Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > feminism...for discussion      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 51
feminism...for discussionPage 3 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
what game patriarchy is a reality it isn't men it is a system. Men do not universally suck even in patriarchy but women do. And it isn't
isn't surprising that someone would try to put me on my knees in front of anyone due to the statement I made which had nothing to do with my sexuality....but thanks for playing the game.....
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 52
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/4/2011 8:14:18 AM
^^^^Being a victim has its advantages. One is that it justifies being vaguely aggrieved and angry much of the time. And that gives you a license to hurt anyone you resent without feeling guilty about it. After all, you're just evening the score.
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 53
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/4/2011 8:22:03 AM

I'm not surprised you don't cite any authority for this. I'm sure it would make wonderful fodder for a Women's Studies course--but it doesn't make sense. Since when have children ever been considered a woman's "possessions," for example? And what would it mean in practice for a wife have no control over them? "All her belongings" would mean personal property--jewelry, clothes, and everything else.

What if a particularly defiant wife had hidden all her jewelry and silverware at her parents' house? Could the husband go to court and get an order to have it all turned over to him, so he could put it in a safe somewhere? How about her clothes? Could he force her to turn those over, too, as his sole property, and make her go around nude all the time? Come on.


The quote about Marriage Laws covered this, but I guess you didn't make the connections. In none of my earlier posts did I limit my statements about the past to the US: laws and customs in the US were based on those of other countries, including England. Here are some examples from that country:


The sovereignty of the husband did not imply that the wife had no autonomy: it meant that she had only the degree of autonomy that he saw fit to give her


Henderson & McManus, Half Humankind , page 78


The Author of The Law's Resolution of Women's Rights attests that a man may beat "an outlaw, a traitor, a Pagan, his villein, or his wife because the Law Common these persons can have no actions. [ . . . ] the same document states baldly, "That which the husband hath is his own" and "That which the hath is the husband's.
ibid 79

Expanding on that:
By marriage, the husband and wife became one person in law--and that person was the husband. He acquired absolute control of his wife's personal property, which he could sell at will.
ibid 79

This passage does allow that a woman could hold and dispense of land she could specifically lay claim to in a marriage CONTRACT--usually after her husband's deat. It also adds that the husband was responsible for her debts--one small consolation for her, eh? (In the Medieval era, childless widows could only hold their land without remarrying IF they paid a fee to remain unmarried. Coss, The Lady in Medieval England 1000-1500, page 25.)

Of course, if she ran the bills up, he could beat her for it because she was a bad wife.

Women often signed letters to their husbands (those who could write), "Your obedient servant"--quite a telling bit of information. ibid 81

Take into the account the Victorian Era where a woman was abused by her husband and subsequently divorced, given a 50 pound allowance a year--less than she brought into the marriage as her dowry. She could see her daughter three times a year because "legal custody belonged to the father." Perkin, Victorian Women , page 114

After another such case as this, Caroline Norton began a campaign to change the custody laws, writing a pamphlet called The Natural Claim of a Mother in the Custody of her Child as Affected by the Common Law Right of the Father. ibid 118


The father of a legitimate child was legally the sole parent
. The mother was given rights, but they were hard to exercise in light of the patriarchal (defined this as the laws were made by men) system in place. ibid 18

In 1886, the law changed to consider the well-being of the child. ibid 118


In theory, a married woman's body belonged to her husband, and he could enforce his right to her domestic and sexual services by a writ of habeas corpus
ibid 118

An act in 1884
gave women certain rights over her person, in that it removed the danger of a prison sentence if she refused to return to live with her husband
A woman who exercised this new law was "booed and jostled" by neighbors and the Times newspaper declared that marriage in England was "abolished" by this act. ibid 119

Common Law provided that a husband could "restrain his wife physically" to prevent her going out with people--or to places--of which he didn't approve. ibid 120

I could go on and on giving examples, but I will stop here.

You might claim that this examples were in the past, but the laws that upheld these types of things carried over into the Americas. Even after many such unfair acts were made illegal, people often turned a dead ear and blind eye to their continued practice.

I also want to point out that many men and women had decent marriages--not all men beat their wives or treated them badly. My point is until the latter part of the 19th century (and beyond) laws were in effect that condoned unfair treatment of women. Lest you want to take what I wrote out of context again, From my first post, I said: "IN THE PAST . . ." these laws existed.

I know more about the laws of England because my MA is in British Lit and I am a feminist critic--analyzing how women are portrayed in literature and how women authors are perceived. In order to understand the literature, the history must be understood--and I am a product of the gender issue's classes that you dismiss so scornfully and lightly. Perhaps you should take one.

Oh, and note the above quotes were taken from books held in hand--no internet sources.


I can't see anything at all cavalier in what I said. You were using the word "rape" in a context where it had no more meaning than "burglary" does, when applied to breaking into your own house. In other words, no meaning at all. Words are important, especially when you're talking about the legal definition of a crime--even if you dismiss that as "semantics."

Your statement that "'rape' was not defined" is not true. I even recited the common law definition of that felony. You say I may think husbands forcing their wives to have sex was "ethical or not rape." I do *not* think that ever was at all ethical, fair, or decent. But I thought we were talking about how rape was defined--not your wild guess about what I may personally think of that definition. Or is that too fine a distinction for you? As to whether husbands forcing their wives to have sex was rape, I not only *think* it was not, I *know* it was not.


Dictionary.com:


rape
1    /reɪp/ Show Spelled [reyp] Show IPA noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.
–noun
1.
the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3.
statutory rape.
4.
an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5.
Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
–verb (used with object)
6.
to force to have sexual intercourse.
7.
to plunder (a place); despoil.
8.
to seize, take, or carry off by force.


Note #2 and #6.

If lying is not against the law, is a lie still a lie? You split hairs in order to prove your point. I love to debate, but there are a few things that I simply cannot abide: one is making light of rape regardless of its "legal" status. It hits too close to home.

Good-day, sir.
 sexyisback!
Joined: 9/14/2010
Msg: 54
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/4/2011 11:45:09 AM

Sexual selection theory predicts that men will take more risks than females – and they do. .


would it not be more accurate to say that SOME men take more risks than SOME females do ?

or ON AVERAGE, more men take more risks than females do. I'm pretty sure it's NOT true to say that EVERY man takes more risks than EVERY woman.

why should all men be categorized like that? Gender discrimination is quite acceptable, ? yet IF, I emphasize IF, it were shown statistically that young black males took more risks than young white males and insurance companies wanted to charge more by a combination of race/gender/age classifications accordingly, there would be all holy hell raised..true?

what you state would seem to support the practice of "red-lining" that many banks took in US inner-cities.. because statistically they had a higher rate of defaults on loans or mortgages in certain neighborhoods (often 'ethnic minority'/"black" neighborhoods) the banks would 'red-line' (draw a red line around the neighborhood on a map and make NO Loans in that area, and/or demand much higher collateral and/or much higher interest rates to compensate for the risks

this practice was condemned by the gov't and courts, however.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 55
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/4/2011 12:53:00 PM

So women are often given lighter sentences by judges for comparable crimes committed by men.


Really? How often? Judges who impose unreasonable sentences risk being overturned on appeal. Quite a few states also have sentencing guidelines, and these couldn't make the length of the sentence depend on the defendant's sex without being unconstitutional. Little detail called the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

What's more likely to happen is that one or two jurors refuse to believe the evidence that a female defendant is guilty--even if it's overwhelming. A sort of jury nullification, only because of sex rather than race.


because of the way in which the evidence is presented.


I don't understand what you mean by this. I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S. every state has rules of evidence which govern the way evidence of any kind may be presented. Obviously a lot of evidence is inadmissible, for all sorts of reasons.

On the general subject of rape, people who think the law should make it easier to get rape convictions may want to look into the 1930's case of the "Scottsboro Boys." The Supreme Court managed to save the life of one man, but another man involved in the case was executed. No one needs to excuse the crime of rape to oppose making convicts (or before 1967, possibly corpses) of innocent men.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 56
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/4/2011 4:02:17 PM
The war on women continues. For more insights into the "thinking" that goes on behind this, check out the Happy Bachelors or MGTOW forums.


http://addictinginfo.org/new/?p=1210
"But what if rape victims could no longer be referred to as “victims” at all? What if people who have endured this horrible – and already chronically underreported — crime could only be called “accusers”?

Georgia Republican state Rep. Bobby Franklin (of gold-standard-wannabe fame) [Editor's note: visit his facebook page and tell him what you think: http://www.facebook.com/pages/State-Rep-Bobby-Franklin-R-43/67713033609] has introduced a bill to change the state’s criminal codes so that in “criminal law and criminal procedure” (read: in court), victims of rape, stalking, and family violence could only be referred to as “accusers” until the defendant has been convicted."
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 57
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/4/2011 4:24:47 PM
Note #2 and #6.


The last I knew, it was the legal definition of a crime that counted in court--not something from a dictionary. I gave the common law definition of rape earlier. I don't call know what you mean about "splitting hairs;" I was only pointing out that your original statement made no sense. The way the crime of rape was defined in the U.S. until a few decades ago, the idea that a man could rape his wife was a contradiction in terms.

One thing I simply can't abide is a person who is intellectually dishonest. You made several vague claims, and I responded by saying that *if you were referring to the U.S.,* they just were not true. You then pretend that everyone should have known you weren't referring to the U.S.

You've made clear you're not capable of legitimate debate. Without giving even a shred of a reason for saying it, you claim I made light of a very serious felony. Apparently what offends you is the fact the law traditionally did not cover acts you think it should have.

You show you don't understand the issue when you say "rape regardless of its 'legal' status." Because rape is a crime, it is only defined by the law; there IS no such thing as legal rape. You're free to be as offensive as you like--but it doesn't help your argument. It just shows that you can't make your points very well, so you feel the need to hit below the belt by slandering me personally. For the record, I have the deepest possible contempt for any rapist--I don't consider him any part of a man.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 58
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/4/2011 10:48:05 PM
Men are so disappointed in their mothers, women feel no affirmation from their fathers and then the s... hits the fan. Men are so proud that they need to fall. Women are so disappointed in the whole scenario that they become lousy mothers.
Then there are the very few who get really down right tired of all the rhetoric and examples and see it clearly. You got this life right now....do better. Who cares where it began? We all need some sympathy and mercy. Women and men breathe and inhale the same air and the same earth. We are equally unfortunate.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 59
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/5/2011 5:25:27 PM
^^^^^I think the poster's general notion (as far as it can be understood) was that rape is, and has been, whatever she says. And if anyone dares point out the facts--as opposed to what she imagines--she has a right to angrily accuse them of sticking up for rapists.

It's like claiming that homicide is murder, and then when someone points out that some homicides are manslaughter, or are not crimes at all, accusing them of sticking up for murderers. And of "splitting hairs."

I'd said very clearly what the traditional definition of rape was, and that states had since passed laws which expanded that definition to make it possible for a husband to rape his wife. I'd also agreed that it had never been right for men to do to their wives what would have been rape if they hadn't been married. She read all that, and ignored it.
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 60
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/5/2011 5:48:12 PM
oh whoa are the accused.. poor victims... they stand persecuted and shamed never to hold their heads up again. maligned and ruined in a crouched beaten position. They are ignored and trod upon by this beastly representation of humanity. How dare this lowly example of flesh speak a differing opinion who dares cross these helpless creatures. They are not heard in their tragedy of support of the traditional definition of rape someone dares to express personal views outside of a tradition of patriarchy. malign this crazy hysterical creature; they are not rapist and don't condone it, so we must accept the traditional definition and move forward from there. Regardless of any understanding of rape beyond the traditional definition, regardless of the reasoning and logic; for accepted roles of the rapist may only be held by them, in their eyes , so forbid me to bend them over and ram it home......

we are speaking of feminism and the discourse has been reduced to this... the rape of women and rapist in general how f...ng fitting...and you wonder why this is patriarchal society, any one brings up the feminist movement and women are raped.. hmmm bugger off.....
or turned into objects whose sexual orientation is up for discussion.. again bugger off....
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 61
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/6/2011 12:53:06 AM
I hear one of the better defense lawyers in rape cases is a woman. Makes perfect sense to me. From a juror's point of view, it could help raise a little doubt about how this guy could be guilty--after all, here's an intelligent, reasonable woman telling us why he's not. And all the defense needs to do, to win, is to persuade one juror there's some reasonable doubt the defendant committed rape. I do hope, though, that this woman has the integrity to represent only men she really thinks are innocent. BTW, I'm not so sure the defense wouldn't tend to prefer female jurors. When you think about it . . .


sometimes a man has to learn how to quiet up


You are so right. And for me, the lessons have been painful. I've learned--finally--to let a thing ride when I know there's no way to discuss it reasonably. If not here, at least in my personal life.

Now, if I had a girlfriend, and being right about something meant she'd be unhappy, then I'd be wrong every time. I'd much rather be kissing her than crossing swords with her. So if she said day was night, then that's how it would be. Part of being a gentleman is to defer, when it's called for. I always knew that, but--out of weakness--I haven't always put it into practice.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 62
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/6/2011 4:01:35 AM
Unless one has been raped, known loved ones who have been raped, or victims of domestic violence that were raped out of rage, it would be difficult for most men to have a reasoned discussion of the issue. That cavalier attitude or dispassion that comes across is inciteful at times, further driving discussions away from measured reason. Belittling "emotion" in such discussions or calling people "illogical" also comes across as patriarchial and brutish. Men are rarely the victims of such acts until they get to prison. For women, it is too often, a daily threat to be evaded. It can happen anywhere at any time.

The only man I ever wanted to kill, affected the lives of three loved ones, for all of their lives. He got off scot free due to technicalities, statutes of limitations, and a son who was a state senator. In the end, it was karma that finally helped rid the earth of his presence. No telling how many more children he raped over the decades, children who also hid their shame for many years or decades before coming forth. He was still driving a school bus and managing an apartment complex with children it it, when he slammed his head on the ice as he fell one night watching his back.

A friend in college was raped by an unknown attacker in her home. We averted another rape attempt one night in another house, hearing the screams and driving away that unknown attacker. Even the attempt leaves life-long scars of post traumatic stress, loss of confidence in humanity, males in general, and a terrifying vulnerability. The act or attempts leave a legacy of pain for life.

If it is a non-consensual act, it is rape. If it involves children it is rape. If it involves violence and forced entry, it is rape. Efforts to define it down, use the Lolita defense, belittle emotions over the subject, or portray the perp as a victim, are mere penis extensions of the patriarchy to try to keep wimmin in their place.
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 63
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/6/2011 7:23:15 AM
Let me reiterate:

Dictionary.com:


rape
- 14 dictionary results
rape
1 /re?p/ Show Spelled [reyp] Show IPA noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.
–noun
1.
the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

3.
statutory rape.
4.
an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5.
Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
–verb (used with object)
6.
to force to have sexual intercourse.

7.
to plunder (a place); despoil.
8.
to seize, take, or carry off by force.


Refer to #2 and 6 above.

If the act of forcible sex is legal when a man forces his wife to have sex, it is STILL rape! When I said it was legal for a man to rape his wife, by the mere definition of "forcible sex," he raped her and it was legal.

Some men on this forum assumed quite a lot when I made my first posts. This is why I said, "Good-day, sir." I now retract the polite dismissal and add, "Talk to the hand."

It is sadly noted but not surprisingly noted that other men immediately jumped into the fray to discredit illogical women.

I also noted that when I was "called" out to support my stance and subsequently provided details of English law, ALL were totally ignored while the person who asked could only center in on his honor in defending himself on his stance about rape.

However, some men "get it":


Unless one has been raped, known loved ones who have been raped, or victims of domestic violence that were raped out of rage, it would be difficult for most men to have a reasoned discussion of the issue.


Pups, thank you for saying that. You are absolutely correct.


If it is a non-consensual act, it is rape. If it involves children it is rape. If it involves violence and forced entry, it is rape. Efforts to define it down, use the Lolita defense, belittle emotions over the subject, or portray the perp as a victim, are mere penis extensions of the patriarchy to try to keep wimmin in their place.


This is the point I was making earlier: if it is NON-consensual sex, it is rape regardless if there is no law defining any sex between married people as "rape." To say that no law was broken doesn't detract from the fact that it was rape, pure and simple.

(Gwen adds two more names to her list of "When I Read Posts from these People in a Forum, do not Bother to Reply.")
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 64
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/6/2011 3:40:59 PM
@ Cheshire:

1. Your response in regard to the egalitarian society is problematic.

"Men" as such should not be considered to lack (or have) credibility based on what other men have said, argued or even done.

Nor should women be considered to lack (or have) credibility based on what other women have said, argued or done.

No one suggesting lumping any of the women on this thread who post negative statements about men 'in general' in with Aileen Wuornos, for example.

2. I once got into a similar debate in regard to health care spending in a Women's Studies class. A somewhat ill-thought out claim was made to the effect that, if I recall it accurately, higher spending on heart disease, by comparison to breast cancer, was supposed to demonstrate patriarchal bias. Except, that, well, women get heart disease. And men (albeit rarely) do get the equivalent of breast cancer.

But the whole argument gets impossible, because the comparisons are too complex. We do not need to debate sexual selection theory, just observe that men take more risks. Biologically speaking, however, men are both 'sturdier' (in some ways) and more 'fragile', in other ways, than women. Women do not get prostate cancer, for example, and their levels of autism are much lower. They also have longer lifespans generally, but some of this is attributable to riskier behaviors in men.

3. In regard to Asians, I get the impression you do not know too many. The inter-generational difference by itself makes the argument hollow.

To try and disentangle this from issues of bias is very difficult.

4. Well, the 'just world hypothesis' as a belief system is common. People either consciously or in some vague manner assume that the world is just, that bad things happen to people who somehow deserve it.

But this point would apply to any form of victimization. Victims of a fraudster deserve it because they were sucked in by their own greed. If you have your laptop stolen, it's because you did not look after it adequately and you were reckless. If someone mugs you, what were you doing out there on foot at that time of night anyhow? And insofar as the sexual assault victim is concerned, if her actions and behavior were not impeccable, she was asking for it somehow.

The point that I'm making is that you could use the same argument to justify a "shield" law in respect of almost anyone who claims criminal victimization. No inquiry into your motives or discussions around that investment. No inquiry into where you left that laptop. No inquiry as to why you were out there on foot at that time of night.

The shield laws are justified by assuming that this kind of assault is unique and uniquely entitled to a particular treatment, and that despite being able to overcome their 'just-world' bias in every other scenario, in that one, supposedly they cannot.

Oh, and in regard to Ms. Karla Homolka, she is no good example of bias. She received the sentences that she did because the Crown and everyone other than her and Bernardo were ignorant of her actual participation in the crimes. Bernardo had told his lawyers Ken Murray and Carolyn MacDonald to take video tapes of the crimes from their hiding place in his house and not to watch them. Ken Murray almost got disbarred as a result of following that instruction.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 65
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/6/2011 6:59:36 PM
Oh please do not paint the world with Bernardo strokes or that disgusting other half...Karla Homolka. Dead in the brain, frozen in the heart.
Men are just as much the victims of politics, economics and the sorry state of the world as are women. They just direct their anger outward and most always in the wrong place. Women use men as filters and then cry foul. Step up to the bat and make damn sure your world is equitable and fair and easier to handle than the alternative. Despair. Men who rape are sad. Angry. Filled with a sense of avenging. Frankly you could pick them out when they were four. Why? Many women who are mothers and many men who are fathers are f..... before they consented to deliver a child into the world. Then, when the child is born...ugliness prevails. Here is where it is crucial to have a just and fair and civilized society. Right now....not happening. You can always provide a light at the end of the tunnel. Be kind.
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 66
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/6/2011 8:47:53 PM

Men are just as much the victims of politics, economics and the sorry state of the world as are women.


Of course, and though I know it seems selfish to say, I am a woman, so I center in on the aspects that particularly affect women. I live in this body and have experienced the things which I decry--and many, if not most of the negative things that I do deplore, happened because I am female.

You can tell me that I should concentrate on the things that affect humans, and I am. By trying to make it better for women, I try to make things better for men.

Being a woman is not all negativity, though; I am happy with myself and I have also experienced great joy and revel in my womanhood.


Women use men as filters and then cry foul.


Not all women--I have no filter. When I cry "foul," it is based on what has happened and not what is imagined.


Step up to the bat and make damn sure your world is equitable and fair and easier to handle than the alternative.


Personally, I do. I teach. Sometimes, I reach them--male and female. I know this when they leave and say, "Thank you." Others come back and say, "You made a difference."
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 67
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/6/2011 10:15:09 PM
Men also are guilty of filters. Bad episodes and happenings with their mothers. Before you choose to spend time with any man, know his true feeling for his mother. Furthermore, understand that the bad times with his father were always balanced with his own father's encounter with the duo...the mother and the father.
Men can tell some pretty good stories about women. Would you hear them?
Singularly, many men are just plain anti life, so it is true for most women.
History afforded men the advantage, now all is supposedly on the corrected version of
history. Now everybody is feeling the threat of no entity other than the social, political and economic fallout. Men in power positions should always be regarded with the suspicion they deserve. So should any woman who joins the fray. For damn sure.
Give the world your best humility and it doesn't matter if you are either sex. Both sexes are guilty of hubris. Be aware and be alert to ego driven b.s.
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 68
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/7/2011 11:48:01 PM

Men can tell some pretty good stories about women. Would you hear them?


I have heard them--from dates, from strangers who corner me in Walmart and tell me their life stories, and co-workers/friends/acquaintances.

I tend to take all such sob stories with a grain of salt. Using as anecdotal example, my ex husband and I would give differing accounts of why our marriage ended and who was to blame.



History afforded men the advantage,


History did afford men the advantage, but at the same time, the main advantages were to rich old white men. Poor men and men of color might have had the advantage over their wives, but they didn't have much advantages in the world at large.

We can't correct history: we can only learn from it and move on, eh? That applies to personal history and societal/human history. When I truly began to study the condition of women in the past, I was railing about the injustices one day when a male friend said, "Gwen, I wasn't alive then. I didn't do any of those things.

I didn't realize that he was taking what I said personally. I don't hold men today accountable for what their sex did in the past, but I will hold accountable those men today who still practice misogyny and sexist tactics.

I don't expect men to hold me responsible for the actions of Eve or Pandora. Of course, those women ARE mythic.
 sexyisback!
Joined: 9/14/2010
Msg: 69
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/8/2011 3:16:55 PM

Ken Murray almost got disbarred as a result of following that instruction.


oooohhhhh, "ALMOST" disbarred (but not ACTUALLY disbarred, of COURSE)

as a result of obstruction of justice and protecting a sick twisted murderess.

(while being a so-called "officer of the court"..but taking the instructions from a murderer over any other)

damn, those Law Societies are REALLY in "get-tough" mode aren't they??

would a lawyer ACTUALLY killing or raping someone on videotape &/or with multiple witnesses be enough to get him/her disbarred?

or would the argument be that it was an "out-of-character" act, so it should be forgiven and the poor dear shouldn't be prevented from making a living?

knowing how shameless lawyers can be I have no doubt that argument would be advanced.


Victims of a fraudster deserve it because they were sucked in by their own greed.
that often, NOT ALWAYS, IS the case.

con men themselves say "you can't con an honest person"
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 70
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/10/2011 8:32:58 PM
It is so easy to critize, it it is a lot harder to practice law. Law is based on fair trial and applicable justice. Law is what you might need some day. Be vigilant, do not be superficial and silly. Protect those who need law and justice and do not ever be complacent. The Law is a beautiful ballet that often disappoints but very often hits the mark. cheers. That piece of work named Karla Homolka got what she deserved...she will never be able to live again free and clear of her guilt in her ugly scenario. Let it be. Do not be confused. The edifice of the law is not as stupid as most imagine. There is a core and grain of sanity and bigness inherent in the proceedings.
 sexyisback!
Joined: 9/14/2010
Msg: 71
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/11/2011 10:29:25 AM
^^


t is so easy to critize, it it is a lot harder to practice law. Law is based on fair trial and applicable justice. Law is what you might need some day. Be vigilant, do not be superficial and silly. Protect those who need law and justice and do not ever be complacent. The Law is a beautiful ballet that often disappoints but very often hits the mark. cheers. That piece of work named Karla Homolka got what she deserved...she will never be able to live again free and clear of her guilt in her ugly scenario. Let it be. Do not be confused. The edifice of the law is not as stupid as most imagine. There is a core and grain of sanity and bigness inherent in the proceedings.


i.e., the judge and Ken Murray went to the same law school, so the old boy's network prevails yet again.

you could have just said THAT rather than your rambling BS

If *I* had done the very same EXACT thing, *I* would have been convicted gone to jail for obstruction.. because *I* did not go to any law school, let alone the same one as the trial judge in Murray's case.

sure, I can very clearly see how that is "justice"....not.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 72
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/15/2011 9:17:44 PM
Welll.....jeez. The law is like you and I. Imperfect and fallible. Not b.s. Just true. Hence, the need to be vigilant and cautious and ready to address injustice. Peace.
 TheActionFigure
Joined: 1/16/2011
Msg: 73
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/20/2011 10:28:50 AM
Here's a question: How has feminism helped our society? If a society is either rising or falling, can feminism claim to have helped with it's destruction or ascention?
If it is hown not to have helped our society; not men, not women, why do people still support it?
I do understand that there may be other factors involved in the dissolution of our society, thank you.
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 74
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/20/2011 12:29:31 PM

Here's a question: How has feminism helped our society? If a society is either rising or falling, can feminism claim to have helped with it's destruction or ascention?


Feminism allows women to vote; it allows women to have a career other than washing clothes or being a maid; it means that women are SUPPOSED to be paid an equal wage for equal work; it allows women to get an education; it allows women to initiate divorces; it allows women to own land; it allows women to serve on juries; it allows women to have credit it my own name; it means that women don't have to wear a burka unless they chose to do so; it means that someday, we will have a woman president; it means that when a woman is raped, she is not put on trial; it means that if her husband has forced sex with her, she can have him prosecuted; it allows women to drive cars; it allows women to serve in the armed forces in capacities other than nurses.

These rights and duties were brought about because of women and men who fought for them.

Perhaps you don't consider any of those aspects a benefit to society, but there is no going back now.

Do you really think that feminism is a major component in the problems of society? If so, what should we do about it?
 secretroots
Joined: 2/2/2011
Msg: 75
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/20/2011 8:58:41 PM
I think any system that allows a person the freedom to choose his/her own path and be responsible for ones self is a good thing.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > feminism...for discussion