assertive
that perhaps they ought to have been-- but this is a
subjective opinion about a question of protocol, not a
legal matter (well, it is now, apparently). But was
the convicted guilty of forcible rape? Did he
threaten her with violence? Did he use violence to
continue to engage in sexual acts with her? Was she
free to leave by getting up and walking away? The
answers appear to be: No, no, no, yes.
So, they have gone along with a dangerous trend here
in the courts. They are using the subjective feelings
of witnesses and purported crime victims (and in the
case of police, of law enforcers) to determine the
guilt or innocence of suspects, or in the case of law
enforcers, whether to exonerate them from wrong-doing
that leads even to the deaths of innocent men (yes, if
Dialou had been female, those cops would have gone to
jail-- I guarantee it!).
Sad but true, this ruling is just another step into
turning men and boys into the arbitrary subjects of
the feelings and opinions of women and girls, and
apparently of police as well. Only while it was a
problem for us before socially, it is now a problem
for us legally. But is it any surprise to men who
have been trawled through any American divorce court?
The best advice I can give a man these days is to stay
single and get a signed contract from a woman before
you so much as hold her hand!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, I misspelled Amadou Diallo's name in my post. Sorry! Wherever he is, I hope he is doing better than he was on Earth!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 15, @09:02PM EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
