Womens Rights!

Posted by: chatty lady

Womens Rights! - 01/07/11 02:26 AM

Has anyone else heard the news on TV that more and more women are committing domestic violence, not usually starting it but defending themselves very violently. Also because they are leaving marks they are the ones being arrested. Over New Years there were nearly a dozen women arrested. I think the attitude among some women is finally, "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I"M NOT TAKING IT ANYMORE." Too bad it has to come to that but bravo for those finally waking up....
Posted by: jabber

Re: Womens Rights! - 01/10/11 11:03 PM

Hadn't heard about this but it's an interesting twist, to say the least!
Posted by: jabber

Re: Womens Rights! - 01/12/11 01:58 PM

There's a murder case in our area, whereby the husband cut the
wife's head off; now he's claiming that [he] was the abused
spouse? He's this great big dude; she was tiny, thin, and petite.
Yell right. He was abused.
Posted by: Ellemm

Re: Womens Rights! - 01/12/11 05:06 PM

I don't think you're going to get far when you have beheaded your wife (!), but there actually are cases of domestic violence where the woman is the aggressor. The men are too embarrassed to admit that their wives are out of control -- some of these women are mentally ill -- and the police don't believe them anyway. You know, if a man can have a vicious temper and terrorize his family, so can a woman. It's usually the other way around, but not always.

I know some women who have been ordered into anger management programs. They didn't keep their fists to themselves with their kids, their husbands, or their neighbors. They're a menace. We like to think that people won't do things like this, but unfortunately they do.
Posted by: jabber

Re: Womens Rights! - 01/13/11 01:25 PM

I agree both genders can be guilty of violent tempers. I'm so
grateful I wasn't called to serve on the jury of that dude that cut his wife's head off. I can't hardly stand to look at the guy, and wouldn't been chosen to be a juror anyhow. But thank God I didn't have to sit there for days, only to be dismissed. The man ran his own TV studio; so he couldn't be dumb by any means.
Posted by: chatty lady

Re: Womens Rights! - 02/19/11 09:50 PM

Watched a show last night where there was a rapist in New York city and he had attacked many women, raping and killing them. Two women well trained in martial arts and carrying guns set him up while walking alone on the streets and killed him. They also targeted other would be attackers but alas were caught and sent to prison. Sometimes one wants to cheer for the Vigilantes, I know I did. At least they were able to get some scum of the streets.
Posted by: jabber

Re: Womens Rights! - 02/23/11 05:01 PM

Truer words were never spoken: "Sometimes one wants to cheer for
the Vigilantes!"
Posted by: DJ

Re: Womens Rights! - 02/24/11 09:38 PM

Still, we live in a culture that glorifies male -- not female -- aggression and violence. Oh, and by the way, notice how congress wants to redefine "rape" as "forcible rape"? What's up with that?
Posted by: chatty lady

Re: Womens Rights! - 03/06/11 11:51 PM

What other kinds of RAPE are there except "forcible rape?" Other wise it would be a love connection!!!
Now if you lived in the Muslim culture where cattle are more valuable than women, to claim rape a woman must have and produce 4 or 5 witness's. OMG! so in other words there is NO rape in Muslim law, and those assholes want to bring their culture here...
Posted by: Ellemm

Re: Womens Rights! - 03/07/11 02:32 AM

Chatty, DJ's comment had nothing to do with Muslims. It came from Republican members of Congress who are seeking to limit which women can qualify for taxpayer-subsidized abortions. At first they wanted to include only 'forcible' rape and incest of minors, but after vigorous protests restored the original exemptions for all rapes and cases of incest.

Sorry, but these are our own home-grown Americans, most of whom are, of course, Christians.

Like you, I have no idea how they intended to identify forcible rape. Did the woman have to be all beaten up and get people to certify her story? Threatened with a gun? It's a slippery slope. Most people felt the intent of the proposal was to restrict abortions to the fewest cases possible regardless of what happened to the woman.

This is actually part of a broader push back against taxpayer funds to help women get birth control, tests, pregnancy care, and the like.
Posted by: DJ

Re: Womens Rights! - 03/08/11 03:18 PM

That's right, Ellemm -- I did say this is something Congress had declared. Here's Kristen Schall's take on it:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-2-2011/rape-victim-abortion-funding

It's interesting how labeling affects the way we view ideas. We all need to train ourselves to assess ideas for their own value, not whether or not people we identify with espouse them (i.e., Republican, Dems, Muslims, etc.).
Posted by: chatty lady

Re: Womens Rights! - 04/15/11 01:27 AM

Sounds like the smartest idea I have heard lately DJ.
Posted by: chatty lady

Re: Womens Rights! - 05/04/11 10:04 PM

You're proably correct but RAPE is such a brutal and aggressive act to the poor woman. Think about being raped by some stranger, maybe dirty or disease ridden. I can't even imagine it. Then to be raped again by the system not believing you or caring.