1 in 5 women get raped?

@maxdancona,

I was a very strong supporter of the ERA in the 1970s and even joined NOW at the time in my attempts to support it passing.

Always been raised around strong women so I did not see why women as a class should not have both equal rights and equal responsibilities.

Always annoyed me that women such as Firefly wish to have us treat adult women as defenseless children when it come to males willing to buy them drinks for example.

1 Reply

@firefly,

That is old news Firefly. The bill failed because the feminist side was unwilling to compromise. Much of the bill would have passed, and there was a especially strong support to pass the anti-trafficking part of the bill. But they wouldn't budge.

I am pro-choice, I would have supported most of the bill. I think the idea that people accused of domestic violence shouldn't have the right to face their accuser is ridiculous. I would not have supported the bill because of that provision.

The inability to compromise is a problem with ideological movements. The price is failure to accomplish things that have broad support.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Always annoyed me that women such as Firefly wish to have us treat adult women as defenseless children when it come to males willing to buy them drinks for example.

Oh, stop with that nonsense.

No way do I regard women as defenseless children, nor do I want them treated that way.

Nor should you regard adult men as defenseless children, too dumb to understand and abide by the rape/sexual assault laws, because most men, in fact, abide by those laws all the time.

When grown men rape, and abuse, and even urinate on, a completely incapacitated woman, as was the case with those Vanderbilt University football players, sorry, you can't blame their horrific behavior on her because she was drunk. Getting drunk is not illegal, but rape and sexual assault are.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Don't take BillRM too seriously, ff. He sometimes says the most absurdly stupid things not because he believes them but simply to get the last word. Egg him on and he won't stop posting.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

That is old news Firefly

How is the NYS Women's Equality Act bill old news? It was first proposed in 2013, it has twice failed to pass, and it was an issue in just the last past election.

Quote:

The bill failed because the feminist side was unwilling to compromise

What "feminist side"? Shouldn't all lawmakers be on the side of full equality for women?
The bill had bi-partisan support in the NYS legislature, and the main contention to it's passing came from Republicans, who opposed the single section pertaining to abortion. It was the Republicans who wouldn't budge.
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/news/local/2014/10/18/abortion-womens-equality-points/17513477/

Democrats are not going to compromise on the issue of abortion rights--particularly in a state bill to give women greater equality.The Democratic party, in its national platform supports abortion rights for women, the Republican party does not, and they are continually trying to whittle existing abortion rights down. They just tried to do that in Congress, in the past few weeks, but female Republican members of Congress indicated they wouldn't support the bill they were proposing, so they had to withdraw it. This isn't about "a feminist side" even on a national level, its about women's views on women's issues, and Republican women are not always going to side with their party's position on such issues when it conflicts with a woman's right to control her own body and health concerns.

Quote:

I think the idea that people accused of domestic violence shouldn't have the right to face their accuser is ridiculous. I would not have supported the bill because of that provision.

I can't even find that in the bill. Would you please find that provision, quote it verbatim, and post a link to it.

Here's the bill, to help you do that...
http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A08070&term=2013&Summary=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y

I continue to find the fact you don't support your opinions with exact quotes and links rather curious, particularly since you draw rather biased, and sometimes inaccurate, conclusions. Perhaps, if you made more of an effort to be more precise and accurate, your comments could be accorded more credibility.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Part G would amend the Family Court Act and the Judiciary Law to allow
for the development and establishment of a pilot program in family
courts for the remote petitioning and issuance by audio-visual means of
temporary orders of protection. It would also amend the Executive Law to
require that the Chief Administrator of the Courts submit regular
reports to the Governor and the Legislature on court practices, proce-
dures and services with respect to the adequacy and appropriateness of
its services for crime victims.

1 Reply

@firefly,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/nyregion/in-albany-all-or-nothing-strategy-on-womens-equality-act-ends-with-nothing.html?_r=0

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

Don't take BillRM too seriously, ff. He sometimes says the most absurdly stupid things not because he believes them but simply to get the last word. Egg him on and he won't stop posting.

I agree with you about not egging BillRM on, he'll go on and on like a broken record.

But the types of things he keeps saying about rape/sexual assault, and the laws and proposals to reduce these kinds of crimes, are pretty much verbatim the talking points of the conservative right-wing on these issues--he's just lock-step in with their thinking and trying to promote it.

They are trying to make women feel offended by allegedly being "infantilized" and treated like children by the laws--something most women wouldn't agree with--and they are trying to make men feel that current laws pertaining to sexual assault/rape put them in jeopardy and reflect a war on men, because women often falsely accuse, they aren't really being raped, they just regret bad sex, they get themselves drunk and so they're responsible for what happens to them, etc. etc. etc.

This is as much a political issue as it is anything else and BillRM, and several others here, are voicing the right-wing conservative position and emphasizing their specific talking points. It's good to know what those are, and where they are coming from.

I don't take BillRM at all seriously, but I think it's a lot harder to dismiss the noxious and polarizing influence of the conservative right-wing as a political force.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

This is the ENTIRE TEXT of the original Equal Rights Amendment from thirty years ago. Tell me how you or other men somehow think this discriminates against them

Quote:
•Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
•Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
•Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Just off hand thinking about it for 20 seconds or so, does the language as you posted it give the courts power to strike down laws that violate gender equality? What if Congress passes gender equality legislation that is actually blatantly discriminatory towards a gender? Can the courts strike it down as unequal?

But anyway, the important thing is for the men's rights movement to take notice and start thinking about whether they want to propose or fight for any changes in the text. Someone out there might come up with an idea or objection that I've not thought of.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Don't take BillRM too seriously, ff. He sometimes says the most absurdly stupid things not because he believes them but simply to get the last word. Egg him on and he won't stop posting.

Nonsense. Even when I disagree with him, BillRM doesn't say absurd or stupid things. And he most certainly believes in what he posts.

Why are so many on the Left so venomously intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest way?!?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I think the idea that people accused of domestic violence shouldn't have the right to face their accuser is ridiculous. I would not have supported the bill because of that provision.

But the passage from the bill that you cited doesn't say that.

Quote:

Part G would amend the Family Court Act and the Judiciary Law to allow
for the development and establishment of a pilot program in family
courts for the remote petitioning and issuance by audio-visual means of
temporary orders of protection. It would also amend the Executive Law to
require that the Chief Administrator of the Courts submit regular
reports to the Governor and the Legislature on court practices, proce-
dures and services with respect to the adequacy and appropriateness of
its services for crime victims

It proposes a pilot project to allow for audio-visual means of having contact/communication with the courtroom, for the remote petitioning and issuance of temporary orders of protection . What's wrong with that? We use modern technology all the time to make contacts and communications, why shouldn't it be used in Family Court courtrooms? The person requesting the temporary order of protection can be seen by everyone in the courtroom in a video transmission, and can be questioned by the judge, and by the attorney for the accused, even if they are not physically present in the courtroom.

What's your objection to a pilot project to see whether audio-visual contacts can be effectively used in Family Court?

There are times one spouse is terrified of the other, and sometimes is in hiding from them, so why should they have to endure the trauma of having to be physically present in a Family Court courtroom with such a person, and make themselves vulnerable to being followed by that person, so their location becomes known, when they leave the courtroom? And this is equally true for parents who seek temporary orders of protection from adult children, who are often mentally ill individuals who refuse treatment, because they fear their potentially violent children might pose a significant threat to their lives.

I repeat, what's your objection to a pilot project to see whether audio-visual contacts/communications can be effectively used in Family Court?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

BillRM wrote:
In fact the ERA would be a very bad thing for laws granting special protections to women and special obligations on men.

I disagree Bill.

The ERA would have benefits for men, particularly in the area of parenting/custody rights. There are men's rights advocates who strongly support the ERA, and with good reason.

I strongly support it

I think you might have misunderstood Bill's post.

It appears to me that you two are entirely in agreement on this issue.

0 Replies

@firefly,

It violates basic due process rights. The right to a fair hearing when you are accused is at the core of civil rights. Not everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty, and everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves in court when they are accused.

Someone who has been accused of armed robbery, or theft, or dealing drugs has the right to face their accuser in court. Would you take away this right for any crime? What if you were the one being accused of a crime? I fully support that you have the every right to a fair hearing which includes being able to face their accuser.

And it goes both ways. If I am ever the victim of a crime (let's say armed robbery), I would fully support the right of the accused to have his day in court and to have me there in person. This has been a basic precept of human rights for centuries.

This is a matter of basic fairness.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You're confusing Family Court, and applications for, and issuance of, temporary orders of protection, with criminal courts, criminal charges against someone,, and the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings.

Temporary orders of protection are simply an attempt by the court to keep one individual from having contact with the other, for the protection of that other person.

Why are you even talking about crimes, crimes like, "armed robbery, or theft, or dealing drugs" in the context of Family Court and the issuance of temporary orders of protection? Your thinking is extremely muddled and confused, either that or you just plain don't understand the topic.

The bill only pertained to establishment of a pilot project in Family Court regarding the use of audio-visual means for applying for and issuing temporary orders of protection--nothing you are saying is pertinent to that, and nothing you are saying gives a valid rational, or legal, objection to trying such a pilot project. Maybe that's why the NYS legislators didn't have problems with that portion of the bill--there was bi-partisan support for it. Most of them, and the governor, are lawyers, and considerably more familiar with the divisions between various courts, and their functions, than you obviously are.

Quote:

And it goes both ways. If I am ever the victim of a crime (let's say armed robbery), I would fully support the right of the accused to have his day in court and to have me there in person. This has been a basic precept of human rights for centuries.

In criminal cases, once charges are lodged, the accuser is the state--the victim, if available, is only one of the witnesses the state might call. Obviously, the victim cannot be present when the charge is murder or homicide, and convictions have been obtained even when no body was recovered.

But the NYS bill had nothing to do with criminal courts--it provided for a pilot project in Family Courts, and one that only pertained to temporary orders of protection.

2 Replies

@firefly,

You're absolutely right, firefly. If I, for some reason, wanted to take out a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) against my ex-wife, no judge would say, "Oh, first she has to face you in court to defend herself." Orders like that issued pretty much as routine. I'm sure it's the same in Family Court.

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

You're absolutely right, firefly. If I, for some reason, wanted to take out a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) against my ex-wife, no judge would say, "Oh, first she has to face you in court to defend herself." Orders like that issued pretty much as routine. I'm sure it's the same in Family Court.

Going off topic here: This is why it is completely unacceptable for such restraining orders to be used as justification for taking away someone's guns.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

And if you were in a hospital bed, due to injuries your wife inflicted on you, why shouldn't you be able to make a statement, and interact with a judge, via Skype, or other audio-visual means, to request a restraining order, in the event your wife was released on bail?

It's absurd to always require literal physical presence in court, even criminal court, when we now have other electronic means of establishing valid contacts and communications available. When a defendant in criminal court becomes so disruptive that they must be removed from the courtroom, they may have to view the proceedings by audio-visual transmission.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Judges routinely sign 60-90 day restraining orders based up nothing but a written statement from the alleged victim, one that often has been written with the assistance of a "victims advocate" paid for out of VAWA funds.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Although it's not related to the main topic of this thread, it's interesting to note that the family of Bobbi Kristina Brown, Whitney Houston's daughter, has gotten a restraining order to keep her alleged husband away from her hospital room. Obviously, she's in a medically induced coma and could not initiate or request such an order herself.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/bobbi-kristina-brown-husband-brawls-hospital-security-article-1.2102214

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Although it's not related to the main topic of this thread, it's interesting to note that the family of Bobbi Kristina Brown, Whitney Houston's daughter, has gotten a restraining order to keep her alleged husband away from her hospital room. Obviously, she's in a medically induced coma and could not initiate or request such an order herself.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/bobbi-kristina-brown-husband-brawls-hospital-security-article-1.2102214

do we really need to pollute another thread with the subject of this wasted life?

0 Replies

1 in 5 women get raped?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know