It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
Also ..socially and in the courts women are far more inclined to get away with violence against males and anyone else than are males. There seems to be an automatic default in play for the women and females.
I don't remember their names but the woman who drowned her two children some years back by pushing their car into a lake down south somewhere is textbook of this....even while claiming someone else did it.
Also that women ..once again I cannot remember her name ....but she drowned her five children in a bathtub as I recall.
Any man who would have done this would have long ago been strung up on the yardarm.
In short ..women's violence is often covered up or downplayed and male violence is played up. A very interesting double standard.
Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 --
* 31% were killed by fathers
* 29% were killed by mothers
* 23% were killed by male acquaintances
* 7% were killed by other relatives
* 3% were killed by strangers
Of those children killed by someone other than their parent, 81% were killed by males.
LOGAN - Before being sentenced on Tuesday for abusing and killing his 2-year-old son, Mychal Denny delivered a tearful statement to the court.
“I would like to apologize to my son . . . to my family . . . to my sons that I will leave behind,” Denny said. “I know that when I get out, through the love of my family, someday . . . I will be the brother, husband, son and father that I've always wanted to be.”
The apology held little sway with 1st District Judge Thomas Willmore, who ordered Denny, 23, to spend one to 15 years in prison for the death of Tyson Robertson Denny. The judge said he will ask the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole to keep Denny - who pleaded guilty to second-degree felony child-abuse homicide - in prison for the full term.
Willmore also imposed a $18,500 fine.
Father gets 9 years for killing infant son
Sarah Lundy | Sentinel Staff Writer
9:23 AM EST, February 18, 2009
An Orlando father was sentenced to more than nine years in prison for the death of his 1-month-old son.
William Pickett II, 21, told Orange Circuit Court Judge Jenifer Davis this morning that he did everything he could to revive his son and couldn't believe what happened.
His attorney, Jeff Dowdy, tried to persuade the judge to issue a lighter sentence for Pickett, who had no criminal history and a "tough" upbringing.
Susan Smith (born September 26, 1971 as Susan Leigh Vaughan), is an American woman sentenced to life in prison for murdering her children. Born in Union, South Carolina, and a former student of the University of South Carolina Union, she was convicted on July 22, 1995 of murdering her two sons, 3-year-old Michael Daniel Smith, born October 10, 1991, and 14-month-old Alexander Tyler Smith, born August 5, 1993. The case gained worldwide attention shortly after it developed.
Yates's 2002 conviction of capital murder and sentence to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years was later overturned on appeal. On July 26, 2006, a Texas jury ruled Yates to be not guilty by reason of insanity. She was consequently committed by the court to the North Texas State Hospital, Vernon Campus, a high-security mental health facility in Vernon, Texas, where she received medical treatment and was a roommate of Dena Schlosser, another woman who committed filicide. In January 2007, Yates was moved to a low security state mental hospital in Kerrville, Texas.
Without consulting the doctor about his plans, and against medical advice, Mr. Yates began leaving his wife alone with the children in the weeks leading up to the drownings. Russell had announced to a family gathering the weekend before the drownings that he had decided to leave Andrea home alone for an hour each morning and evening, so that she would not become totally dependent on him and his mother for her maternal responsibilities. Andrea Yates' brother, Brian Kennedy, told Larry King on a broadcast of CNN's Larry King Live that Russell expressed to him in 2001 while transporting her to Devereux treatment facility that all depressed people needed was a "swift kick in the pants" to get them motivated. Mrs. Yates' mother, Jutta Karin Kennedy, expressed shock when she heard of Russell's plan while at the dinner gathering with them, saying that she wasn't stable enough to care for the children. She noted that her daughter demonstrated she wasn't in her right mind when she nearly choked her still-toothless infant Mary by trying to feed her solid food.[
Originally posted by orangetom1999
I am not promoting violence against women..here..I am merely pointing out a very huge gap in the way it is tolerated and presented to a very uninformed public.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
The falseness of your quote above is that even though the bulk of politicians are men...they are in fact very feminine in nature. They tend to go where the risks are less and the options are more. Not much different from the bulk of women.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
"The falseness of your quote above is that even though the bulk of politicians are men...they are in fact very feminine in nature. They tend to go where the risks are less and the options are more. Not much different from the bulk of women. "
Ok OT, that was a brilliant move. So now, even the men who put the rules in place that you so eloquently complain about, arent really men. They are women, with penises.
The falseness of your quote above is that even though the bulk of politicians are men...they are in fact very feminine in nature. They tend to go where the risks are less and the options are more. Not much different from the bulk of women. It is not a matter of what sex they are ..male or female..but who has the greater number of votes..especially in high electorial vote states on national elections. To whom they must appeal ..who constitutes the bigger and more affluent voting block. It is not the males in this country. It is the women and minorities...many of whom are women. They will constantly be predicted and controlled to vote for more out of the public trough while supporting the election/re election of those passing such legislation...ie..security issues ...not opportunity issues.
However..my point in many of my posts is often ..who benefits from these votes for more out of the public trough ..with no benefit for those also paying for it..taking RISK. In keeping with the theme of this thread..who gets the primary benefit from this credit crunch..to buy votes...and who takes RISKS to support it. By this I mean the defecit spending/credit on social programs.
But even Plato acknowledged it could be found in a female. It was a rare quality, but not a male quality. Rare in all humans, but not non-existent in the female gender.
Womens rights just ensures that some percentage of humans with good and noble traits arent prevented from being able to contribute their portion to the world because of some fallacious assumption that they are by nature unable to possess these qualities.
agreed. ancient greece was both patriarchal AND pederastic! women were only useful for creating progeny. the men spent all their time with their young male apprentices. in essence, the entire society was composed of male homosexual pedophiles, who didn't do much of anything with their wives. that was an ENTIRE society, in which women were barely a blip on the radar. the poetry, the art forms, were predominantly about males and the female children were typically killed at birth (no doubt one of the reasons the grecian empire fell to rome, who figured out the bigger the family, the stronger the empire).
Originally posted by nikiano
I would be more than happy to give up my job so I can stay at home eating bon-bons all day.
Just find me a man these days who is not addicted to drugs, porn or alcohol, who is as responsible as I am with money, who has a credit score as high as I do, and who will willingly go to work 4 days a week at the hospital to pay the mortgage, plus keep up my part-time business on the side, and also continue my independent research and books that I am currently writing, and I will be happy to give it all up to stay home to "save society."
I just can't find a man these days that can do all that a woman can.
But of course, it's our fault. We've become too competent. Too polished. Too dominant. Too intimidating. Oh, yes.... it must be our fault. Everything is our fault. It couldn't possibly be that once women started working outside the home, men said something akin to: "Cool; now I can lay back, rest, and play video games all day. Honey, fetch me another beer!"
Find me a guy these days who is WILLING to do half as much as a woman does on a daily basis, with even a quarter of the emotional maturity, and I'll quit work, marry him, and stay home and have kids.
Because honestly, I haven't found one yet worth marrying, and I don't think they exist anymore these days.
Men get crucified for expressing or referring to their hormonal impulses, but women are given all the space in the world and understanding when it comes to their hormonal functioning. It's always "oh he's a male and just being a selfish pig" but with her "she just needs space and understanding, be fair and put yourself in her shoes."
Why do you imply men only possess a "quarter the emotional maturity" than women? Do you say this because you cannot find a male who wants to form a serious relationship with you? Perhaps you should lower your standards and consider his needs and obligations, in addition to your own. Maybe his maturity level would be higher if you showed you cared a little about his endeavours and virtues.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
I agree here with your quote above. More income has not made us better people. It has however made us better consumers. Even to the point of consuming ourselves.
However..just as in defining ourselves by sex and or sexuality...I think it is also very ignorant to define ourselves by what goods we consume. Do you know a people who would tend to do such a thing??? I know lots of them.
You know..I was about to buy myself one of those new fangled flat screen televisions last year. I caught myself and realized.."snap out of it. I dont even watch that much television to justify such a purchase." What a bonehead. Keep up with the neighbors.
I do indeed define housework as work. For I am often wont to say that my mother worked harder than most women today and even harder than many men today.
I hear many of the women today complaining of the men not helping them with thier household work....equally. I do not see the women arguing for the right and or the responsibility to help the men with thier traditional work around the home...equally.
It doesnt matter if they work or not in jobs outside the home or in the home. The mans work and struggle tend towards invisiblity....except on payday.
I dont agree here. Even in those days few men could read well or read at all. The system discriminated against men as well as women.
Those women who could read were undoubtedly of the more affluent classes. The history is not often told in its entirety in lieu of the Victim dictum conbined witht the time warp technique.
As to making the best arrangetment they could with the male...your kidding me right?? Women today are very eager to marry down the economic ladder"" Right??
Even in living with a man...women today cannot wait to move in with a man who makes less than they and support him in the manner to which he is accustomed while they make up the difference as a career...right???
Todays intelligent thinking woman has enough accumen to move a man in with her who is of less eoconomic worth and call it a career opportunity. Right??
Todays woman of intelligence does not think of status and marrying or living up...right??
She does not think of a man as being high maintenance ..right?? How to lower his maintenance costs while increasing the costs/opportunitys/options to her and the children. No safety net under him???
Any questioning of a mans status in this manner brings the rebuke and scorn one sees on threads like this one..in favor of the one way default settings. Because to question a mans status is to question a womans status. Particularly in ecoomically affluent nations.
When Hillary and Chelsey Clinton when to Lahore, India to a womans conference during the Clinton Administration...their message of womens positions was not well recieved because it had little daily application to the women of those nations.
These women in third world nations could not imagine how western women survived in ministering to thier families with such beliefs. You have to dig hard to find this inforrmations.
Hmmmm..running out of space here..will continue..
Originally posted by orangetom1999
Disagree here..economics is politics is, if necessary, selling the souls of the public to which ever template gets them votes to keep and maintain power. It is also often a Hegelian Dialectic at work. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.
The technique so often popular and used here is in fact the "Victim Dictum."
In this couintry there is no other group of people outside of women who watch more television and buy more products and direct more of the economics and who also have the greatest voting power in any election outside of any so called minority..ever.
The women in this country are the majority influence in all categories except the most stressful and dangerous jobs.
They do however tend to marry or attach themselves to the most successful men in these cagtegories and reap the benefits of such risk taking. Competition can be fierce for these successful men.
All I have to do is read romance novels to see this pattern of female success perpetuated over and over in the minds of women. And women buy alot of these books and magazines..thus demonstrating again that this is not an oppressed minorithy.
What opprressed vicitmized group has the time and moneys to purchase and read so much of this stuff??
Oh and I agree.in the long run perpetuating the Victim dictum will indeed be bad for buisness. It will however be very good for the body politic to keep and maintain power by getting votes using this dictum. Hence political expediency will be maintained in lieu of what is good for buisness.
Are not many security/socially minded governments attempting to maintain thier power base..voting for more security minded social programs for votes...in spite of destroying their economic base, who is required to pay for these programs?
What group or sex is the major beneficiary of such programs?? I can gaurantee you it is not the males.
Among ng the states ..California is paying a heavy price for this security mindedness. Buisnesses are fleeing the state while they are imposing even more support taxes on the remaining buisnesses. It will cause the remaining buisnesses to flee even faster.
If you dissect closely ..the television programming and advertisements both are highly skewed to this direction and purpose...to this group while teaching and preaching that this is a victimized minority. I am not buying into it.
When one dissects it down to its common denominators...and particularly in economically developed nations....male power is for the purpose of directing it to the female and children. No safety net for him.
Female power is for the purpose of directing it to the female needs and the childrens needs while screaming inequalty injustice. Lots of safety net for them and the children..either through a man or a government program or both...and increasing here.
In short ..the roles have become disfunctioinal...as is obvious by the posts on this thread. Any questioning of this status brings about the rebuke and scorn one gets as per on here.
Now .are all men and women buying into this template..no they are not. Thank God this is not so across the board. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that something is not working. What is working is alot of default settings ..givens...its a given.
Disagree for the reasons stated above.
Indeed...there is no women's socialization instruction to take care of the men in the manner men have traditionally taken care of the females.
To do something about it means that the women will be responsible for keeping and maintaining all the systems they currently take so for granted all around them. Most will not be wont to do this type of labor or commitment. See my statements above about safety nets.
The sad truth about things is that women tend to go for "success objects" in objectifying men..and men tend to go for "sex objects" in objectifying women.
This too has become disfunctional in todays social economic structure in that it too has not brought the stability it used to do.
LOL LOL Whitewave is often wont to remind me and other males about the women as "sex objects." Keeps us in line.!!
Though I like and appreciate the female form as much as the next man, I think men today have sold themselves way short in this arena due to thier own natural ignorance. The women as well.
While this once may have been true...once again it is however and example of female inexpendabilty and male expendability both in history and now. Remember ..both male and female had much shorter and more difficult lives in past history.
Now today..this has changed substantially. One trip to graveyards with headstone dates over a hundred years olde illustrates clearly that there was a noticable trend of women perishing in childbirth. this is undeliable. I have myself seen numerous olde headstones of women and right next to them thier newborns. Very sad to see.
Technology has greatly reversed this trend and this too is obvous by graveyard headstones today of more recent times.
So when I see people trying to insert this as an example of victimization ...I quickly say to myself..ok...time warp techniques...I am supppsed to be silent on this one and let it pass.
Knowledge and technological innovation is what has changed this for the better. Not victimization still going on. While this technological innovation has done much for childbirth and death of the woman and child in birth..what has it done for male risks across the borad and on the job??
This medical knowledge and benefit is more and more finding its way to the traditionally third world nations and making a difference in Childbirth/Mother deaths in those nations. About tiime too.
I believe you are in Africa. What has technological innovation done to make diamond mining more safe for the males involved in it..or are there now droves of women going down into these deep mines?? It is my belief that if women were going down into these mines they would be made safer places to work rather quickly...or shutdown due to the costs of maintaining them.
That is ..unless of course the costs can be deducted off a companys taxes...ie..subsidized..where everyone picks up the tab. Once again demonstrating male disposability and expendability
While mostly Western women are facing new risks???....I dont think so Stellar.
I think that more third world women and men both face more daily risks than both western men and women and have always done so. Little to no safety net for them. Nothing new here.
Compared to third world peoples ..western man has had it so fantastically good...we have to mess it up..we simply have little perspective on other places in the world today Our technology has shielded us from much of the world and other conditions. It has made us better consumers and not better peoples.