does the term P.C. mean anything? when millions upon millions of dollars are poured into battered women's projects? when specific arrest and conviction statistics are cited? I believe what is being pointed out is that violence against either gender is out of control. The issue is not male vs female/female against male, it is person against person.
Good point, dys - I don't want to contribute to any antagonistic atmosphere about men vs women. I just put in my two cents worth about the woman/man abusing thing because I think its not that often acknowledged.
dys- Is it that domestic violence is not escalating, but that it is a taboo whose lid has been removed? I have heard many stories about how in the past police would not become involved in a domestic disturbance. They called it a "family matter", and just didn't get involved.
well Phoenix i think thats a given and perhaps still true for female on male violence but there's just no way of knowing. That also applies to reported child abuse where what was once considered a parental right is now prosecuted as a crime.
dys- I think that the only way that female on male violence can be dealt with is by victims of such abuse talking about it with other people. I know that my son has spoken with other guys who have gone through the same thing. (He eventually got custody of his daughter who was then 13.)
Like child abuse and man/woman violence, attitudes towards female/male violence will only change if people are not afraid to talk about it, loudly!
i know this sounds sexist but i am currently listening to a PBS panel discussion and one of the ladies on the panel just said "i'm out of estrogen and i have a gun" on the one hand this can be read as humour but it can also be read as being dismissive of female on male violence as a serious event.
dys- Now I don't want to sound sexist, but women's problems were dismissed for years. Although I think that the woman who said that was a boor, but you need to understand where she is coming from. Women are finally feeling their power, and some of them, unfortunately, are going overboard. I would just ignore the jerk!
snood,
must you use that avatar? It's very... distracting.
Yeah, I know baby - I have that effect on broads......
(it's a joke! I'm a kidder!)
It might be this group I saw last night on O'Reilly. The "Log Cabin Republicans"--I think they are gay, or gay advocates. They were pee'd.
I don't blame them. I didn't know we had an organized gay Republican contingent. Kewl.
from the log cabin republicans; "The liberties guaranteed to all Americans by the United States Constitution mean that no state should have the power to enter the home of consenting adults in the middle of the night and arrest them for simply being gay or lesbian. The Court was wrong in 1986 and it now has the opportunity to fix that error," said LCR executive director Patrick Guerrierro.
"It hurts me to say this, Mr President, but your spokesman's statement today on your behalf has just made matters far worse. Senator Santorum believes that gay people should be subject to criminal prosecution for their private, adult consensual relationships. He has equated homosexuality with the abuse of minors. He has associated homosexual relationships with bestiality. If that is an example of "inclusiveness," then what would exclusiveness be? For the president to call the criminalization of an entire group of people the position of an "inclusive man" leaves me simply speechless."
--Andrew Sullivan, a gay man in love with a gay-hating party
"i'm a uniter, not a divider"
This sharpens an already pretty clear picture of Bush as a narrow minded cretin, but the fact is that an erosion of support from the gay republicans (or the black Republicans, or Jewish republicans, etc.) is hardly going to make the idiot son lose any sleep, or for that matter, any momentum.
snood wrote:This sharpens an already pretty clear picture of Bush as a narrow minded cretin, but the fact is that an erosion of support from the gay republicans (or the black Republicans, or Jewish republicans, etc.) is hardly going to make the idiot son lose any sleep, or for that matter, any momentum.
There is a part of me that wants to agree with this. There is another part of me yelling: I'm not interested in him losing sleep -- I'm interested in him losing votes.
Andrew Sullivan is the real curiosity in all this. I don't expect much from the likes of Bush and Santorum, but why the heck does Sullivan align himself with THAT crew?
Fourth Musketeer said:
Quote:Andrew Sullivan is the real curiosity in all this. I don't expect much from the likes of Bush and Santorum, but why the heck does Sullivan align himself with THAT crew?
Old buddy, if ya' gotta' ask, you'll never know.
Too true, maxs, I will never know. I was being rhetorical...
Snood - the cumulative force of group vote loss is what could make a difference. Me, I'd be just as happy if george never slept again.
And, there have been questions raised about why Estrada - the embattled republic nominee to a court - has not engaged more of a hispanic cheering section. (Around her they don't see anything to cheer about.) Apparently the repubs thought that naming a hispanic was enough to get that bloc of votes. It was pointed out today that there is another nominee whom the republicans are not pushing - who is acceptable to the dems - because they want to make a race issue with Estrada.
Last time around, the repub Party courted the Log Cabin. This time, despite the protestations of loyalty, I bet a lot of their members are thinking twice. And Santorum did equate his position with a question of morals.
