Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,878,203 times
Reputation: 886
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane
You were at a meeting with others in attendance so it wasn't eavesdropping. Some things just don't work at work. I don't think an adult male using "Woman" as female empowerment speech works anywhere, let the girls have that one.
I agree with Harrier and think this is a terrible thing to say (bold above) much less to believe.
This is exclusionary and creates division and distrust rather than promoting inclusion and communication.
When you create 'clicks', especially in a 'work' environment you discourage communication, cooperation and teamwork which is counter-productive. By creating your 'click' where you use culture, social and in this instance gender queues to close doors creating an elite membership it is subversive and works against an organizations best interest.
Even in our personal lives I believe this is a negative activity that is hurtful and exclusionary rather than supportive and inclusive. In many ways your attitude illustrates my point that we have confused weak, bullying and abusive women with assertive, strong and confident women. Perhaps I would add 'petty' to the list of negative traits.
And, some women are sensitive to these types of comments, even to others, because it has happened to them or they have heard other things, and just end up needing to speak up. Guys do realize they have to take it easy at work with the "innocent" comments EVEN TO FRIENDS because of sexual harrassment policies.
Some guy at work got in trouble for giving me an adult humor comic even though I thought it was funny, my next door cube neighbor heard about it and reported it. I defended the guy, said I wasn't offended but it didn't matter.
Nobody should be in a position of being held accountable for someone else's reactions to what they do. Either something is legal or it is not legal. Something otherwise legal doesn't become illegal just because someone else decided to be offended. That's not rule of law. Your next door cube neighbor had no right to complain. It was none of that person's business.
I support this legislation. As stated earlier it is called the Violence Against Women Act (and the overwhelming majority of times they are the victims), but helps all who suffer domestic violence.
No, they are not the victims the overwhelming majority of the times. That is factually incorrect and not supported by CDC research.
I do not accept what womens' advocacy groups say on that issue any more than I would accept what the KKK has to say on racism.
Quote:
Because domestic violence happens at the home, it is almost never prevented or apprehended in real time by a police officer on patrol due to its very nature until well after the fact (unlike a speeder, bank robber, business burglar, shoplifter, vandal/graffitti, etc).
True
Quote:
Therefore, this bill has been long overdue and can only assist in counteracting domestic violence. There are several communities that have more domestic violence crime than crime in the streets.
No, it can't "only assist". It can also harm. It can define domestic violence too broadly and label innocent people as abusers. It can be applied in a biased manner and leave some victims without support (as in your erroneous "women are overwhelmingly the victims" falsehood - which I am not saying is deliberate, but policies based on honest makes are still incorrect). It can go too far and become a witch-hunt instead of justice. It can protect alleged victims too much and violate the rights of alleged abusers. There are many ways that it can go wrong. But supporters of the Act will, as you can see with the comment about Republicans in the thread's original post, simply ignore any problems with the legislation itself and accuse anybody who opposes it of not caring about women.
VAWA has a wonderful motivation behind it. That doesn't necessarily translate into it being a wonderful piece of legislation as written.
No, they are not the victims the overwhelming majority of the times. That is factually incorrect and not supported by CDC research.
I do not accept what womens' advocacy groups say on that issue any more than I would accept what the KKK has to say on racism.
VAWA has a wonderful motivation behind it. That doesn't necessarily translate into it being a wonderful piece of legislation as written.
Even the CDC survey research shows that there are more female than male victims of domestic violence, especially serious domestic violence. And women are the overwhelming victims of homicide by intimate partners, by a 5 to 1 ratio.
You know, we probably could do with some kind of Child Welfare Act since the U.S. has a very high rate of child abuse and neglect. On average, every day in the U.S. about 5 children from neglect or abuse.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,878,203 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua
You're so right. Children are defenseless and battered and sexually abused constantly, and the problem needs to be addressed.
After being through the system and seeing my children used by the state (ie. the DA) to further an agenda that has nothing to do with concern for children, the cottage industries surrounding family courts that exploit children of divorce and their own mother using them as leverage I'm not sure I trust those statistics.
After being through the system and seeing my children used by the state (ie. the DA) to further an agenda that has nothing to do with concern for children, the cottage industries surrounding family courts that exploit children of divorce and their own mother using them as leverage I'm not sure I trust those statistics.
In 2008, about 1700 children died of abuse and neglect, most of them under age 4. It's hard to dispute that data, since it relies on medical examiner's reports.
In 2008, about 1700 children died of abuse and neglect, most of them under age 4. It's hard to dispute that data, since it relies on medical examiner's reports.
Your report says women kill their kids more than men kill their kids.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
