Incredible New NY Bill Will Make Staring at Women a Crime
August 27th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesA letter from Jeff, a reader, about an incredible new New York bill:
"Dear Glenn
"This year, a couple of women complained to New York City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr., about a man standing under the subway steps at their station and looking up their skirts.
"He has responded with city legislation, introduced yesterday, that would make all voyeurism in New York a misdemeanor.
"Staring at women is rude. But, if it were turned into a crime, we all know what would happen.
"You get all types of people on the subway here, everyone from rude men looking for cheap thrills to mentally ill, paranoid women. These problems are best handled by the individuals involved. Passing laws just to appease a couple of female constituents is just not a good idea.
"Peter Vallone is a relatively moderate voice on a city council dominated by wild-eyed extremists. I was surprised at this move. The New York Chapter of the ACLU recognizes this legislation as too broad and have recommended against its passage."
I would agree with Jeff that staring at women can be rude. Making it a crime is quite another matter. I would also add that some women do everything they possibly can so men will look at them. Or if that's not their intent, they sure make it seem that way. The New York Sun article on the new bill is below.
Law Would Be Curtains for Voyeurs
By Grace Rauth
New York Sun, August 23, 2007
New legislation before the City Council could make it illegal for New Yorkers to look at a naked neighbor.
Council Member Peter Vallone Jr., a Democrat of Queens, is proposing to outlaw voyeurism by extending a state law that forbids nonconsensual peeping with cameras. He'd apply the law to also include, in the city, peeping with the naked eye.
The law would target offenders who crane their necks to peer under the dresses of women scampering up and down subway stairs. But the legislation also would ensnare anyone caught glancing into the window of a private bedroom or bathroom, which, in a city full of densely packed apartment buildings, is a hazard or a pleasure of urban life, depending on how you look at it, or who your neighbors are.
"If you have an expectation of privacy and someone is looking at you, you would be violating this law," Mr. Vallone said. It would not, for example, protect someone who stands naked beside her living room window, he said.
The New York Civil Liberties Union said the legislation, which was officially introduced yesterday, was too broad and could lead to abuse. The bill's "lack of clarity confers a license for abuse on those empowered to enforce the law by leaving it up to the individual police officer to decide which kinds of viewing are lawful and which kinds are degrading and hence unlawful," the group's executive director, Donna Lieberman, said in a statement.
Under Mr. Vallone's bill, characters on the television show "Friends," which was set in New York City, probably would be serving hard time. The cast regularly watched a man who lived across the street, known as the "ugly naked guy." A nudist, he might not have pressed charges.
While the bill was designed to deal with repeat offenders who do their peeping in public, Mr. Vallone acknowledged that, "invariably, other situations are going to get caught up in this."
Violations would be considered misdemeanors, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine.
The bill states that it would be illegal for anyone to deliberately view another person in a private place when they are in a state of undress, having sex, or using the bathroom, without that person's knowledge or consent. In a public place, it would be illegal for a person to deliberately or repeatedly go to a position to view "another person's sexual or intimate parts" when "such parts are not otherwise visible to the public."
A spokesman for Mr. Vallone, Andrew Moesel, said the law would be easier to enforce than some might think. A victim of peeping would be able to call the police and give a description of the offender.
Read the full article here.
"));
19 queries. 0.438 seconds.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Finally we'll be getting those lesbians who constantly stare at women and under control.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
A beautiful woman wearing a miniskirt gets kicks out of manuevering around and watching a cute hunk's expression as he catches a glimpse of her lace panties.
But if an average joe who's not attractive to her catches the same glimpse, he's a perverted creep. This "you can only look at me if I think you're hot, otherwise you're a pervert" attitude has already been around for a while. Now under this law, you also have to add in "Criminal" at the end too.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I haven't read Orwell's "1984" in a while, but wasn' this sort of thing a crime in that book?
It's interesting that in Muslim culture, they control what the women wear to avoid this sort of thing. In our, we arrest the men. People really are the same all over -- control freaks -- it's just how they go about their control that differs. I guess it's the Christian influence in our culture that makes men "bad."
August 27th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
The next thing that will happen is that three year old boys who make handguns out of Legos will be placed into the juvenile justice system because of showing 'homicidal tendencies'.
As for the exposure from skirts on stairs, if you wear pants or skirts aren't really short and are relatively longer and with a tighter cut 'don't blow up'. Rather than the women, I'm confident it would be me that would be ostresized if you could see 'all' that my crotch contains due to unsuitable clothing. Let's face it, women want to derive 'power' by wearing more attractive and often downright sexy clothing, to 'show off' in a manner in which men like to show off their fitness and build. The same women who complain about men they don't like 'checking them out' feel the opposite from 'wanted observations' from men they might like (to mate with), women they want to impress with their 'feminine powers', and to say the least 'to peddle themselves by denied inference as they peddle their employers wares, services, or point of view.
In short, file it next to 'hate speech'.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
...anybody remember the fake public service announcement about sexual harassment on Saturday Nite LIve? The woman had no problem with Tom Brady walking around in his underwear, groping her, etc. But when the notsogoodlooking guy approached her, the cops were called in. The lesson: Be Attractive; Don't Be Unattractive
This whole article sounded like one of those "Onion" pieces but I guess it's not. Frightening how every aspect of our lives is being legislated and regulated in what is supposed to be "The Land of the Free."
August 27th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Anybody remember Alfred Hitchcock1954 classic called Rear Window???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_Window
Law if passed in the 50’s would’ve made James Stewart as photojournalist L.B. Jefferies character a criminal.
Law if passed in the late 90’s television remake would’ve made Christopher Reeve a criminal.
Law Would Be Curtains for Voyeurs:
“New legislation before the City Council could make it illegal for New Yorkers to look at a naked neighbor.”
Most males in New Yorker males would become “criminals!”
Let’s start building more prisons because there won’t be many males left in New York City.
Let’s train women in apprenticeship programs to build the new court buildings and prison facilities!
Or maybe a solution would be to castrate all male children at birth?
But then I guess the radical feminists would simply move on and consider eunuchs the “new” threat!
August 27th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
So much for going out to see and be seen, eh?
Another one of those "crimes" where there would be no proof needed, only an accusation. Build more jails!
August 27th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Men, learn your place. Two meters behind and eyes lowered.
In Australia we have rules that will punish men on work sites who look at a pasing woman for longer than seven seconds. I kid you not.
Meanwhile a female friend tells me that even a wolf whistle doesn't bother her. She'll start to worry when she doesn't get the occasional one.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Valones father was an asshole and so is he, This is all part of the City of NY to Criminalize male behavior to cash in on VAWA grant. NYC is VERY sophisticated to know how to set themselves up for money and like their family courts don't give a shit about constitutionality, human decency or the rulue of law. The MTA has been staring at me and filming me for years all the while trying to ban cameras on their subway. Just another racket.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:15 am
The social "judgement" of legislators in this country evokes in my mind the vision of an uncoordinated adolescent afflicted with a combined case of autism, epilepsy and severe mental retardation.
And we have to pay their salaries to compensate them for coming up with this drivel.
I think most men would be happier by taking a map of the world, and throwing a dart at it, and moving to the first place hit other than America (and apparently, Australia)
August 28th, 2007 at 6:45 am
A few years ago I heard about a feminist group in NYC that went out and assaulted men who they deemed were looking at them in inappropriate ways. As I recall, they were using paint guns and shooting these men in the face.
What I expected at the time was that they'd get arrested or sued sooner or later -- not a law about looking!
Sheesh!
August 28th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Well, as we all know, women NEVER EVER check out men. This would be fun in jail when both genders are there. They really can start doing some serious checking ouf of the others. Good thing that I never notice members of the female gender. Whew. At least I know I'll never be caught for such a heinous crime.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:11 am
"A few years ago I heard about a feminist group in NYC that went out and assaulted men who they deemed were looking at them in inappropriate ways. As I recall, they were using paint guns and shooting these men in the face."
I can't help but think about the so-called Bambi hoax (men paying big $$$ to hunt naked women with paintballs ). You sure this isn't hoax also?
BTW, for what it's worth, my opinion is that there is a vast difference between "staring" at an attractive woman (or man), and a perv specifically lurking under stairs to be able to look up someone's skirt when they are trying to use public transportation...
August 28th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Why don't they just outlaw women wearing skirts or dresses? If pants suits are good enough for Hillary......then...
Are you still entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy if you wear a skirt....? Shouldn't you accept some level of visibility based on the potential of the attire you select.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Land of the Free... RIP :(
August 28th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Dose this mean that if say....Borjk ( or whatever she calls herself ) comes to town dressed in a swan suit or if Madonna walks down the streets of Manhatten with a bra on that looks like chrome plated safety cones....and I look for too long...I'm a perv & now subject to some "anti-stareing" law ??
I guess I wouldn't have a problem with this if the same thing were to apply to women who I think are stareing too long at any male.....say a chippendale dancer ???
If crazy laws are going to be introduced, then I insist on equal misery under the law. Sounds only fair to me.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I came to North America as an immigrant and it is with extreme sadness I am witnessing the deterioration of law and order, justice and morals right here, in the new land. It is true great civilizations die from within before any outside force can even imagine attack ing it and this is what I believe is the real issue in all the examples you present. The injustices are acts of legal terrorism not just against men but against everyone. They are nevertheless, nonchalantly accepted by the majority of numbed people until it hits one of their own. In a society with a double standard, the standard is flexible and evasive. There is no golden rule by which good citizens can abide consequently, no faith in the future. In a society in which men are evirated, rendered passive; in a society in which children become pawns in a union which can only work with co operation; in a society in which few children are produced (apparently, we cannot afford them!) is a society that will not be able to recover once the stupor is lifted and consequences become visible.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I say bring 'em on. The more laws like this, the sooner the lunacy is exposed and the quicker it's all over...
August 28th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
THis is nuts! Cripes when men ruled and the women had no say 100 years ago, no crazy laws like this were put on the books , nor even thought of. Get a grip ladies! Consider it a compliment if a man looks at you and don't be such a pansy, take it for what it is and quit being offended over what men do. Face it ladies, you do the same thing in checking out the fellas, and don't you dare say otherwise.
August 28th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I would ask the same question as Annie. If this is a hoax, let's bury it. If it is not, give us an email address where we can complain.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Then I guess they'll have to apply, ONCE AGAIN, a third (or fourth) set of "universally applicable" laws...when a police chief, district attorney, high profile lawyer or judge gets "caught" doing the very same thing, or worse!!!!!
The solution:
- Don't open their car doors!
- For that matter, don't open ANY type of door for them (feminist freaks)!
- Don't help them carry anything!
- Don't pick up anything for them!
- Come to think of it...DONT DO ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING FOR THEM!
- Don't compliment them (they actually LIVE for this!) whatsoever!
- Don't look (the hardcore HYPOCRITS actually LIVE for this!) at all!
- When crossing them on the street (or anywhere else for that matter), act as if they DON'T even exist (no matter how hard it is to do)! I actually started doing this some time ago and now, out of the corner of my eye, often find them looking back at me, pissed off that I didn't!!!! It brings out their S.N.A.B.S. (Spoiled North American Bitch Syndrome)!
-Let's (men collectively) give the hardcore feminist freaks exactly what they "proclaim" to want...then watch them make an abrupt 180 hypocritical about face when their tiny peabrains realize all the time, effort, energy and money (jewelry, makeup, hairdo, clothes, etc.) they invested, in order to get just THAT, in the first place!
In return, there IS one thing you can give them! Find the tightest pair of leather pants available, then walk around the streets to find the snottiest one you can find, bend over in front of her to pick up a dead fly (or any other trivial thing) then turn around swiftly to find her blatantly gawking at your muscular derriere and thank her by giving the female chauvinist pig, a swift kick in the C__T!!!
August 28th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Jennifer:
While the sentiment is appreciated, I really wish you wouldn't post feminist revisionist history, i.e., the idea that women had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of our country. To say otherwise is a disservice to those that did.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Univ. Berkeley just announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Governmentium".
Governmentium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element which radiates just as much energy, since it has half as many peons, but twice as many morons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. It can be detected, however, as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A reaction that normally takes one minute or less will require a week or more if contaminated by any Governmentium.
The half-life of Governmentium is 4 years. It does not, however, decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutron exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. The characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration.
This hypothetical quantity is called "Critical Morass".
August 29th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Fine. Don't look at them. Look the other way. How would they know if you were looking at them anyway? They never look at men. They'd have to stare for at least as long as they were being stared at. Maybe it would be better to wear sunglasses all the time. Cross the street if you see one coming.
It doesn't matter to me if it becomes illegal to stare at women, as if there were any worth staring at. The one or two women who might be and who press charges will be so well known that no one will look at them.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Seems to me that if all men in America completely stopped looking at American women, we might induce them to stop spending so much money on their appearances, freeing up a tremendous amount of capital for possibly better uses. And think of the second order effects on liberating 3rd world sweatshop labor? With no American women to purchase those clothes, millions of workers toiling away in horrible conditions would be free.
And you know what else would happen if men stopped looking at women?
They would resort to shorter and shorter and shorter skirts, and more and more and more revealing tops, until we drove them to walking down the streets virtually nude.
Then one day, which we could agree in advance, we all just point one out and start laughing uncontrollably at her.
(It would need to be an agreed day, because we wouldn't want women to have time to organize a law against laughing at them, which would be quickly forthcoming.)
Sad that America has devolved to the point where the genders are positioned by our own government as enemies in a "cold war" like this.
But hey, government needs some sort of "purpose" to justify its existence, right?
Now they are regulating male eye movements. What will they think of next?
August 29th, 2007 at 9:19 am
The bill isn't so much about staring at people on the subway as it is about a man positioning himself to look up a woman's skirt. There's not really been a bill like this, because of several reasons... in the past, it was considered impolite to do such a thing. Ladies were taught by their mothers in most cases not to wear too short a skirt and keep their legs together. People in general weren't shrieky over stupid little things.
There was a court case years and years ago (and I'm a lazy bum for not looking it up) where a man sues a couple in court. This couple had been in their hot tub, nude, having a little fun. This hot tub was in their basement, on their private property. Their crime was not putting up curtains, I guess, because the plaintiff was suing on behalf of his two sons, who'd had their innocence stolen by watching the couple making love in the hot tub. Bearing in mind that these were little children (like eight and ten), it still would have been good to teach them that you just don't go looking into windows. Mostly because it's polite, but sometimes because it's really hard to unsee something you didn't want to see. Plaintiff's evidence: He went over there with a video camera and filmed what the couple was doing. Like father, like sons?
Anyway, ladies (and I am one), keep in mind you can't pick and choose who gets to see your ass when you wear a short skirt to try and impress the boss or the hunk in the mailroom. If you're that worried about it, wear something else. You can't always depend on someone else to be polite and not look when it's right in their face.
On the other hand, you could always buy a hyper-realistic silicone strap-on toy and wear it under your panties to give the next peeper something to think about. Sometimes it's more fun to out-perv the pervs.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:14 am
You can't legislate respect no matter how hard you try...Stupid laws like this have no real future...
Incidentally, "On the other hand, you could always buy a hyper-realistic silicone strap-on toy and wear it under your panties to give the next peeper something to think about. Sometimes it's more fun to out-perv the pervs." - HAHAHA...nice...I laughed out loud..
August 29th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
During the Giuliani regime as mayor the head of the city council was Peter Valone, the father of the guy who is sponsering this bill. The city council especially during the Rudy/Valone senior administration many many rediculous unconstitutional laws were passed by this body. The city of NY has it's hands in SCU (child support collection unit), millions in VAWA grants, the court system,the law department , NYPD and many other agencies which are coordinated from the top to make as much money as possible.. The 'domestic violence' policies involving the protection order registry and manditory arrest laws have been exploited against men creating non-custodial parents which in turn creates money all around for the city of NY. This new city council law is all part of the city of NY creating new crimes to which they profit. They certainly arent going to sue Manhattan Transit Authority (themselves) for creating riserless staircases in which a view up a skirt (or a mans kilt) is created and baited. The law is designed to expand probable cause for a crime which starts the money rolling in. The law is designed to appear as if the government had a plausable virtueous intention. I don't see Christine Quinn (the current head of the city council) allowing this crap to become city law, but I object to the wasted manhours (womanhours) wasted on this typical NYC moneygrab policestate politics debate as to legislating where anyones eyes look. Especially when the government and business community has secret cameras EVERYWHERE. This is the furtherence of Fascism. Will this make topless dancers government agents for change?
August 30th, 2007 at 9:51 am
The issue is not so clear cut. I live in the neighborhood.
The "criminal" in this case is NOT men positioning themselves as Sheba assumes, because the news says something bad that she thinks is true (she is about to look foolish for taking a knowing position automatically like a trained seal).
The men there are Bangladeshi and East Indians whose cars have limo service license plates. at each of the stations along 31st street (the street the elevated N and W lines run on), a few cars sit by the stairs and the men wait on the OTHER side of the cars, so they are actually more than 10 feet away from the stair cases... they are NOT next to the stair cases looking upwards... most look down the street.
The area is what NY calls a "working class neighborhood", which translated is high immigration area. Astoria boasts 800 different cultures in its place.
Now Peter Vallone is a second generation politician whose father used to be in the office that he sits in. he is very close to the taxi and limousine commission, and this being a "working class neighborhood" there are several large medallion cab companies.
For years they have tried to get rid of the black unmarked cabs that service the area and are not as heavily regulated as the medallion cabs. Each medallion costs about a quarter million to the state, and serves to keep the average person from being able to be a cab owner and make a good living. So large companies have the money and they get to get in on the bidding war to get any medallions that go up for sale. The more they have the larger their company can be. Supporting them is a huge cadre of politicos, and a large number of “certified” mechanics and other things.
Yellow cabs don’t cruise the area, and the black cars tend to fill in, in true free market capitalistic form. The men get to have a good car for their family, and they get to earn a living for them (at great risk), without being subjected to diminished remuneration for accents, color, etc. (many help support family back home)
a large number of these immigrants take that money and they send their kids to private school, aka catholic school. and the girls wear catholic girl outfits and have to go to school. In this case, this girl get a bug and thinks that men can see up her skirt. They cant. The angle of the stairs doesn’t allow that (ever notice that Sheba? That if one is wearing even a short skirt, the angle of the stairs is not steep enough to allow anyone to see, except MAYBE midgets and dwarfs. With the car between the men and the stair case with almost a whole other width of car as empty space, there is NO WAY that these men can see.
this weekend I plan on going to the stairs and taking photos and showing this. its not hard, and NONE of the reporters tried. EVERYONE either ignored it, or they accepted it as truth and then went off from their since it fit their IDEOLOGICALLY dictated thoughts.
Anyway… Peter Vallone has been battling to get rid of these cherry picking foreigners in Greek land. For years the cops have been sent to harass and chase them away from parking and waiting for customers. Meanwhile, the people in the neighborhood like the service. if your shoping and its raining and such, you can catch a cab at the bottom of the stairs and be brought to your door. Late at night, when a few street murders have happened in the area, such a cab is a nice way to get from the train and a night out to your house with a lot less risk. while there HAVE been incidents from such cab drivers, this is a astronomically small number given the number of pickups and such that happen.
They even constructed what looks like an offician taxi stand with a gate and a concrete island at the corner of 31st street and 36th avenue. No taxi sits in it, the island keeps them from driving around the gate, and the gate is always locked. They now use it as a dedicated spot for police and such depending onwhether they will search riders or not, or whether they are working on the machines. However it’s the only station that has it, and it was put in on the corner that they harassed the drivers the most.
So Peter Vallone who has taken over dads job, and dads relationships with these highly state controlled other business, sees this as a way to get in good with the companies that support him and donate money to keep him in office. Now I am not saying that is a bad thing, its how it works. The bad thing is that we don’t know this. and the other bad thing is that people like Sheba are useful idiots who help such!!! While they mean well (I believe) they would help us all out more if they just stopped helping. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Now peter is a nice politician, and he is very accessible to his constituency. However the aliens are afraid and they don’t approach him, so there is no real way to know to what degree he would have balanced the issue. but he saw instantly by the photograph of one of these cab drivers that he had a golden opportunity to sell it on X and accomplish Y without most being the wiser. And by the time the immgrants figure out what he did, it will be too late and they will fear being deported for a crime if they work. the public will then lose the service. the yello cabs will NOT serve the area.. they want to serve kennedy airport or manhatten and only pass through to get to the midtown tunnel or the 59th street bridge (more common since its not a toll and the tunnel is).
While I do know that there is a lot of freaky men AND women. a lot of perverts and such… and they are more visible because of the kind of vertical nature of the compression of people in a city. But ultimately this will backfire. Subways and offices, and so forth. it will get to the point that a woman will start to ware carnival outfits to see if they can get someone to look and they will end up in a desert of zero interpersonal contact with men. now that might be fine for the feminists and their lesbian sisters, but I don’t think the average woman will like it when she no longer has a way to get social feedback or even flirt.
While fighting against repression and oppression then are ending up creating the same old Victorian era concepts, except rather than we doing it voluntarily as a culture, the culture doesn’t exist and the state is defining it, and skimming cream in the form of money for lack of compliance when before we would be punished in a way that didn’t cost the people as a mass of operating capital that keeps things going.
Ultimately they are throwing sand in the crankcase and draining a bit of oil here and there. eventually the machine will seize up… but by then our population might be so low and such that they will then whine about being saved… but like father Martin Niemoller (“First they came”), there will be no one there for them to order around.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Thank you, Artful Dodger. (Artfldgr)
August 30th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Artfldgr: Hey, now, I'm not assuming anything. I live in Podunk, Indiana, where we're still fearful of the Iron Horse. Only time I've been on a subway (that isn't a Subway restaurant) is in London, where they cheerfully tell you to "Mind the gap." It was almost twenty years ago, and the only real invasion of personal space was when it was crowded and a nice gentleman in a business suit groped me. I smiled at him and he moved away. But that's neither here nor there.
As an idiot, it's good to know I'm at least useful. Now fuck off.
August 30th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Wow Sheba from Podunk BumFk...
Until that last line, i was going to apologize. However now i have to point out that your claiming not to assume anything even though the last subway you have been in was 20 years ago and you were introduced to the French custom of frotteurism. (you know, the same people that brought the world the other good ideas, feminism and socialism.
since your so rude, and cant even read what you yourself wrote... lets give you an english lesson...
"The bill isn't so much about staring at people on the subway as it is about a man positioning himself to look up a woman's skirt."
So all the way from podunk indiana, you were able to "know" what this bill is about?
how? through special feminist "knowing", "womans intuition", or perhaps you can channel a dead person from the neighborhood?
i am talking your first sentence here...
"An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, in other words, that is treated for the sake of a given discussion as if it were known to be true."
arent you asserting and taking for granted that you know what the bill is about? why yes you are.
Others know me on the web, and they have seen a huge number of idjits like you, end up with tire tracks on their back because they think that they can run over everyone and play skew meanings and other arguments.
well 'sista' you picked the wrong person to debate with.
a "useful idiot" is a polticial term from the socialist communists... it means someone who is being manipualted without knowing it. the usual response of useful idiots is to defend that what they are doing is NOT that, but something else. in essence, they protect with great effort their status as a useful idiot.
the fact that you can jump that far from the first sentence, and that you take an assertive written tone to push others to assume you know what your talking about, is all a game... you have no way of knowing anything about this. you took no time to research beyond the words you LIKED in the article.
[though i do like you telling a story to fill in space.. remember it was "neither here nor there", but important enough to slip in that some man was bad! very Ingenuous].
here is the problem as i see it... you want your word to be accepted on blind faith.. you dont want it being pointed out you are way wrong and such... and you sure dont like it when someone can tell you why your wrong (your following a crowd that is lying and playing with your head)... you have an ego that wants to be able to write and be respected, but you dont know how that mechanism works...
what you mostly dont realize is that if your going to stick your neck out and assert facts through assumption, then your going to have to accept the risk of having it chopped off when someone finds out that your making stuff up, and not researching anything. that you want your opinion to stand as fact.
i stick my neck out too... but i do research, i know my history VERY well, and so on.. my family and my wifes family have expereince with the regimes that have visited thsi stuff on us, and for others who know those regimes, they too can see it.
so lets analyse in detail your post and flag the things that your english teacher should have taught you.
the first assumption as stated above is in the first sentence. you ASSUME that you know what the bill is about.
the second assumption is in the second sentence where you state that "there has not been a bill like this": then go forward with your fantasy mind of how reality should be, and then dictate law through assuming that law follows the dictates of your common sense. are you a lawyer? do you read law? could it be that such laws were struck down because of FREEDOM and personal responsiblity in the past, not the concept of impolite or polite?
your assuming that the oppressiveness of the past was because people feared reprisals for not following them. which is not really true... oh, yeah, the radicals and the social outcasts had this problem, but thats because the marjority of the otehrs had COMMON SENSE, and would "do unto others as they would have done unto them", before your secular humanist socialists decided to abandon such oppressiveness.
but lets continue...
the court case you refer to was found in the couples favor.. NOT in the viewers favor.. as many such cases are... there was another case, but that was not beause they were in their house, it was because they were performing on the window sill... but even that was struck down.
in other words, before feminism, what you did in your home was private... but after feminism following the socialist cry of "the private is public", well you little biddies are getting your noses into everyones crack.
as to your point... the children you talk about, were improperly reared... they were raised.. you see, the parent abdicated their responsiblity for the children to respect privacy (why should the little group thinking socialists?).. and so they are not raised with the self control to walk away... or turn away...
you see in the time past, it wasnt that the men would be sanctioned, it was that they felt the private was private...
but in a culture where the private is now public, how can you preserve privacy? you cant, and thats a feminist gift.
the other thing was that anecdote had no bearing at all to the story, the point, or anything... (this could mean that your just a plain idiot, not just a useful one - and i wouldnt have said that if you didnt open your big mouth and prove it to the world by drawing even more attention to yourself and expecting that i would be polite to someone who is not a lady (for a lady would not say that, even if the situatino warranted it, which it didnt).
however i should point out that in both your little anecdotals you have managed to slip in two stories about "bad men" as if WE are idiots... we are not, we just ignore you feelign that your not worth addressing... that doesnt mean you get away with it. it means that most of the time we are too polite to call you out... thats ok though, i called you out, and you proved the points of many.
the one really good thing you did say was that the ladies were responsible for the length of the skirts they wear... which is true to some degree...
however, if you didnt assume you would have foud out that the particular girls we are refering to are catholic school girls in which their skirts are MANDATORY, till its freezing and they can wear slacks (on some days)
however, the girls all have been taught to hold their skirts asses as they go up stairs... even though you cant see anything..
and then your suggestion at the end.. wooo hooo.... shows your an ivy league thinker...
how do we get underage girls to wear dildoes? easy, let sheba advise them...
but first sheba will have to teach them about all this so that they too might think exacerbating the problem and showing their sexual knowlege to a pervert would be a fun thing to do.
do me a favor.. strap some steak to your butt and then swim in the ocean... when the sharks come tell them that they dont eat people.
lets quote the final words of this erudite person who insults the smart people of indiana by showing off.
"Sometimes it's more fun to out-perv the pervs"
genius... simply genius... your right, i should have seen your pulitzer and nobel prize wining ideas for what they are...
you and kinsey would have gotten along famously...
sometimes its better just to let people think your not smart rather than open your mouth and prove it to them.
find another tiger to poke a stick at...
August 30th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Aww, angel, I didn't mean to get you so worked up. Seems like I'm not the only one that makes assumptions here.
First off, you assumed that I knew that the chicas we were talking about were Catholic schoolgirls BEFORE you pointed that out to me. What am I, psychic? I just went by the article above. I'd never advocate sex toys for the young'uns, especially if you'd be threatened by such a proposition.
And as to the gentleman on the subway I was on oh so long ago... I called him nice, I called him a gentleman, I even smiled at him. I took into account that it was a bit of a bumpy ride and with so many bodies jostling, perhaps it was accidental gropage. And yet, I brought up something bad a man did... or was it bad? Maybe you're projecting your feelings onto my little anecdote.
You're also assuming I'm a feminist. Maybe I come across that way to you. Maybe you're blinded by rage at the ladies. I don't know, and I will not assume to know your experiences.
Artfldgr, I apologize for that last line. Not because I have "tire tracks" over my back, but because it seems to have affected you. I never meant to hurt anyone's feelings with that (even yours), but I figured that after bringing my name up several times in the previous comment and calling me an idiot (a useful one), I thought perhaps you were in the mood for a little good-natured crap-flinging. It seems I was wrong on that.
You assert that I want to follow a crowd that is lying and playing with my head... honestly, a little truth would be nice once in a while. I'm here because I'm not following the agenda that follows feminism, ie Women Good, Men Bad. I've known jerkoff men and asshat women both. Not all women are ball-busters, you see. I am married to a good man, and I tell him this every day, even though his ego doesn't need to be stroked.
You've put me onto a podium I didn't ask to be on in either comment, sir. In the first comment, I went by the article and, yes, saw what I wanted to see. And I used it to make a statement about what rude a-holes people can be, and followed it with a lighthearted comment. You see, I like things that are funny. I'm sorry you didn't think it was funny.
My second comment was in response to being called out by name, over and over again. If a person is going to do that and insult me ("But it was a poleeeeetical term!"), then they should expect the last sentence from me in response.
I never claimed to be an Ivy League thinker. In fact, I've claimed very little.
Please be careful on your weekend excursion to take pictures. Even if you're out to prove that nothing can be seen, someone may think you're doing your best to see something.
I'm going to pick up my daughters from Feminist School now. It's like Charm School, but just the opposite.
August 30th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Sheba, you’re a piss…
You didn’t get me worked up.. I type bout 100 wpm.. so it kind of flows fast.. others think I am worked up since they have to take a long while to do that. I have written 10 page documents and such in less than 20 minutes. Was on the Bronx High School of Science debating team too. : )
First off, you assumed that I knew that the chicas we were talking about were Catholic schoolgirls BEFORE you pointed that out to
me.
ah… your post was many posts before mine…
What am I, psychic? I just went by the article above.
That was my point… that you don’t look beyond the information that you see that “feels” right.
I'd never advocate sex toys for the young'uns, especially if you'd be threatened by such a proposition.
Your false caring is falsely sweet. But nice..
Actually it doesn’t threaten me.. I LIVE in NY… remember? I have seen things that would make your toes curl. However over time you might learn to like me… I don’t let the guys get leeway on crap either.
Your last post DID advocate that, and it came in RESPONSE to my post which informed you they were catholic girls.
HOWEVER. While I think you were trying to be campy, it was irresponsible. There are women who might actually go out there and play that game. and the responses can be very unpredictable. Anywhere from people sniggering, to someone raping her, to another beating her up. those arent normal people that would do that, however, who said everyone was normal? (oh yeah, feminists… we are all the same… right?)
So your dildo comment came AFTER you were informed.
Or has the causality in physics failed in this part of the universe?
And as to the gentleman on the subway I was on oh so long ago... I called him nice, I called him a gentleman, I even smiled at him.
Just as a “lady” doesn’t use the language like F*CK… a Gentleman doesn’t grope someone. You said GROPE… if you ment bumped embaressingly by accident, then say that. you are no hero to men if you smile at a jerk like that. in case you don’t know it, us guys actually don’t like such other men. that’s feminist propaganda… someone gropes you in a subway, you got my help in telling the jerk off and to keep his hands to himself.
The fact that you smiled at him does not gain points to me… and the fact that you emboldened him doesn’t do it either. Right now that man is walking around saying to himself… “somes like it, somes don’t… gotta try to find out…”.. way to go!
perhaps it was accidental gropage
Oh.. like accidental rape.. I don’t know what happened officer.. we were riding and I found my hand on her breast…
This doesn’t fit the definition of grope. “to touch or handle (someone) for sexual pleasure.” “an act or instance of sexually fondling another person.”
You cant accidently grope someone… not in the usage you used. Grope is active, bump is accidental… personal definitions for words mean until you publish your dictionary, you wont be really understood… though you might make a great politician.. I can see you wiggling in your whole post.
I didn’t project, you made a bad choice of words, and an even worse choice of anecdote.
You're also assuming I'm a feminist. Maybe I come across that way to you. Maybe you're blinded by rage at the ladies. I don't know,
and I will not assume to know your experiences.
don’t have rage… however, that’s why I said useful idiot, and not fellow traveler. The whole concept of persona versions can allow you inside to think that what your doing is separate and apart… however dialectical materialism and such, which is the game they play, means that what you think don’t matter, as long as you play your part.. even if unknowingly…
and you were playing the part… ephemeral knowing… distracting anecdotes with ambiguity. Retaliation when nothing bad was actually said… (being called a useful idiot is the same as being a dupe. A dupe is not responsible for being a dupe, they are being conned, played, tricked… however, if someone tells you, and you don’t take the time to find out and such… well that’s a whole other story).
a fellow traveler would be a person doing the same, but like the outcome… they understand more, and are working towards the goal knowingly. There are many useful idiots, there are fewer fellow travelers, as there are even less who guide them.
my willingness to engage dosnt have to come from rage.. that’s again a feminist response. To belittle or to pull out the negative emotions of man to shame him from commenting. I am not commenting in anger, I didn’t use the word F*ck… you did.. you are projecting what your doing on to me. it’s a favorite of the left and the feminits…
Artfldgr, I apologize for that last line. Not because I have "tire tracks" over my back, but because it seems to have affected you.
I never meant to hurt anyone's feelings with that (even yours), but I figured that after bringing my name up several times in the
previous comment and calling me an idiot (a useful one), I thought perhaps you were in the mood for a little good-natured
crap-flinging. It seems I was wrong on that.
being a shill would have been a insult, being tricked is not an insult. The problem was that you don’t know your history. You don’t know these terms. And even that’s not your fault, other than when they failed you (not grade wise, but let you down wise), you didn’t go out there and do something about it. which is a major all around complaint of the men to the women for listening to the super harpies.
you didn’t hurt me. your not that important. Nor would I let you be that important from one post. What I was responding to was what many others wouldn’t. and also what I was responding to is the group thinkism.
Your falling back, but taking the moral high ground is another tactic… you have internalized these things ance they have become your weapons. In this case, a pseudo apology that turns the thing around to my “sensitivity”, this after you claimed it was rage.
Arent we just an emotional bundle here? at no time did I get emotionally involved with this. however I bet few people call you out on this crap. and I will bet it sours relationships and you dontknow it. after all, you went from aggressive to condescending and trying to sooth me like I am a child. Why? because you think group harmony is more important than the truth… so when your aggressive you want them to back down, and when I am, you back down… in the higher morality for peace… but tahts not peace.. and people can DEBATE, without disliking someone… (which I do admire your pluck, and actually am trying to teach you. stay on subject, stop playing games, you will be more effective, and alienate fewer, and have more opportunity to say meaningful things without dressing them up with hanging off context frippery)
I thought perhaps you were in the mood for a little good-natured
crap-flinging. It seems I was wrong on that.
debate, I am always in the mood for… that’s mental fencing… hwoever, a crap-fling is not a debate… though if it was it would make politics a bit funner… welcome to the democratic crap-fling..
I will debate you… however you move off topic and you have widened the field of subject. If you were less adversarial and more introspective, you might have wanted to understand me before commenting to me that way… same as with the article. It’s a form of hubris to constantly think that you know what its about. I explained carefully why I knew what it was about. You were the one that decided to comment in terms and make assertions and throw in anecdotes that weren’t pertinent.
However, that doesn’t mean that a lot of others also were way off the mark… at lease yours had enough words to tell me you can talk… many of the others were not worth commenting on… you were unlucky enough to be a shining example… stay tuned though, you WILL see me take the guys to task for wrong things too. I play NO favorites. Ask those that know me.
You assert that I want to follow a crowd that is lying and playing with my head... honestly, a little truth would be nice once in a
while. I'm here because I'm not following the agenda that follows feminism, ie Women Good, Men Bad. I've known jerkoff men and
asshat women both. Not all women are ball-busters, you see. I am married to a good man, and I tell him this every day, even though
his ego doesn't need to be stroked.
no.. I asserted that you were oblivious to what you were following. That’s a useful idiot. The useful idiot doesn’t have enough information and such to be able to WANT what they are promoting. In fact, the reason they are doing that to the person is that if the person knew about it, they would NOT follow it. so if you were more aware of it, I am assuming that you wouldn’t follow it. like a bad habit these things are done without thinking (like your comments to some degree at first).
I don’t think you WANT to follow them… or else you wouldn’t be here… your not a troll as far as I can tell so far (though I can be wrong as anyone), and your responses to me, while disrespectful as a reflex, were not pure venom… more like a bad habit at the end of words… (like saying one sentence too many… or dotting the I’s twice)
The agenda is more complilcated than woman good man bad. in fact the boiling it down to that by many of the guys makes it something that wholley doesn’t suit the complexity of the situation.
I never said you followed that program… or what program you following. And if your trying not to be a useful idiot, then kudos to you. when I was young I was one too, but I had to educate myself when I didn’t have the money for college… and so my education wasn’t skewed to an agenda. It was just a very wide education that took EVERYTHING in.
All people are ball busters… except maybe the retarded… I have always found then very nice… short on temper sometimes, but that’s understandable given the frustration they have to deal with… not the least of which comes from others who just have to help.
I believe it was Voltaire (though I can be very wrong here, check it before you cite it), that “people are hell” and I believe that to be true.
I didn’t say you were a ball-buster… but I believe in swatting flies before they breed.
I have known a lot of wackaloons on both sides... just as you… but sometimes people have to be reminded that they are biting their nails unconsciously.
I am glad your married… and glad you have common sense to make the person you have hitched your life too feel like he isn’t dragging a millstone around (and I do hope he does the same for you).
Like I said, when you get to know me better… you will probably like me.
After all, on one level you already do… or else this extra set of posts wouldn’t have happened, and I like you… or I wouldn’t have said you’re a piss. : )
I actually like most everyone.. there is a militant feminist (actually famous) down the block from me… she knows I am anti-feminist… and we have GREAT conversations because I am one of the few that have read the same crap that she has, and can quote and argue with her toe to toe… AND I also have all the other western and eastern stuff too, which she doesn’t have. she is interesting…but since she hates men, and likes to date them to get them close enough to hurt them (She has said so, she is VERY sexy and has posed in playboy… go figure).
In fact… I respect you enough to say something about you… maybe bump you a bit (and myself too), and get you to think for a second.
However, that’s the second time in this post you used the… I have a who is , so I am not a ploy… (now I am sounding like Maxwell smart… the ole shoe fone in the pitcher trick).
You've put me onto a podium I didn't ask to be on in either comment, sir. In the first comment, I went by the article and, yes, saw
what I wanted to see. And I used it to make a statement about what rude a-holes people can be, and followed it with a lighthearted
comment. You see, I like things that are funny. I'm sorry you didn't think it was funny.
Ego alert! Ego alert! No, the reason we are arguing is that I didn’t put you on a pedestal and I treated you just like one of the guys. In general we arent really peaches and cream to each other (the guys), and so women think we are being something else when we are actually treating them fairly.
You were treated fair… if you don’t think so, then ask the forum.. (though I don’t think they will be fair (to you), which isn’t right )…
Well now we get the eye teeth out.. yes, saw what I wanted to see
Which is what I said… the big thing now to do is ask yourself.. “why did I want to see that and not see it without embellishment?”
When you do that… you will realize that you have internalized their crapola. As a woman your steeped in it, swimming in it… the very fact that you are questioning it is great… even if you go to it, at least you went knowing… and I can respect that, mre than the other things.
I like things that are funny too… but cursing and being negative… off topic, and such.. isn’t funny… to us guys it’s the bs frippery that annoys women when they notice it too. all too often women do that, and everyone ACTS like its funny and so forth and its done for social harmony… meanwhile that poor person walks off thinking what they did was funny when it isn’t.. this is why such groupism is bad… or one of many reasons.. it undermines everything.
We ALL know what rude a-holes people can be… men don’t usually think its funny. Contrary to your life experience, us good guys deal with a-holes a lot more than you do. I know you MAY find that unbeleiveable, but its true. Many an a-hole stops being a jerk so he can falsely paint themselves to a woman. most men don’t care about other men to be willing to hide it. and a whole lot of male to male a-holeness (not a-holiness), can be violent and life threatening. Even if its just stupid. And often us good guys are involved in womens a-hole interactions. Men here can list dozens of articles where ex boyfriends killed the new boyfriend. Ex girl friends kill him… family is told by her that he did something (when he didn’t) and there is a a-hole party.
My nose has been broken by a-holes… and I had a hole in my side by an a-hole with a knife. And that was grade school
My second comment was in response to being called out by name, over and over again. If a person is going to do that and insult me
("But it was a poleeeeetical term!"), then they should expect the last sentence from me in response.
And here is another fem thing.. your making some play nice bid here… that we can only use someones name once or else.. and the other one here is that, truth is an insult.
If I call a black man black, is that an insult? If I call you a woman, is that an insult. If I call you what you are and you don’t know it or agree, is that an insult?
The answer to the last one is that the victim doesn’t declare what they want to be an insult because they were offended by the truth.
That paragraph is dripping with victim, justification (end justifies the means), vindictiveness, arbitrary social rules everyone doesn’t agree to (but we are supposed to know and follow the personal versions), and so forth.
and I will retort that if you respond by escalating something with the expectation that your going to bowl over most weaklings… don’t be surprised when someone comes out of the blue and slams your ass down.
ask the guys.. they can tell you that that’s how it is… you made blind assertions and assumptions… I called you out.. you took the truth for an insult and decided to teach me by escalating, being used to the fact that men tend not to get into altercations with women (the same tactic that abusers use by the way when a female one attacks a male and relies on no response).
Your whole post is a mish mosh of manipulation covering a large swatch of different ones rolled into one post. The victim card was played.. the I was only joking card was played… the I am not a misogynist because I have men card was played.. the threaten them after telling them my behavior is their fault card was played… shall I list the others?
And the ONLY reason you have done this is to recover your ego… get all tarred up with a tar baby… and obfuscate things because you shot at someone that don’t take too kindly to being shot, and has the tools to shoot back fairly and not cheat falling back to bad tactics.
you might have some fun going here: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html it’s a list of false arguments… many are forbidden in court because they are false, but in personal discourse outside a refereed system a majority of people fall back on them… but when they meet someone like me that doesn’t use those things… they get real frustrated. If you learn these, not only will you be better at getting what you mean across, you will find that its much like ju jitsu or aikido, rather than inexperienced street fighting. a quick once over and you can easily find a few that you tried. Including trying to label my response as rage.
I never claimed to be an Ivy League thinker. In fact, I've claimed very little.
Sorry… that was sarcasm… it was that you were talking as if you had more knowledge than you did. it’s a common sarcasm… it means the opposite of what I said, to which you are agreeing.
Please be careful on your weekend excursion to take pictures. Even if you're out to prove that nothing can be seen, someone may
think you're doing your best to see something.
thank you for your concern… and I do think it was heartfelt…
I am also a signed celeb photographer with press passes and things.. most people don’t believe what I do till they know me.. it sounds too far out.. But I get around… no one will bother me… even the police wont really bother me. they have tried, but they usually just walk away when they know I know the law.
There is no reasonable concept of privacy in public. If I really wanted to take pics of womens butts in plain view I can. The point in the laws is if I take special actions to do so. like hide, have mirrors on my shoes, micro cameras, etc. I walk around with a 300 mm lens.
Though I will be careful… there is a lot of power in the press, and one thing that people don’t want to do is end up as part of a story. its not a threat, its just that they don’t want to be portrayed truthfully, while fearing that its not true. (I don’t lie as to what I do, it makes my life nicer)
I'm going to pick up my daughters from Feminist School now. It's like Charm School, but just the opposite.
Now THAT was funny…
Drive safe… watch out for the wingnuts and the fruitbats.
And remember, the eden that’s America is fine… the view is beautiful, but the cultural water is now poison… so in the words of little rascals… don’t drink the milk, its spoilt.
Take care.. be well… be happy…
August 30th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Artfldgr: No worries on my end, if there's none on yours, and I thank you for your patience. There are a million excuses for why I posted like I had sand in my girl-bits, but none of them are valid, since you had nothing to do with them. I apologize sincerely for being troll-ish today.
And you were right on the mark about me being sincere in my well-wishing. At least my sincerity does show through in spots. I salute you for -- No, that's it. I salute you. You were patient, but didn't pull your punches, and I've got a lot to read up on.
Cheers!
August 30th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Sheba,
thanks for trying to get it... and there are no worries on my end... why should there be? you can see how groupism makes us all worried we might not be part of the group... whats worse is everyone becomes bitter wishy washy people full of resentment because they are so twisted up inside in having no way to actually connect, or deal with something.
ultimately.. the most interesting people are those who pick a side... of course the whole world cant be that side, and failure to take your stand where you believe... puts you in a bad place. there was a time when heated argument was considered a past time, and people would do that and then go do other things as if the arguments never happened. i will say that, that is more a guy thing.
you want fair equality... i am for it.. but the only way to have it, is not to try to make it happen by force... and not to go looking for things that express lack of it, when that thing could be balanced everywhere else. given the choice between being able to be drafted and shot while they say your honorable, or having multipe orgasms... i know what women would pick... i know what men would pick... is it fair? nope.. but life isnt fair like an accountants ledger..
but it is fair for what life is, and what it used to be. in fact its the most fair its ever been in the known history of the universe...
August 30th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
'One of these days a real rain is gunna come and wash all the scum down the fuckin' sewer"--Travis Bickle from 'Taxi Driver".
August 31st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
It is a real scare that they are going to pass a law that would make some one's opinion a crime! One woman "thinks" that a man is looking at her the wrong way and bam! He's in jail. How sad. Women like that need to be smacked in the back of the head. If you are standing some where were it is possible to stand up underneath where you are,off to the side, where ever, then maybe you shouldn't stand there! Duh, use common sense people! As for staring at someone, that's their right! Before long our men will be wearing little suits with head gear so no one see's them, and riding in the back of the set because they aren't capable of doing what a female is. The same thing that we are trying to right in other countries. Let's not forget that it takes two people to make a baby, and the court knows this. But once the baby is born the father is not capable of taken of a child? A man is the exact same as a woman, except for some physical differences! The have a heart that brakes the same, they have a brain that tells them that their child comes first, and they have a soul that cracks and dies just the same as a woman's when their child is hurt or worse. They cry, love, hate, the same as a woman. I'm just sick of woman crying wolf when they are wolf and the man is the child, but no one sees it.
September 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 am
"WE ARE THE PEOPLE"--campaign slogan on a button in the movie 'Taxi Driver'
September 2nd, 2007 at 9:15 am
Rik...
given the comment and such... its probably more like 'One of these days a real reign is gunna come and wash all...."
September 2nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
ARTFUDGR--I agree. That was the spoken poetry of Travis Bickles voiceover. A hero in the system after saving a child from prostitution with his reign of bullets. We ARE the people. WE are the people.
September 8th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I walked past a construction site today at the same time some young sexy chicklet. All but one of the men oggled the chicklet but one wonderful soul watched ME.
If I weren't already in love, I think I'd be in love.... THANK YOU, whoever you are.
September 8th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Don't be fooled - we love the attention. Some of us may feel we don't deserve it, but we still appreciate it.
Rosemarie
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:05 am
[...] Recently I told you about a new New York bill which would make staring at women a crime. I [...]
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
The irony here is if a man were to wear clothing that revealed his "parts" he would be jailed for it. But if a woman wears clothing with the same purpose she's a protected class.
At what point do women (as a group)stop relying on the patriarchal notion that women need to be protected because they are inferior to men and start actually being equal?
It's a fucked up world and the best any man can do is tell them all to go fuck themselves and live on our own. If enough men do it they may start paying attention. After all nothing gets a woman's attention more than her own self-interest.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:24 pm
does stoopid migrate to big cities on the coasts, or does new york have some kind of prize for mostest dumbest lawmaker? is he running for prez too? it's like amarika has sprung a hole in the fabric of CRAZY.