"Equality" according to Feminists

[Bonam]

I think that added to the shame is the disbelief by so many that it could happen; and if the man fights back at all in self defense, if the police are involved, too often the woman's bruises actually make him out as the abuser in the eyes of the law.

Indeed, "fighting back" would almost never really be a possibility for a man at all, as he'd end up in prison. The man's only option in such a relationship would be to leave. And, of course, if the relationship involved any children, to pay out his livelihood as a slave to child support to the woman who tormented him.

[Canuckistani]

Clearly I didn't say that it should be ignored. But the difference in scope is part of the reason why violence against women gets more attention, just as cancer or heart disease get more attention than otehr less common but no less fatal diseases.

Got a cite for that?

VANCOUVER (CP) - A woman who killed her cheating lover with a knife wound to the groin was sentenced yesterday to house arrest.

Teresa Senner, 43, convicted of manslaughter in the death of Vanderhoof school principal Norman Wicks, 50, was given a conditional sentence of two years less a day by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Glen Parrett in Prince George.

Conservative MP Vic Toews, the federal justice critic, immediately demanded an end to conditional sentences for violent crimes.

"One of the things I have to do is talk with my colleagues in the Opposition parties and say, 'Look, do you agree that someone committing an act of manslaughter should be eligible for house arrest?' " Toews said.

"Imagine the outcry if it had been a man who had stabbed this woman to death because the woman had been unfaithful. We wouldn't accept that.

"I have to ask myself, 'What is the difference here?' Is it simply because it is a woman killing a man that this kind of a sentence becomes justifiable. I hope not."

The sentence means Senner can live in the community under a curfew. She was also prohibited from using the Internet and e-mail during her sentence.

http://forensicsncrime.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=crimecases&action=print&thread=1085

The probation case I can't find a link, but a woman was given 3 years probation for stabbing her lover to death in a jealous rage. The fact she was first nations and drunk at the time were deemed mitigating factors.

[cybercoma]

Without understanding the full circumstances of the case, there is no way of knowing whether this was a fair and just sentence or not. If the woman had no prior arrests or police detentions and was a model citizen and she was the subject of physical and psychological abuse by the husband, then she may have been suffering from Battered-Wife Syndrome. In that case it would not be unreasonable for her to receive house arrest. She's not a danger to the general community and she would have been suffering psychological trauma from her experiences, which led to the killing. That's not to say she was justified in killing him. She should have left him. However, it explain the killing and it makes it a hell of a lot different than the malicious killer picture that Toews wants to paint.

[Black Dog]

http://forensicsncrime.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=crimecases&action=print&thread=1085

The probation case I can't find a link, but a woman was given 3 years probation for stabbing her lover to death in a jealous rage. The fact she was first nations and drunk at the time were deemed mitigating factors.

I was thinking more along the lines of something show that statistically women who commit assault offenses

get lighter sentences or something.

[Canuckistani]

Without understanding the full circumstances of the case, there is no way of knowing whether this was a fair and just sentence or not. If the woman had no prior arrests or police detentions and was a model citizen and she was the subject of physical and psychological abuse by the husband, then she may have been suffering from Battered-Wife Syndrome. In that case it would not be unreasonable for her to receive house arrest. She's not a danger to the general community and she would have been suffering psychological trauma from her experiences, which led to the killing. That's not to say she was justified in killing him. She should have left him. However, it explain the killing and it makes it a hell of a lot different than the malicious killer picture that Toews wants to paint.

Holy crap, the usual excuses are trotted out.

The woman stabber her lover in the groin because he told her he would not be leaving his wife after all, and oh, yeah, he had a couple of other women on the side besides her. It was jealous rage. Same with the native woman who got probation. If a man kills a woman in a jealous rage, you'd be trotting out the patriarchal phallocentric heteronormic male need to control women crap. Would you still support 2 years of house arrest while being able to go to work for a man?

Unbelievable.

[cybercoma]

Holy crap, the usual excuses are trotted out.

The woman stabber her lover in the groin because he told her he would not be leaving his wife after all, and oh, yeah, he had a couple of other women on the side besides her. It was jealous rage. Same with the native woman who got probation. If a man kills a woman in a jealous rage, you'd be trotting out the patriarchal phallocentric heteronormic male need to control women crap. Would you still support 2 years of house arrest while being able to go to work for a man?

Unbelievable.

Calm down, skippy. I said there's no way of understanding the sentence unless you know all of the details of the case, but there are conceivable circumstances where it would be an appropriate sentence. I gave an example of one of those circumstances and in no way did I say that those were the actual details of this case. So give it a rest.

[Canuckistani]

Your immediate response was to look for excuses. I know the details because they were widely published at the time. Women's violence against men, even if severe is not taken as seriously as the reverse, and then we get the usual suspects like yourself trotting out the he must have deserved it excuses.

[cybercoma]

Your immediate response was to look for excuses. I know the details because they were widely published at the time. Women's violence against men, even if severe is not taken as seriously as the reverse, and then we get the usual suspects like yourself trotting out the he must have deserved it excuses.

Obviously you're either unwilling or incapable of understanding my post. I'm not going to hold your hand here. You seem to think that reading about a trial in the newspaper is the same thing as getting all the details of any particular case. Most intelligent people are smart enough to know that a few sentences in a newspaper is a tiny fraction of what actually gets investigated at a trial that can last several weeks. They also know that the newspaper creates a narrative around the situation. So don't sit here playing stupid saying that all the details of the case are known because you've read a couple newspaper articles.

In any case, that point is moot. As I said in my last post, which again you either completely misunderstood or are unwilling to understand, the examples that a gave were not particular to this case nor did I even imply that they were. I was saying there are circumstances where this type of sentence may be appropriate. The fact that women get lighter sentences are typically because their crimes are committed in the context of self-defence. It's plain to see from the occurrence of domestic homicides that for every man killed in a domestic homicide there are several women killed. So save me your sob story about female perpetrators being treated less harshly than men because in those cases where they kill their male partners it is more frequently a case of self-defence. I've never even come across a case where a man killed his partner in self-defence. Until you give those facts consideration, your whining and crying about a weak justice system are meaningless.

[Canuckistani]

The case of the Vanderhoof woman was well reported.

But why go right away to exculpating examples when the topic is female violence on males and lack of judicial response? At best you're deflecting. Can you not just discuss the situation and agree that where females use violence on males where there are no exculpating circumstances should be dealt with with the same severity as male on female violence? Or, is female violence always excusable in your view? After all they live in an oppressive patriarchy, so maybe it's understandable if they lose it from time to time. Or, because female on male violence is less, it's a numbers game and they should be punished less even if they do as much damage? (Actually females initiate more that 50% of domestic violence and are more likely to use a weapon).

[cybercoma]

Show me your source for women initiating more than 50% of domestic violence. I guarantee you it uses the unrevised CTS that does not consider damage done by the violence.

[Canuckistani]

Show me your source for women initiating more than 50% of domestic violence. I guarantee you it uses the unrevised CTS that does not consider damage done by the violence.

That's right, the damage done by men is often more serious. Does that excuse the damage done by women, even if it is serious our deadly? Or that it's OK to initiate violence, but if the man responds he's the guy going to jail?

[cybercoma]

Yeah. I'm done discussing this with you, since you apparently would much rather argue against a made-up version of what I said than my actual points.

Yes women initiate violence

Yes men are in abusive relationships with women.

Yes women murder their partners without it being self-defence.

Yes their sentences should be the same as men's ceteris paribus.

I haven't argued otherwise.

What you've failed to show is that women get lighter sentences than men, all things being equal.

[cybercoma]

Oh and the fact of the matter is the reason you see a lot of women get lesser charges and charges thrown out is that when police respond to domestic violence calls they tend to arrest both parties and charge (dual or cross-charging) them both and let the court straighten out the situation.

[betsy]

I think that added to the shame is the disbelief by so many that it could happen; and if the man fights back at all in self defense, if the police are involved, too often the woman's bruises actually make him out as the abuser in the eyes of the law.

Oh yes, it's automatic response that he is viewed as the aggressor. In some cases, he gets taken out of the house right away and most likely slapped with a restraining order.

Some men are cowed too at the thought of losing custody over children. Some women can get really nasty and use children as bargaining chips.

Edited September 1, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Furthermore, if you have to consider the cost of alimony and child support - you'll really have some serious thinking and financial juggling to do, if you're a dad being abused.

How many times have I heard and read of "providing enough to support the kind of lifestyle your wife/children are accustomed to"? What about the husband? His lifestyle that he was also accustomed to? Who's more likely to downgrade in lifestyle?

So what's the best option for an abused husband?

The same option an abused wife had 50 years ago! Grin and bear it.

Except now, some would probably follow the trend of taking everyone out in the family and then committing suicide.

Edited September 1, 2012 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Furthermore, if you have to consider the cost of alimony and child support - you'll really have some serious thinking and financial juggling to do, if you're a dad being abused.

If the mother is the abuser, the children will be placed with the father.

[Canuckistani]

If the mother is the abuser, the children will be placed with the father.

But you also wrote this:

Oh and the fact of the matter is the reason you see a lot of women get lesser charges and charges thrown out is that when police respond to domestic violence calls they tend to arrest both parties and charge (dual or cross-charging) them both and let the court straighten out the situation.

So according to you, women get lesser charges and charges thrown out (I agree) by the court system, men are more likely to be the one that gets sentenced.

[cybercoma]

But you also wrote this: So according to you, women get lesser charges and charges thrown out (I agree) by the court system, men are more likely to be the one that gets sentenced.

*sigh* Reply again when you don't gloss over the reasons why women that are charged have their charges thrown out more frequently.

[betsy]

If the mother is the abuser, the children will be placed with the father.

But that's the dilemma we're discussing , isn't it?

Abused husbands tend to be silent - they are now in the shoes of abused wives, a throwback 50 or so years ago!

And the Feminist mentality that I'm ridiculing, ironically, is now the oppressor - more like a man-hating mentality with a hard-on for a big "payback!"

[bleeding heart]

But that's the dilemma we're discussing , isn't it?

Abused husbands tend to be silent - they are now in the shoes of abused wives, a throwback 50 or so years ago!

And the Feminist mentality that I'm ridiculing, ironically, is now the oppressor - more like a man-hating mentality with a hard-on for a big "payback!"

No, that's not the way feminists think. (Oh, there might be a trivial handful of fringe extremists...but it's not the norm).

And no, obviously men are not now in the position--re abuse or otherwise--that women were in 50 years ago. That's a wanton exaggeration, to put it generously.

Certainly, abuse of men--whether by women or by same sex partners--is serious, and it's a problem. I'd never try to diminish it.

But we're not talking about equal phenomena here.

Edited September 2, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

Oh yes, it's automatic response that he is viewed as the aggressor. In some cases, he gets taken out of the house right away and most likely slapped with a restraining order.

Some men are cowed too at the thought of losing custody over children. Some women can get really nasty and use children as bargaining chips.

While I agree that what you're saying here is too often the reality, I'm not getting the connection to "feminists" in your thread title. Is the concern about abused men - or is it about bashing feminists?

[betsy]

While I agree that what you're saying here is too often the reality, I'm not getting the connection to "feminists" in your thread title. Is the concern about abused men - or is it about bashing feminists?

Well, read all the way back (again) and maybe you'll get it!

Edited September 3, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

No, that's not the way feminists think. (Oh, there might be a trivial handful of fringe extremists...but it's not the norm).

When you talk feminists it's usually the "handful of fringe extremists" they seem to talk about - since this handful do have the clout, it seems! Just look at the justice system now - as per our discussion.

We're just talking about that.

There's REAL WOMEN!

REAL (Realistic, Equal, Active for Life) Women of Canada, a non-partisan, inter-denominational organization, believes the social and economic problems of women should be resolved by taking into consideration the effects on family life and society as a whole. REAL Women believes the family is the most important unit in society, as we have yet to develop a better model to care for the young, protect the weak and attend the elderly.

http://www.realwomenca.com/page/ourviews.html

BH:

And no, obviously men are not now in the position--re abuse or otherwise--that women were in 50 years ago. That's a wanton exaggeration, to put it generously.

How would you know? Since we acknowledge that men tend to be silent - just as women were those years? Weren't we blown away by the stats when women finally came out to speak about domestic abuse?

Certainly, abuse of men--whether by women or by same sex partners--is serious, and it's a problem. I'd never try to diminish it.

But we're not talking about equal phenomena here.

Maybe not equal, but that doesn't change the fact that the men silently suffering abuse today (for various reasons they may have), are in the same situation countless abused wives suffered years ago.

Because of SILENCE.

Edited September 3, 2012 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

Well, read all the way back (again) and maybe you'll get it!

So the question was too difficult for you to answer? Ok. No longer interested in the thread then. I like to know what it is, exactly, that I'm responding to.

[betsy]

No, that's not the way feminists think. (Oh, there might be a trivial handful of fringe extremists...but it's not the norm)

Just a quick look at this old manifesto:

Solanas then accuses men of turning the world into a "shitpile" and presents a long list of grievances.[31]

[edit] List of grievances

The bulk of the manifesto consists of a litany of grievances against the male sex. The grievances are divided into the following sections:[32]

War

Niceness, Politeness and "Dignity"

Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society

Fatherhood and Mental Illness (fear, cowardice, timidity, humility, insecurity, passivity)

Suppression of Individuality, Animalism (domesticity and motherhood) and Functionalism

Prevention of Privacy

Isolation, Suburbs and Prevention of Community

Conformity

Authority and Government

Philosophy, Religion and Morality Based on Sex

Prejudice (racial, ethnic, religious, etc.)

Competition, Prestige, Status, Formal Education, Ignorance and Social and Economic Classes

Prevention of Conversation

Prevention of Friendship and Love

"Great Art" and "Culture"

Sexuality

Boredom

Secrecy, Censorship, Suppression of Knowledge and Ideas, and Exposés

Distrust

Ugliness

Hate and Violence

Disease and Death

Influence

Whether the Manifesto should be considered a feminist classic is challenged by Heller because the Manifesto rejected a hierarchy of greatness,[39] but she said it "remains an influential feminist text."[104

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto

Quite interesting:

July 22, 2012

RADICAL LESBIAN FEMINISM OR POLITICAL LESBIANISM IN 2012

In 1980, Adrienne Rich articulated how compulsory heterosexuality controls and oppresses women. She explains how men systematically force women into heterosexuality. Specifically through:

( a list of grievances...)

During the UK 2012 radical feminist conference, sisters of the 1970s and 1980s told their stories of past feminist struggle. They said that lesbian feminism was the foundation from which long-term projects were developed. Refuges, rape crisis centres, women’s health organisations, campaign groups, direct action groups, were often set up and developed through the efforts of lesbian feminists or political lesbians, fresh out of consciousness-raising groups. Importantly, our sisters tell us that it is love for, and from, other women; friends, political allies, lovers and ex-lovers, which sustained them from political burn-out.

http://sisterhoodispowerful.wordpress.com/

This group may be from the fringe....but their message seem to resonate quite well mainstream.

Edited September 3, 2012 by betsy