Pages

Jump to bottom

8 comments

1 wrenchwench  Sat, Jan 26, 2013 2:28:18pm

From the link:

(and we still haven’t really talked about the fact that, of 62 mass shootings in the U.S. in three decades, only one was by a woman, because when you say lone gunman, everyone talks about loners and guns but not about men — and by the way, nearly two thirds of all women killed by guns are killed by their partner or ex-partner).

That’s just a parenthetical phrase, yet it is meatier than most whole articles I’ve read.

I agree, read the whole thing.

2 EPR-radar  Sat, Jan 26, 2013 2:44:20pm

I also agree that the whole linked article is well worth reading.

Nothing like voluminous amounts of cold, hard evidence to expose patriarchy for what it essentially is —- the violent subjugation of women.

Progress has been made in that this violence no longer has the full legal and moral support of the state and its institutions in the developed world.

Much more needs to be done, and the pissing and moaning of the self-proclaimed anti-feminists and men’s rights activists is irrelevant.

3 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Jan 26, 2013 8:08:29pm

In the California case, the state Supreme Court did not say the defendant was ‘not guilty’; What it said was: “The prosecutor offered two grounds on which to convict the defendant and one of those two grounds is invalid because its not in the law (which hasn’t been updated since the 19th Century). Since we by law cannot ask the jury as to the grounds upon which they convicted this man, we have no choice but to void his conviction. However, we recommend he be retried on the remaining grounds (that being that he had sex with the complainant while she was unconscious and thus unable to consent) and that the law be updated.”

The judges weren’t anti-woman, but they were limited in what they could do. Yes, the law should allow a person to be convicted of rape if he gains consent by pretending to be someone he isn’t, but in California at present the law only says that if the imposter pretended to be the victim’s spouse. Judges may not make the law, that job belongs to the legislature. Those seeking a change in the law are going to have to find a way to push their cause in Sacramento.

4 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Jan 26, 2013 8:12:20pm

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

In the California case, the state Supreme Court did not say the defendant was ‘not guilty’; What it said was: “The prosecutor offered two grounds on which to convict the defendant and one of those two grounds is invalid because its not in the law (which hasn’t been updated since the 19th Century). Since we by law cannot ask the jury as to the grounds upon which they convicted this man, we have no choice but to void his conviction. However, we recommend he be retried on the remaining grounds (that being that he had sex with the complainant while she was unconscious and thus unable to consent) and that the law be updated.”

The judges weren’t anti-woman, but they were limited in what they could do. Yes, the law should allow a person to be convicted of rape if he gains consent by pretending to be someone he isn’t, but in California at present the law only says that if the imposter pretended to be the victim’s spouse. Judges may not make the law, that job belongs to the legislature. Those seeking a change in the law are going to have to find a way to push their cause in Sacramento.

So, pointing this out, supports what?

Did you glean any new knowledge from the article as a whole?

5 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Jan 26, 2013 8:13:22pm

re: #4 FemNaziBitch

So, pointing this out, supports what?

Did you glean any new knowledge from the article as a whole?

I hadn’t gotten to the article yet, but I felt the addition was needed.

6 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Jan 26, 2013 8:14:41pm

re: #5 Dark_Falcon

I hadn’t gotten to the article yet, but I felt the addition was needed.

ah!

I think if you read the entire article, you’ll find such nitpicking rather lame.

7 Skip Intro  Sat, Jan 26, 2013 8:16:01pm
Those seeking a change in the law are going to have to find a way to push their cause in Sacramento.

This is California, a sane state. We’re already on it. It would have passed last year, but we still had enough Republicans in office back then to block it.

“Bill Introduced to Fix California’s Rape Law “

[Link: freethoughtblogs.com…]

8 FemNaziBitch  Sun, Jan 27, 2013 6:51:59am

re: #7 Skip Intro

This is California, a sane state. We’re already on it. It would have passed last year, but we still had enough Republicans in office back then to block it.

“Bill Introduced to Fix California’s Rape Law “

[Link: freethoughtblogs.com…]

That is worth a Page!


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh