0 Registered (),
231
Guests and
1
Spider online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
3239 Members
63 Forums
16332 Topics
210704 Posts
Max Online: 409 @ 01/16/20 10:33 PM
|
|
|
#210343 - 01/12/11 12:06 PM
Re: Womens Rights!
[Re: jabber]
|
Registered: 11/04/08
Posts: 601
|
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.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#211251 - 02/24/11 04:38 PM
Re: Womens Rights!
[Re: jabber]
|
Member
Registered: 11/22/02
Posts: 1149
Loc: Ohio
|
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?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#211440 - 03/06/11 09:32 PM
Re: Womens Rights!
[Re: chatty lady]
|
Registered: 11/04/08
Posts: 601
|
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.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#211462 - 03/08/11 10:18 AM
Re: Womens Rights!
[Re: Ellemm]
|
Member
Registered: 11/22/02
Posts: 1149
Loc: Ohio
|
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-fundingIt'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.).
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|