The Mary Winkler Case: 'What a man's life is now worth in America if you are killed by your wife'
June 19th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Many of you have written to me about the outrageous "justice" in the Mary Winkler case. (Winkler is pictured with her husband Matthew, who she killed, and their children in the photo above). Southern Dad, a reader and frequent poster on my blog, followed the Winkler case closely and describes the case below:
"Mary Winkler admitted shooting her husband in the back with a 12-gauge shotgun while he lay in bed early one morning back in March, 2006. What makes this story even more tragic is that he didn't die immediately. According to the coroner he lived for upwards of 20 more minutes, slowly bleeding to death. At no time, as he lay there bleeding and gasping for air, did she offer any help or call 911 for assistance. Instead, she fled the state with the couple's three children, who by the way, were home at the time of the shooting.
"At first, she claimed it was an accident and she panicked. Then her defense was that he was abusive and she 'snapped.' Never mind that there wasn't a single piece of evidence or corroboration to her claims of being abused, the jury bought her story and found her guilty of only voluntary manslaughter, which carries a 3-6 year sentence in the state in which the crime occurred.
"You can bet your last dollar that had the genders been reversed the husband would have gotten life without parole or worse. She will serve only a WEEK in prison and 60 days in mental health facility. After that, the remainder of her 3 year sentence will be on probation.
"That, my friends, is what a man's life is now worth in America if you are killed by your wife."
"));
19 queries. 0.721 seconds.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:37 am
I look in the faces of those beautiful children and my heart sinks. They will never know the warmth and love of their father ever again. No more will they be daddy's little girls. He will not be there to give them away at their weddings. She murdered her children's future. The saddest part is that I am sure she will get "support", "rehabilitation", "sympathy", and she will get custody in a few years. I wonder if anyone has interviewed the jurors to understand how this happened? The injustice of it cries out.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:41 am
What really amazes me about this case and others involving homicidal women is that there is "ALWAYS" an excuse. We see it every time a national story breaks about a women killing her husband/kids (which has become MUCH more common then men doing the same these days) there is always a public outcry about "how could this have happened..oh my god SHE cant be guilty" but when a man does a similar crime hes damn near convicted immediately if not in a court of law, in the court of public opinion. In Mary Winklers case all I saw was a loving husband trying to his best to support his family and hes brutally MURDERED by a woman who he trusted and loved. I grant you that no marriage is perfect and husbands and wives will always fight over something but really,lets be honest if she capable of murder then she is not capable of raising those children. If she got to the point where she was willing to stand over her husband as he slept and blow a hole in him with a .12 Gauge shotgun then whos to say down the road that she would not do the same to the offspring of that man. These children need to be given into the care of his family and she needs to be kept as far away from them as possible.
If ANY judge gives this woman custody of those 3 children he/she should be jailed for criminal negligence. All they would be doing is putting them at an unacceptable risk.
Because with kids there is no such thing as an acceptable risk.
Just my 2 cents.
Fedupdad
June 19th, 2007 at 4:16 am
Obviously she is mentally disturbed.
I mean, who in their right mind would execute their own man-slave when she could simply have invoked the powers of state and federal government and one of an endless number of amoral lawyers to put this man in chains and make him serve her from a "safe distance" for the rest of his days?
Yes, she acted completely irrationally.
That is a sure sign she was not mentally competent at the time. Likely just a brief lapse. Otherwise known as "temporary insanity".
June 19th, 2007 at 4:44 am
I think the value of a male-life in current first-world societies has dropped to effectively the value of road kill. It does not matter the topic, whether it is murder, assault, rape or fairness in the courts, the value of a male life is now so small that it effectively does not exist.
This is dangerous not only to innocent men, but to women too. Eventually, men will have to stand up against contempt. Are those men going to be willing to look with kindness at women who refused to stand up for them? Probably not ... probably not.
Oh I hope men will behave better, will behave with honor and decency. But, we should know that people in pain and rage do not have a good track record of thinking of others.
June 19th, 2007 at 8:24 am
It's television, lawyers and a corrupt system that allows this to happen. Watch tv and men are marginalized at every turn. In one sitting I saw commercials for the following:
1. The starter wife - Short, Ugly, balding, fat man married to stunning woman leaves her for a younger woman. She gets revenge by living the high life and meeting up with a younger attractive built man. Without stating WHY he left her, we are left with the opinion that she was "wronged" somehow
2. Confessions of a matchmaker - Woman "matchmaker' mocking man after man's dating ability and giving advice on dating. Funny, I didn't see her mocking any women in the ads, just 3 or 4 different men. I guess only men need coaching on what not to do
3. A new show called State of Mind on Lifetime. In the commercial, her husband must have done soemthing to her, so she backs the car up and hits him with it. And then leaves him there.
June 19th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Interesting. It appears that the jury bought the abuse stories she told. I haven't heard them firsthand, so it's hard to tell whether they might be true or not. However, there are so many other avenues to pursue if one truly is in an abusive relationship. Murder is most assuredly not the answer. I wasn't aware that murder was legally justified because one has been the victim of abuse. Did they change the laws and not let everyone else know? It seems unbelievable to me that she will get 60 days in a mental health facility and then she's free to go. The whole family (and many of those that were close to the family), including her children, is irreparably damaged because of her actions. I hope against hope that she does not retain custody of her daughters after this horrific act. I find it hard to believe that if the roles were reversed, the jury would have been so compassionate.
June 19th, 2007 at 9:35 am
No excuse for domestic violence?
What about the children?
No fault divorce.
Woman's shelters.
DV hot lines.
Auotmatic arrest, and prosicution laws.
Restraining orders.
How can this or any woman claim to be a victim of DV today and get away with it?
Cases like this show that the VAWA is a waste of time and money.
June 19th, 2007 at 9:39 am
"She will serve only a WEEK in prison and 60 days in mental health facility. After that, the remainder of her 3 year sentence will be on probation."
The jury did not decide the sentence, the judge did.
June 19th, 2007 at 10:41 am
There was no abuse. The children testified against her. I can only hope that she never regains custody of the children as they will never see their grandparents again if she does. She is human garbage.
June 19th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Ben, the courts are inhuman cesspools ruled over by judges who think they own and make the law, and like to play God, but are rarely sufficiently qualified to be even their own clerks.
June 19th, 2007 at 11:12 am
It's interesting that the jury makeup was 10 women 2 men. How did the prosecution let that happen ?
June 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I haven't looked into the details, but a brief googling for the Mary Winkler story brings up this article, detailing the abuse allegations:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/Story?id=2667042&page=1
June 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Mike
"Because with kids there is no such thing as an acceptable risk."
I understand where you are coming from in this case, but this sentiment is precisely what shafts dads in the court. All the mother has to do is introduce the possibility that dad may be abusive, whether substantiated in any way or not, and he loses access. I suspect though, that it's not so much to protect the children as to prevent the possibility of the case coming back to bite the judge on the nose later.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Family Court judges are not prescient. They have no clue what is in the best interest of children.
Family Court judges are trolling for children to steal.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
# Foo Says:
I haven't looked into the details, but a brief googling for the Mary Winkler story brings up this article, detailing the abuse allegations:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/Story?id=2667042&page=1
Notice that the reporters didn't speak to anyone from the dead man's family, or for that matter to anyone from his church/workplace.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
40+ years of male hatred seeping into every cell of this culture 24/7 has now dehumanised men. It is what the Nazi did to Jews in Germany and it is what radical Muslims do to infidels (pig-descendent Christians and Jews) by their media, madrassas, etc. Many do not attach humanity to men. It is why many did not think of the consequences of their protests and demands when hysteria took over against the Duke Three. Sending a male to jail for 30 years seems negligible. Once one's humanity is eliminated the next steps are easy and that is when attrocities occur. But they do not look like attrocities to the accusers. They look like justice. This is what passes for justice in America regarding males.
Males regretably have to take their self preservation and protection into their own hands. Justice is not blind for males. Often it will be the criminal state that will seek to impose the attrocities.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I think what's odd is that this has ALWAYS been men's position. To sacrifice themselves for women. If a woman does something wrong, a man somewhere wasn't doing his job right. This stuff is rooted in human psychology, we are more inclined to trust/care about women. The thing is, while sexist attitudes against women have been uprooted in the last 200 years, sexist attitudes against men have been allowed to run riot. Of course, because nobody cares about men this is acceptable.
June 19th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
What's really scary about this case is how a woman can get away with cold-blooded murder with nothing more than a slap on the wrist just by saying "He abused me.' Whether or not there is any evidence of abuse is irrelevant. If you follow the Winkler case closely you'll find that Mary Winkler was involved in a check kiting scam that involved two or three banks. She had set up several bank accounts in her name only and was floating checks between the various banks. All the checks bore her signature. There was never any evidence her husband was aware of her financial hanky-panky. The day before his murder one of the banks called her and told her the jig was up and that she and her husband must come down to the bank the next day to straighten out the mess she was in. She was in the hole for several thousand dollars. But the next morning, instead of going to the bank, she shot her sleeping husband in the back and fled the state. Where I come from that's called motive. But she played the abuse card and was convincing enough that a jury found her guilty of a lesser offense.
Now reverse the genders. Imagine the husband is involved in a bank scam. He has several accounts in his name only. He's writing checks between the various banks knowing the checks are no good. Bank officials catch on to what he's doing and call him to come in and make good on his account, which is several thousand in the hole. By the way, the bank officials say, bring your wife with you. The next morning, instead of confessing to his wife what he'd been doing, he shoots her in the back as she lay asleep in the bed. He leaves her there to die a slow, painful death. He doesn't get her help even though a hospital is two minutes away ( a true fact in this case). He packs up the kids in the family minivan and, as his wife is bleeding to death on the bedroom floor, he heads out of town for a family vacation at the beach. What do you think he would face as punishment from a judge and jury? Exactly!
June 19th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Michael
"Family Court judges are not prescient. They have no clue what is in the best interest of children. Family Court judges are trolling for children to steal."
This is rather OTT. Judges just want to cover their arses. It's a natural human reaction, but not one people in power should be allowed to get away with,
June 19th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
On October 8, 1984, a made-for-TV movie, written by Faith McNulty and Rose Leiman Goldemberg, staring Farrah Fawcett and Paul Le Mat (American Graffiti) was aired to high audience ratings and outstanding sponsor support and revenue. It went on to garner 13 award nominations with three wins.
The central message was that if you got a problem with dad, dump a can of gas on him while he is sleeping and light it. The police, judges, and prosecutors will explain it all away and you will receive sympathy by the boatload from around the globe. You’re a damn hero.
If you think killing dad in bed while he is sleeping and getting off scott-free is news, you’ve been asleep yourself for 23 years.
DanH
June 19th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
"This is rather OTT. Judges just want to cover their arses. It's a natural human reaction, but not one people in power should be allowed to get away with"
So, what do we do about it?
In a world where the people in power are concerned with their own interests, where does the cogent essay fit in?
The ease with which family judges decide against shared parenting must end.
The following sound bite is inspired by the innuendo behind the "Father Knows Jack" article and the discussion about distilling the statistics on domestic violence into a sentence:
Family Court judges are trolling for children to steal.
Over the top? Yes, I'm guilty.
The ease with which family judges decide against shared parenting must end.
June 19th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
She was clearly not mentally well. Luck for her she lives in a "forgiving" town that doesn't seem to care about learning why it happened. I see no mention of an investigation, and no mention of what the preacher's side of the story might have been. This is more than frightening, considering that an increasing number of women are taking it upon themselves to "Cry Wolf" in recent years.. I hope it's not the case with this woman, but the lack of interest in finding out disheartens me.
Many men I've spoken with are upset that it's perfectly alright for a man to be abused by others, especially women. Apparently that builds character, and those who cannot stand it and lash out are branded as monsters. I'm glad we live in a society where women can fight for their freedom, yet the fact that so many of them don't stop to consider their actions when they brand men as "monsters" is truly disappointing. It seems that double standards never cease to exist, the balance just shifts from one end of the opinion to the other.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:41 am
[...] previously discussed Mary Winkler's murder of her husband Matthew--see 'What a man's life is now worth in America if you are killed by your wife'. One of my readers sent me an interesting letter about the testimony of Mathew's loyal daughter [...]
June 20th, 2007 at 12:47 am
[...] [link][more] [...]
June 20th, 2007 at 3:05 am
Men, wake up. Read:
1. http://www.nomarriage.com/
2. http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/
3. http://eternalbachelor.blogspot.com/
If you need p*ssy, go to either a legal brothel in NV or Amsterdam. If you need a friend, get a dog. If you need someone to watch your back, get a mirror and rifle. Want kids? Why? Are there not enough in the world already? Never, ever marry. It's totally not necessary.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:42 am
You disgust me.
Your responses to this post are the vilest primer of hypocrisy and cowardice. Without having a slightest idea of what actually transpired and why, you have opted to see this as a problem of the public opinion that is biased against men; yet, you call for the exact same attitude against women. Worse yet, you do it covertly. If that is not cowardice then I can not fathom what is. Every single comment in here is a part of huge circle jerk on how "a woman" can "get away with", how judges are "inhumane scum" that are "playing God", and how this specific court incident - about which you still know very little about - is a part of some sort of grand conspiracy that equates to what nazis did to the jews. Using TV advertisements as a supporting argument? How low can you fall? That is repulsive. You are repulsive. Shame on you.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:53 am
Mike Seth: Thank You for demonstrating the problem. Men's valid complaints are 'disgusting.' Thus, by inference, women's invalid complaints must be acceptable.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:58 am
Interesting responses... especially the the comments about all the "power" women have in our society.
1. How many women run Fortune 500 or Fortune 1000 companies? How many Fortune 500/1000 companies are run by men?
2. How may women are in congress? How many men?
3. Who has run our country for 200+ years? Men or women?
4. When did women get the right to vote? When did men get the right to vote?
5. How much do women earn compared to men for the same work? What is the wage gap?
6. How many women are killed by their spouses/boyfriends each year?
7. How many men are killed by their spouses/girlfriends each year?
8. Women constitute what percentage of the population?
9. Was the judge in this case a man or a woman?
Take a few minutes from your busy day and find the answers to one or two or three of these questions. Oh and prepare to shut up about all the "power" that women have over men and the double standards and the reverse sexism or whatever you want to call it. Those comments just make you sound woefully ignorant and totally uneducated. If the men in this forum don't like the way things are .... they overwhelming have *men* to blame. Not women.
I am - by the way - a man.
June 20th, 2007 at 4:07 am
jw, do not put words in my mouth.
And, someone else made a list of points posted above that illustrates your mistake very well either way.
NB: I'm not a girl either
June 20th, 2007 at 4:56 am
Please, Please do something about Justice in the USA it has a bad influence on other countries. South Africa dropped its death peanalty and prison sentances are short as there is no room for all the criminals, hence they go free and roam the streets again seeking out other criminal opertunities. We copied the American Democracy and where has it landed us? With the worsed crime stats in the world.
The justice pertaining to this evil woman shows the rest of the world how sick your systems must be. She diserves Life imprisoment at the least I would give her the electric chair. Stop showing the world your silly mistakes and alowing others to copy you.
June 20th, 2007 at 6:23 am
This has nothing to do with what we are talking about but is an interesting feminist side bar.
1. How many women run Fortune 500 or Fortune 1000 companies? How many Fortune 500/1000 companies are run by men?
How many woman have put in the time and effort it takes to run these companies? It's my understanding that woman quit these postions because of the long hours and the demands of the job.
2. How may women are in congress? How many men?
How many woman run for congress vs. men?
5. How much do women earn compared to men for the same work? What is the wage gap?
There is no wage gap, this is a feminist myth. The 77 cents on the dollar quote that is bandered about represents mens choices, (harder, more dangerous jobs}, vs. womans choices, (easier, flexible schedule types of jobs). 94% of work related deaths are to men.
Woman divorce men 85-93% of the time and get custody 90% of the time. What about this power?
6.How many women are killed by their spouses/boyfriends each year?
@ 1500
7. How many men are killed by their spouses/girlfriends each year?
This question is harder to answer because woman offten hire or have someone else do it for them.
Bottom line is that woman are as capable of murder and mayham as men, why aren't they held responsible like men?
Men like you who make excuses for woman like the one in the story because of some notion of past or present inequilties between men and woman is sickening.
June 20th, 2007 at 7:17 am
By providing your own rhetoric instead of the facts I requested, you have evaded answering my questions but I suppose that's not surprising since the facts don't tell the story you want to hear. The answers you have chosen to provide make clear your lack of education or your complete and total ignorance. Does it matter how many women run for congress? If we're talking about responsibility or social control or legislation, the fact of the matter is that there are today far fewer women in congress than men and certainly in the past the number was even smaller. You really can't blame women for the state of society, nor for most of its laws, because they have had a backseat position for most of this country's existence. Blaming women for the problems in a society controlled by men doesn't make sense to me.
I'm not going to argue with someone who cannot bother, or has not bothered, to educate themselves, even though the facts are available, at low cost, and with minimal effort. Who was the first woman elected to congress and in what year did that occur? Have you even bothered to avail yourself of the facts, or do you wish to continue existing inside a little bubble? From where did you receive half your genes? Would you speak so disrespectfully about women if your mother were within earshot?
You have also avoided responding to the most important part of my argument: men run the country and have done so for more than 200 years, and in doing so are largely responsible for the condition of society including most of the laws. If you don't like the the way this country has turned out, don't blame the women. After all they've only had the right to vote since 1920.
Provide factual answers to my questions or I'll assume you are ready to shut up and accept your own ignorance.
June 20th, 2007 at 7:18 am
I've decided to post my questions again. Here they sit, waiting for answers.
1. How many women run Fortune 500 or Fortune 1000 companies? How many Fortune 500/1000 companies are run by men?
2. How may women are in congress? How many men?
3. Who has run our country for 200+ years? Men or women?
4. When did women get the right to vote? When did men get the right to vote?
5. How much do women earn compared to men for the same work? What is the wage gap?
6. How many women are killed by their spouses/boyfriends each year?
7. How many men are killed by their spouses/girlfriends each year?
8. Women constitute what percentage of the population?
9. Was the judge in this case a man or a woman?
10. What year was the first woman elected to congress?
June 20th, 2007 at 8:00 am
1. How many women run Fortune 500 or Fortune 1000 companies? How many Fortune 500/1000 companies are run by men?
Irrelevant point. Indicates nothing about the general population. Is focussed on a small unusual outlier group.
2. How may women are in congress? How many men?
See above.
3. Who has run our country for 200+ years? Men or women?
It depends what you mean. Running the country is about laws and regulation. Public attitudes are built by the community and others with public visibility. Still struggling with the relevance of this question to modern attitudes. Time to move on people.
4. When did women get the right to vote? When did men get the right to vote?
Move on. Shit happened and its over.
5. How much do women earn compared to men for the same work? What is the wage gap?
This may or may not have some valid basis but what does it indicate? Show the link between this and system bias.
6. How many women are killed by their spouses/boyfriends each year?
7. How many men are killed by their spouses/girlfriends each year?
Men are more violent. Point conceded. However it has little relevance to a single case.
8. Women constitute what percentage of the population?
More than half but so what. Hoorah for the democratic process...or is that only relevant when we want it to be?
9. Was the judge in this case a man or a woman?
Idiots are not limited to any single gender although some of the guys on this web page are making me reconsider this point.
10. What year was the first woman elected to congress?
Yawn...see above...grow up...move on...equality exists in your head...don't moan about it just damn well assume it and then shut up about it already!
June 20th, 2007 at 8:11 am
LOL.....
Attacks, insults, slures.......definately a feminist!
"Blaming women for the problems in a society controlled by men doesn't make sense to me."
Men are the protectors of woman and will do what woman ask. Woman have abused this power to get men to coddle and feel sorry for them rather than treat them as equals, aka....the VAWA.
Woman have chose to stay at home and raise families until the feminist told them that it was wrong, and now it's mens fault (you have fallen into this hole) for what they choose to do.
Today woman are choosing to not to run Fortune 500 companies and run for Congress so they can raise families.
Despite what you may have herd, men and woman are different and thats why they make different choices, it really isn't about discrimination, it's about choices that men and woman make.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:11 am
By providing your own rhetoric instead of the facts I requested, you have evaded answering my questions but I suppose that's not surprising since the facts don't tell the story you want to hear.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:27 am
"By providing your own rhetoric instead of the facts I requested, you have evaded answering my questions but I suppose that's not surprising since the facts don't tell the story you want to hear."
Taken out of context, the "facts" are illrelevent.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Long Live the matriarchy (down with patriarchy)........we need to lock more men in cages and train more women to kill men (while jusitifying the killing of men and not tolerating the killing of any women)........
The best sexism is the sexism supported by most people.....thus misandry (man hating) is not only acce[table, it is the only acceptable position.........as the brave mr anon has noted, anyone daring to disagree with feminism is ignorant and childish (if not malignant and maladjusted).........
Feminism is just a front for matriarchy where usually women dont rule, they get men to rule in their favor..........
women's power rests in the most intimate place in any person's life (in their home)...........when men are not safe in their own homes, none of us are safe.............men may rule the boardroom, but women rule the bedroom............men have no right to decidd about their reproductive choices (they have no choices, only responsibilities)........
men have power in the most open & public spaces (where women and their male feminist supporters can shreik the hysterical need to please women), and women have power in the most intimate and invisible spaces (our homes)........
how many times does it take for a man to be arrested falsely for a crime you did not commit before you start to become critical of the matriarchy?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!???!??!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??! usually more than once if he was raised on a steady diet of misandry ........
June 20th, 2007 at 8:51 am
"If you don't like the the way this country has turned out, don't blame the women. After all they've only had the right to vote since 1920."
So women have outnumbered men and could have outvoted them for every election for the last 87 years. Even with systemic oppression, surely 87 years is long enough to ring in social change? My experience suggests that it has been.
Please stop justifying your behavior by the actions of our forebears. That was then and this is now. It is time to move on!
It is amazing how many people want to fight for equality but can't seem to accept it when it is right before them.
Shit happens because the world has a lot of dickheads in it. It has nothing to do with gender people!
Why don't you all just assume you are equal with one another and go find another cause to fight for....HINT there are a lot of starving children in the world and there are a lot of people dying because of stupid politicians.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:12 am
You have provided an example of what I am talking about when I say men are the protectors of woman in society.
" Would you speak so disrespectfully about women if your mother were within earshot?"
This is the unspoken power that woman have over men. This story is a good example of how that power is being used and abused by woman today.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Only a week? That's not too bad. Now Im gonna kill my husband too.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:16 am
Who gives a shit? The husband was an asshole and Mary Winkler is HOT! :)
June 21st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
To Mike Seth and Anonymous....aka Mangina's.
Go read a book by Warren Farrell and you will see all questions addressed with actual data and studies to backup the points. I dont know if you were raised by single feminist mom's or are willing to do/say anything to get laid, but you are a disservice to your gender to be so misinformed.
Please grow a pair, or ask your mommy for them back
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Hey, my ex-wife attacked me with a knife, and admitted so in civil court! And unlike Mrs Winkler, as a male victim I had no services offered to me - social workers flatly refused to provide shelter accommodation or any DV services. Oh, I have a clean criminal record as well.
So perhaps I should have shot my ex-wife in the back and saved myself the years of court hearings, and thousands in legal fees! Of course I'm sure they would have returned my child to my custody after a couple of months' mental rehab for the stress...
Dads AND moms, watch out for your sons - you're the only ones that think their lives have any value in our society.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:18 am
I'm not even american, geez.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I cannot say that I am surprised; HOWEVER I am speechless...
Sad, truly sad...
July 22nd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I spent four years in prison for allegedly touching a girl's breast. Actually, it happened, but what was downplayed (after all, I am a male) was that she attacked me saying: "Daddy, I need someone to F*** me." I was a foster father to this girl, after she had been arrested as the youngest girl ever arrested for prostitution in a foreign conutry she had been kidnapped to (Her kidnappers, who kidnapped, repeatedly raped, drugged, sleep deprived, and more, all with long rap sheets, got a lesser sentence than I). There were no witnesses in my case, and no evidence. The girl had documentable mental illness. Maybe I was dumb to think I could help a kid with a horrific life. No one, especially a man these days, should EVER become a foster parent. The state tells you little, helps you little with the children, but come down on you with force. By the way, there is a 50-50 chance of being accused of abuse as a foster parent. The Federal Government (Janet Rhenquist) noted the dangers. It is difficult not to touch someone "inappropriately" when attacked. I felt if I hit her, I would go to prison....! I was called "A hero" by a special needs nurse just 2 days before I was attacked. The girl's mother caused her to be raped at 5, took her to her strip club, around drugs and sex, and abuse, and has never spent a day in prison. There is much more to this, but no one wants to hear it. My "attorney" said I was "guilty until proven innocent" and did not interview anyone I asked who knew and saw what was happening. Again, males are treated as always guilty,while females can do anything. The sad thing is, women band together, while men have blogs, and do nothing! This is not isolated. My situation in specific terms is unique (though the state cares less), but generally all too common. I am not surprised at this. I have a list of abuses women do, receiving nothing. They have sex with boys, and are let free. A boy slaps a girls bottom, he goes to prison.
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:24 am
@ anonymous above:
There is most certainly discrepancy between how sex is viewed when applied towards men and women. Men who sleep around are considered extra-masculine, and women who sleep around are considered slutty. There's an universally negative stigma associated with women and sex. This stigma is rooted so deep in the western subconsciousness that the society tends to be overprotective of women when it comes to sex. It is thought that women do not like sex, do not want sex, and are not likely to be initiators of sex. The answer to this problem is removal of religious component from education; that requires enlightenment we currently do not have.
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:35 am
@Mike Seth
Then let me be the first man to say: let there be more slutty women. Bring the sluts! As long as she's clean, faithful and honest, I don't care how many guys she's banged before me, and how many she'll bang afterwards.
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:17 am
People need to stop punishing women for being openly sexual. That includes the use of word "slutty", I suppose. When the negative stigma is removed, all the present nonsense will go away.
July 24th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Mike Seth Says:
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:17 am
People need to stop punishing women for being openly sexual. That includes the use of word "slutty", I suppose. When the negative stigma is removed, all the present nonsense will go away.
To Mike and all those who have commented similarly to this...
I would rather be "punished" like the women are that is to say verbally rather than be locked up because society wants to be over protective of a group of people who claim to want equal rights...by the way we are guaranteed equal protection under the law and obviously men are not getting a fair shake legally (like Anonymous) which is the one and only thing that can and should be changed... no one can ever stop people from being verbal jerks...
August 16th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I was a member of the Getwell Church of Christ in Memphis, Tennessee when this story broke. The Getwell Church knew Matthew father, the late Wendell Winkler. When the crime was committed, and after the FBI found Mary with her children in Alabama, she was arrested and returned to Selmer, Tennessee. I had asked one of the brethren at Getwell if Matthew Winkler was related to Wendall, and he said that Matthew was his grandson.
My understanding is that Matthew's father took custody of the children in order to keep this out of the hands of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services. It would behoove the grandparents - since they still retain custody - to fight this in Family Court, seeing that she will be serving 3 years probation. I see no reason why Mary Winkler should be allowed her legal and physical custody of her children due to the crime committed against the children's father and evangelist for the Selmer Church of Christ. If the elders of that church haven't withdrawn their fellowship from her, they may want to consider doing that until she has paid her debt to society - even if it is 3 months probation.
If Matthew's father hadn't stepped in to take custody of the children, we would have a worse situation on our hands, as the Tennessee DCS would have been involved - and I already know you speak out against them, and you know that I have personal experience with both the Illinois DCFS and the Kentucky DCBS.
Again, I say that the grandparents should keep custody of them and the Selmer Church of Christ should look into withdrawing fellowship from her until she finishes her time in the hospital and her 3 years probation.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
This does not surprise me. In TX it is a strong "womans" state. I just got divorced and my ex wife was abusive to me and my 2 daughters. I still had to prove her unfit on top of the abuse. She was abusing pain pills so I was able to do so, but she still ended up with joint custody and placed a restriction on how far I could move away. She was cheating on me and immediatly moved in with this guy she barely knows and I have to let my daughters go to this mans house. As for something like child support there was none ordered because she is female. I am hoping my daughters will see through her and understand why this had to happen. This is another injustice served to a male.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Actually, this report seems kind of vague. I'm not the kind of troll who goes around calling everything fake, but this just seems biased against her and isn't supported very much by actual facts. Of course everyone is going to take the obvious bait and comment on how women get away with things like this and say how bad our legal system is (and I wholly agree with both of those things).
I just think that there's more to this story than is being presented to us, and until I see both sides of the story I'm not going to believe that this woman basically got away with murder.
Oh, and for the record; I'm a male ; )
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 am
Why would you assume that the punishment had anything to do with the value of the husband? If we were to do that, there would be no possible punishment because a human life is of infinite value.
The punishment was based on the crime and its nature not on the value of any particular person. I have followed this case since it happened in my neck of the woods.
We must always be careful that when we punish a criminal we don't also punish innocent persons excessively as well.
Note: Executing the wife also means executing the mother of these children. They have already lost their father, admittedly by the mother, should we now take their mother away also?
August 27th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Alicia,
"Note: Executing the wife also means executing the mother of these children. They have already lost their father, admittedly by the mother, should we now take their mother away also?"
I care about Winkler having access to her children as much as I care about whether O.J. has access to his children. Too often women use their children as human shields in the "family" courts and when charged with a crime.
If Winkler really cared about the children she wouldn't murder their father.
September 3rd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
[quote] It's interesting that the jury makeup was 10 women 2 men. How did the prosecution let that happen ? [/quote]
What's scary is that this was a good result. Often juries are composed ENTIRELY of women - and this is not considered improper by our courts. It is considered improper for a jury of all white people to preside over the
hearing of a black person (called a "Badsen challenge"), but this has been ruled to NOT APPLY to gender-related
jury selection.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Alicia C Simpson Says:
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 am
Note: Executing the wife also means executing the mother of these children. They have already lost their father, admittedly by the mother, should we now take their mother away also?
I find it interesting that the first time that I heard this argument was here regarding a woman who mudered a man, I just wonder . . . would you say the same if the man killed the woman?
September 10th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Ms Simpson,
Let me show you Romans 13:3-5 (NIV) as it speaks to those who break the law.
"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."
If the law of the land says that the murderer - be the defendant male or female - must die for killing another person, then the law is no respecter of gender. However, we do not see this in the Mary Winkler case. We see the judge as a respecter of gender and grants a light sentence to her.
If Matthew Winkler had murdered his wife Mary, he would have received the death penalty, as it would have been considered premeditated. Why would it have been premeditated for Matthew and not the same for Mary Winkler, who did in fact premeditate the murder of her husband? Does not the sword swing both ways, being gender neutral?
Another example of justice not being gender neutral. It proves once again that the judges of the land adhere neither to the law of the land nor the Law of God - that which is sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12) - but adheres to the Court of Public Opinion and Bleeding-Heart Liberals.
September 10th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Robert LittleJohn - There you go quoting the bible as if everyone chooses to believe in the bible or is automatically bound by the text therein. Who cares what the bible says? You probably have no idea who wrote the bible or that it amounts to little more than a historical game of telephone.
Second. I have noticed a lot of interesting comments since my last post here and yet no one has substantially answered any of the questions I posted - except of course with indirect non-answers and rhetoric. Such small minds. Who has run the country since its inception and been responsible for most its laws? Even if more women could have run for public office or should have run for public office we overwhelmingly have men to either thank or blame for most of the laws in this country and the condition thereof. Any attempt to deny that this country is - and has always been - utterly dominated by males simply ignores reality.
Any man who doesn't like the outcome of this case needs to examine the history of this country before speaking any further. And with respect to comments about the supposed "matriarchy". Can you please provide hard evidence thereto? I only ask because I can provide hard evidence in support of every single point I have raised and yet most of the misogynist commenters herein provide *absolutely no evidence* in support of any of their comments. By all means have an opinion but do not state your opinion as fact. That just makes you look foolish. Very foolish indeed.
So please would the misogynist commenters herein please line up the evidence in support of the "facts" they've posted. Otherwise I'll have to assume your comments are your opinion and worth as much as any opinion. Nothing.
September 10th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Anonymous Says:
September 10th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
So please would the misogynist commenters herein please line up the evidence in support of the "facts" they've posted. Otherwise I'll have to assume your comments are your opinion and worth as much as any opinion. Nothing.
______________________________________
Comments and "facts" presented by some one who dose not have the courage to leave thier name also mean nothing...
September 10th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I haven't engaged in any nasty or underhanded behavior though I choose to remain anonymous. I have made credible points and tried to argue with the facts - not opinions - and I have simply requested that others do the same. Isn't this a perfectly fair request?
When people engage in discussion and present opinion as fact I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for facts in support of any such argument. When people refuse to provide facts or refuse to acknowledge that their "opinion" is not a fact - well it's not my fault if that looks just a bit foolish, is it?
What do you want from your doctor? Treatment based on an opinion or based on facts/evidence? Most of the arguments here - especially those arguments about female domination in the light of an absolute and veritable mountain of irrefutable evidence showing *exactly* the opposite - are utterly ridiculous. Are these commentors just in total denial or what? It's like saying the Sun revolves around the Earth and expecting someone to overlook all the evidence to the contrary solely on the word of someone else.
I think your comments would be perfectly valid had I come in here simply as a rabble-rouser; but clearly I have not. I have asked the commentors here to consider the *real* and *hard* facts about this country's history before they make such ridiculous, untrue, counterfactual, and over-reaching statements as have been made here. I really don't think that's too much to ask from anyone who claims - as commentors here have claimed - to possess an ability to think for one's self and form an opinion after hearing the facts.
September 10th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Here is another request for facts.
1. Find out how many men in this country, who are so ordered, fail to provide child support and/or abandon their children.
2. Find out how many women in this country, who are so ordered, fail to provide child support and/or abandon their children.
3. Find out how many women are killed by their husband or boyfriend each year.
4. Find out how many men are killed by their wife or girlfriend each year.
September 10th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
From the department of justice:
* In 1998 women were nearly 3 out of 4 victims of the 1,830
murders attributable to intimate partners. In 1976 women were
just over half the approximate 3,000 victims.
[ http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ipv.txt ]
You might want to read this as well:
[ http://social.jrank.org/pages/1253/Violent-Crime-Gender-Differences-in-Violent-Crime-Offenders.html ]
September 10th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
I will have to take some time to find it but many more women proportionally (Very important because numbers mean nothing proportions do) do not pay their child support. In fact personally every man I know in this situation pays and every woman I know does not.
I still find credibility only in people who believe enough in their position to leave their name. Sorry.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I'm sure that find my presentation of facts from credible sources is welcome regardless of whether or not I leave my name; the facts simply speak for themselves.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Questions to you. How many women have actually murdered their spouse and it was not deemed a murder? I find this case (case and point) and things like the burning bed simply appalling.
How many men were found guilty and were just fending their spouse off and she kept escalating the situation until she was killed and not murdered? These are stats that no one likes track.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
No guts no glory!
September 10th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Besides it does imply stirring the pot because it also implies that you do not have the courage to take the heat and or the kudos for your arguments in public.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
It shows you want to have an opinion like a man, be counted like a man, but not have the courage to make public who you are and what you stand for... this is the epitome of the differences of men and women and how we aim to advance ourselves... men stand up for what they believe in and many women will hide behind a tree expecting their demands to be met but not take any risks but expect the same results.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Let's not debate my anonymity. My choice to remain anonymous is just that - my choice. There is no implication of cowardice in any choice to remain anonymous. Most of us choose to remain anonymous in a great many of our dealings each day - and cowardice is certainly not implied. In fact herein I only choose to remain slightly more anonymous than you. There is no assurance that you are who you say you are and you have certainly chosen - rightly - to withhold numerous personal details that are not relevant to the context. And - I have supplied the operator of this web site with my personal email address.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Ahh you not wish to debate something you cannot win... Hummmm... There is pleanty of proof of who I am you can look me up and call me Misiura is not exactly a common name... and I find your satatment to try and call me out a very transparent attempt to shift focus off of your weak stance when it is you who are anonymous.
Poor attempt at calling me a liar.
Again it is easier to state an opinion with out your name to it that is simple fact.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
"men stand up for what they believe in and many women will hide behind a tree expecting their demands to be met but not take any risks but expect the same results."
Unless you can present facts in support of this statement, I must assume this is your opinion. Your statement is also a generalization. An opinion is not a fact and a generalization does not add very much to an opinion. You don't seem to like generalizations such as "men seem to think they can do whatever they want to their wife or girlfriend" or "men are pigs". Do you like generalizations only as long as they are not pointed in your direction? That is not only intellectually dishonest, it's childish.
To which women do you refer? Do you mean all women? Let's use WWII as an example. Do you include the women who during WWII went to work in factories to build the weapons used to fight the war? Do you include the women who courageously served as nurses in combat situations? Were women purposefully excluded from combat during WWII or were they allowed to participate but simply decided to stay home? Do you mean women who for generations worked at home to raise children? To which women do you wish to pin this statement?
September 10th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Besides I left you questions and you did not answer them.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
And I haven't called you a liar or in any way insulted you. I am simply not going to debate my anonymity because it's not relevant to this discussion.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
How many men were found guilty and were just fending their spouse off and she kept escalating the situation until she was killed and not murdered? These are stats that no one likes track.
***
You have posed a question that cannot be answered. How is anyone supposed to know how often a man has murdered his wife in self-defense yet the murder occured or was committed because of action taken by the victim? You would have to determine the actions and intent of a dead person. This is either a specious question, or if genuinely posed, your question requires some revision.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
I said many not all and you are a good example. Most debates concern the generalities not the exceptions.
I think anonymity is germane to the subject and leaving a name ads credibility.
________
Anonymous Says:
September 10th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
There is no assurance that you are who you say you are
_________
What is the above if not accusatory?
I said who I was and I do not lie so ergo I am who I say I am.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
No revision is needed. You are accepting that all the judgments regarding your questions were, true and just...
________________________
Anonymous Says:
September 10th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Here is another request for facts.
1. Find out how many men in this country, who are so ordered, fail to provide child support and/or abandon their children.
2. Find out how many women in this country, who are so ordered, fail to provide child support and/or abandon their children.
3. Find out how many women are killed by their husband or boyfriend each year.
4. Find out how many men are killed by their wife or girlfriend each year.
Anonymous Says:
September 10th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
From the department of justice:
* In 1998 women were nearly 3 out of 4 victims of the 1,830
murders attributable to intimate partners. In 1976 women were
just over half the approximate 3,000 victims.
[ http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ipv.txt ]
You might want to read this as well:
[ http://social.jrank.org/pages/1253/Violent-Crime-Gender-Differences-in-Violent-Crime-Offenders.html ]
_____________________________________________
I work within the legal system and it is in a sad state of affairs.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Ok answer this how many times has a woman made the wrong guy pay child support?
How many reported rapes are false?
September 10th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
You wrote: "I work within the legal system and it is in a sad state of affairs."
[ Does this constitute a refutation of the facts I provided? Do you really think these facts are wrong or skewed and if so, by how much? The studies are happy to provide information on their methodology. ]
How many times has a woman made the wrong guy pay child support?
[ I am sure this has happened and even once is obviously unacceptable. That said I don't think that establishment of paternity is terribly difficult; the methods thereto are well-understood and certainly are scientifically acceptable; If a women stipulates that any man is the father of any child it is really easy to establish or refute paternity. ]
How many reported rapes are false?
[ I have seen various estimates from 2% to 41% but I am not sure of veracity of the studies which presented the highest statistics. The FBI says around 8%. ]
You tend to rely on the minority of statistics to support your arguments - a strange tactic on your part. Furthermore, since the facts at hand demonstrate that men are responsible for most violent crime and the majority of spousal murders, let's stipulate to these facts and talk about personal responsibility.
I rarely meet any woman or any man who harbors much resentment toward the opposite sex. Where I can agree with some - but not much - of your position is that it's unfair to tar/feather the vast majority of men because of the admittedly bad actions of some men in society. But this doesn't happen because of women. It happens because of the way our [male-oriented, male-engineered] society works.
As I said in my earliest posts herein, if men don't like society they overwhelmingly have other *men* to blame - not women. This dovetails nicely with rightfully blaming the "bad apples" who murder their wives and children. So again - again - again - men have only themselves to blame by and large for any "perceived" unfairness. However this is still almost ridiculous on its face because men have always had the advantage over women, have earned the lion's share of the money for generations, and had the lion's share of power in society. The facts of the history of this country more than establish these truths. Cumulatively up to this point in history, women have not had the right to vote for as long as men. 87 years. Men have had the right to vote for over 200.
I still don't really seen any reasonable valid argument against any of the real facts?
September 12th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Anonymous:
Concerning your quote:
"Robert LittleJohn - There you go quoting the bible as if everyone chooses to believe in the bible or is automatically bound by the text therein. Who cares what the bible says? You probably have no idea who wrote the bible or that it amounts to little more than a historical game of telephone."
It is not the fact that I quote the Bible, but that the Bible contains the proof that Bernie Misiura was looking for when he asked "I find it interesting that the first time that I heard this argument was here regarding a woman who mudered a man, I just wonder . . . would you say the same if the man killed the woman?"
My answer to the above question - which was based upon Romans 13:3-5 - was "If the law of the land says that the murderer - be the defendant male or female - must die for killing another person, then the law is no respecter of gender. However, we do not see this in the Mary Winkler case. We see the judge as a respecter of gender and grants a light sentence to her.
"If Matthew Winkler had murdered his wife Mary, he would have received the death penalty, as it would have been considered premeditated. Why would it have been premeditated for Matthew and not the same for Mary Winkler, who did in fact premeditate the murder of her husband? Does not the sword swing both ways, being gender neutral?
"Another example of justice not being gender neutral. It proves once again that the judges of the land adhere neither to the law of the land nor the Law of God - that which is sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12) - but adheres to the Court of Public Opinion and Bleeding-Heart Liberals."
That, my anonymous friend, was to what I was referring - based upon what the law of the land should be according to Romans 13:3-5 and Hebrews 4:12. I had no idea what position you held or whether you were an athiest or an agnostic.
You have the freedom of speech to write what you will, and I defend your right to do so. I will defend your free will not to believe in God. Would you, by the same token, defend my right to defend my position based upon the scriptures of the Holy Bible of Jehovah God and His Son Jesus Christ, whom I acknowledge as my King in Heaven?
You may not believe in the existence of God of His Son, but I do. I defend your right not to believe; do you defend my right to believe? The First Amendment reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law" respecting an establishment of religion, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech", or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Meaning, Congress is prohibited from establishing a National Religion (e.g., they cannot establish The Church of the United States like England did with The Church of England). Congress is prohibited from making laws prohibiting the free excercise of one's religious beliefs (including those who choose not to believe). Furthermore, Congress is prohibited from making laws abridging the freedom of speech of its citizens (which is what we are doing in this forum regarding the Winkler Case).
That freedom of speech does not extend to personal attacks and character assassinations against one who holds an opposing view. I have not attacked your character nor have I attacked your right not to believe in God. The Constitution protects the rights of people to either believe or not believe in God. It also protects your right to freely express opposing views - logically and clearly.
I will pray for you that you may one day see the Light of Truth. Thank you, my anonymous friend, for allowing me to express my views as supported both by Scripture and The Constitution of the United States of America.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Thanks for your response. You quoted the bible as if the bible has some relevance with respect to civil law or matters related-to. I agree that you have every right to quote the bible and of course every right to believe in God and worship as you so choose. But the bible is a *religious* document and should not be the basis of law. Of course there is a really interesting phenomenon involving people who either quote the bible or proclaim belief and adherence. Let's talk about that for a few minutes.
Do you support the parts of the bible that allow someone to kill their children for disobedience? Are you willing to accept a very literal interpretation of the bible and if so - just how literal?
Why don't I pose the following question:
"What should you do with a disobedient child?"
Please frame your answer in the context of biblical law. Show us the depth of your total belief.
Do you think it acceptable to kill a person who commits adultery? Because the bible makes quite clear that anyone who has knowledge of such an act of sin, and who does nothing, is just as guilty.
The bible was written in ancient days - do you really think that any of our laws should be derived from a document that contains prima facie support for child murder, child abuse, and slavery? Do you adhere to the proclamation about working on the Sabbath? Just how far back in time should we go? Before antibiotics and medicine? It's funny how people love to quote an antiquated text but in practice and through their deeds clearly live in total contradiction to nearly all of the terms set for in the bible.
Do you secretly work on the Sabbath? Have you ever had a naughty thought creep into your mind? Do you punish your children in the manner prescribed by the bible? Do you support slavery and murder? --- I only ask because the bible supports and in some cases prescribes all of the above.
But I bet like most others, you conveniently quote the bible to look pious while living in total disregard for most of what it says. But it's always much more fun to hold the ruler than to be measured by it, right?
September 12th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
By the way - and just for fun - let's have a short quiz based on elements from the bible:
1. Vengeance is mine. [ Who said that? ]
2. Judge not lest ye be judged. [ Who said that? ]
3. Turn the other cheek. [ Who said that? ]
4. Thou shalt not kill. [ Who said that? ]
September 13th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Thank you for responding, anonymous.
This is a blog discussing events and not a venue to discuss the Bible. I only quoted Romans 13 so that Bernie Misiura could get an answer to the question "I find it interesting that the first time that I heard this argument was here regarding a woman who murdered a man, I just wonder . . . would you say the same if the man killed the woman?" I believe I answered it to the questioner's satisfaction, or else Bernie Misiura would have responded again for clarification's sake.
I pray that God will open your eyes on this side of eternity. If you wish to learn the answers to your questions, please consider joining http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Northern_Illinois_Churches_of_Christ/join where I have answered your questions, I hope, to your satisfaction.
I am not avoiding your questions, as they are Bible questions. I am saying that this is not the right venue to discuss them.
And I am certain that Glenn Sacks would agree - as this is his blog.
September 14th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Robert Littlejohn Says:
September 12th, 2007 at 12:50 am
It is not the fact that I quote the Bible, but that the Bible contains the proof that Bernie Misiura was looking for when he asked "I find it interesting that the first time that I heard this argument was here regarding a woman who mudered a man, I just wonder . . . would you say the same if the man killed the woman?"
My answer to the above question - which was based upon Romans 13:3-5 - was "If the law of the land says that the murderer - be the defendant male or female - must die for killing another person, then the law is no respecter of gender. However, we do not see this in the Mary Winkler case. We see the judge as a respecter of gender and grants a light sentence to her.
"If Matthew Winkler had murdered his wife Mary, he would have received the death penalty, as it would have been considered premeditated. Why would it have been premeditated for Matthew and not the same for Mary Winkler, who did in fact premeditate the murder of her husband? Does not the sword swing both ways, being gender neutral?
"Another example of justice not being gender neutral. It proves once again that the judges of the land adhere neither to the law of the land nor the Law of God - that which is sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12) - but adheres to the Court of Public Opinion and Bleeding-Heart Liberals."
AMEN!
Thanks Littlejohn
September 14th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Anonymous Says:
September 12th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Thanks for your response. You quoted the bible as if the bible has some relevance with respect to civil law or matters related-to. I agree that you have every right to quote the bible and of course every right to believe in God and worship as you so choose. But the bible is a *religious* document and should not be the basis of law. Of course there is a really interesting phenomenon involving people who either quote the bible or proclaim belief and adherence.
_________________
Our laws are based on the bible and our country was established based on the guidance of God. I am not very religious, shame on me but it is very abundantly evident that my above statement is true.
Our laws try to emulate the intent of the morality and ethics presented in the bible and of people who have such beliefs.
BTW
The bible states "Thou shall not murder" the use of kill is really a misinterpretation. Therefore, the bible does not advocate murder.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Anonymous Says:
September 10th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Your statement is also a generalization. An opinion is not a fact and a generalization does not add very much to an opinion. You don't seem to like generalizations such as "men seem to think they can do whatever they want to their wife or girlfriend" or "men are pigs". Do you like generalizations only as long as they are not pointed in your direction? That is not only intellectually dishonest, it's childish.
To which women do you refer? Do you mean all women? Let's use WWII as an example. Do you include the women who during WWII went to work in factories to build the weapons used to fight the war? Do you include the women who courageously served as nurses in combat situations? Were women purposefully excluded from combat during WWII or were they allowed to participate but simply decided to stay home? Do you mean women who for generations worked at home to raise children? To which women do you wish to pin this statement?
Anonymous Says:
September 10th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
It happens because of the way our [male-oriented, male-engineered] society works.
As I said in my earliest posts herein, if men don't like society they overwhelmingly have other *men* to blame
____________________________
To Which men do you refer? Do you mean all men? Do you mean the men who courageously were the undisputed superior numbers on the front line? The men that wanted to were altruistic and wanted to serve of to be made to feel like something less than a man because he was given a 4F? Do you mean who decided to keep their job, eat crow because of the boss and his wife and children that he did not want to leave destitute? The men that did not have the same opportunity to spend as much time with his children even though his need to do so was more dire exasperated by the fewer hours he had to spend with them because he was the breadwinner.
Bernie Misiura
____________________________________________
Anonymous Says:
...not women. This dovetails nicely with rightfully blaming the "bad apples" who murder their wives and children. So again - again - again - men have only themselves to blame by and large for any "perceived" unfairness. However this is still almost ridiculous on its face because men have always had the advantage over women, have earned the lion's share of the money for generations,
__________
Yes men have always had the lion’s share of the money after working 14 hours, 6 days a week in a coalmine, and longer on a ranch, and longer on a farm. They never once EARNED it.
It is incredible how misinformed you are and how you are misinforming everyone else. Only 5% of the population has any real money and the rest of us MEN and WOMEN have to work very hard for it, this too is a fact.
Bernie Misiura
______________
Anonymous Says:
and had the lion's share of power in society. The facts of the history of this country more than establish these truths. Cumulatively up to this point in history, women have not had the right to vote for as long as men. 87 years. Men have had the right to vote for over 200.
I still don't really seen any reasonable valid argument against any of the real facts?
____________________
REAL FACTS
You called me childish for making generalizations about women TODAY and accused me of not liking generalizations about men.
1)Debates are dealt within generalizations.
2)Stating that men stand up to be counted and women typically do not is a far cry from stating men are pigs
3)You seem unnerved by what I stated about the way women typically respond to things in today’s society but you wish men to responsible for all men since the beginning of time… WOW is all I can respond to that.
4)I did not make those decisions I did not vote for the people who made those decisions so I have no personal responsibility for their actions even if I did vote for or hire them.
5)You are the one who has the “perception” of inequity. Just because someone is deemed, “in charge” does not mean that they have any power. Read Lysitrada sometime. A farce to be sure but it speaks only the truth.
6)Whether or not it is men responsible for inequities does not mean that the inequities toward men are a fantasy.
A) Men have to register with the selective service
B) Men unless they do cannot:
a) Obtain a GUARANTEED student loan
b) Get a job (in many areas) at the town/county/state level and no federal jobs are allowed
c) Attend school (higher education) funded in full or in part by taxes
d) Obtain a drivers license
C) A business can hire all women but a business cannot hire only men
D) A grade on a civil service test for all intent and purposes’ dose not count for your ranking on the hire list especially for a white male
E) Men do not traditionally receive custody
F) There was never, is not now, nor will there ever be a “Men and children first” attitude of chivalry.
The list is endless and undeniable, and personally, I would love to be on the side that receives the above-mentioned benefits gratis
Therefore, you see women have always had the advantage over men.
However, you are right I have only “perceived” that men are not treated equally.
Bernie Misiura
September 16th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
How many women were responsible for passing the selective service legislation? Women have always had the advantage over men? The facts in this country and of this country's history speak otherwise.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Read # 6 again
September 16th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Anonymous Says:
September 16th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Women have always had the advantage over men? The facts in this country and of this country's history speak otherwise.
_______________________________
My post 3 up demonstrates undeniable facts that prove otherwise.
You appear to like to selectively read only what supports your cause ignoring the facts to the contrary...again I nor any man can be held accountable for anything before his lifetime... that is just a ludicrous argument... besides even our constitution guarantees we are not responsible for the crimes of our father but you also want to ignore that…
September 20th, 2007 at 11:52 am
There is an activate debate going at archcrone's blog.
I posted the following to bring a few points that no one was mentioning. BTW The blog owner feels her actions were justified based almost soley on her testimony.
"As an intelligent, thinking male, I really think that women being intelligent, thinking, autonomous beings as well are capable of full range of human responses including deceit, manipulation and indeed, violence. To think otherwise would be sexist.
The three girls will need coucelling that violence is not a solution to relationship issues. Why? Because research indicates that Domestic Violence is often two way and also is initiated by women nearly as often as men. The main difference is that women suffer injuries more often then men due to the difference in size and strength. They will learn from this that lethal violence is an effective and accepted response to marital strife for women."
Feel free to participate as well, please be respectful (as usual).
September 20th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Men appear to be held reponsible by the feminists establishment for all the ills committed by other men (and women) since the beginning of time.
It is the worst form of systematic injustice. Dooming future generations of boys and young men to suffer for the perceived sins of others. Why do law makers not consider their sons when drafting legislation that puts them at a disadvantange in society.
Equal rights not special rights are the cause that progressive thinkers should strive towards.
Anything else is bigotry and needs to be fought.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I think Anonymous does this full time.
and gets paid by the Government in some fashion.
The rest of us have to work.
Straw Poll: how many men on this site "feel" the great power granted to them by our "mysogynest" society, or do most feel powerless most of the time?
I'm one. I'm powerless, I do as I'm told, or else. "Hear me roar".
Usually the only "power" granted to men in our society is the "power" to end their own lives, especially if they're poor.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Please provide a workable power- list for myself and other men.
Please exclude things such as -He's a better arm-wrestler
I'd like to understand this power but can't find it in the law books and have not yet witnessed it's use. Show me where to look.
Send list immediately so that we can eliminate the need for this site.
Show us this power so we need not debate what's wrong and simply change it overnight with our great power. How can their even be a debate (with such dominance)
Hear the muffled "Roar" of John and myself.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Do you think me as woman has it any easier. I am married to someone who was abused by the system. My birth father lost me and my brother because of an abusive system. He was married to my mother at the time. 36 years ago my mother walked out on my father and us kids. Because he was male he did not get to keep us either. I grew up seeing his pain as we went to visit him from time to time. I still have a great relationship with him, he is still my dad and always will be. My whole life I wanted to grow up and defend fathers and childrens rights. Guess what I am doing today ? As long as waman kkeep up thier lies and are allowed to do it, it is going to be a long hard fight! I am a firm believer that until people like myself and wives of divorced husbands and men band together thing will continue just as they are!
September 20th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I agree that we must unite and I have great respect for the women with the integrity to call it like it is. I'm sure most people hear would echo the sentiment that your effort is appreciated. I not going to debate how difficult your life is by comparison. Your experience demonstates that this so called power is a work of fiction. I can imagine that being a woman that agrees with most like minded people here (men), and understands the causes, that this alone is not easier. I can imagine that much of the difficuties you face (or faced) ie. wife of husband, having your father taken, did not make life easier as woman or child. You live with the repercussions of this system, but they began with harming the people with ALL THE POWER - men
September 20th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Lane do you not think woman are stupid not to understand how this effects thier own sons. I think when these children become men and go through the things thier fathers did, woman will start thinking differently. Will the ones that fought for mens rights be willing to hear thier cries. Not in my opinion. There is a saying what goes around comes around. Also if you make a bed, then you should lie in it. They are so me centered that they can not see the future. If I was them I would be on this site daily for the cause or they are the ones that will suffer.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
"Note: Executing the wife also means executing the mother of these children. They have already lost their father, admittedly by the mother, should we now take their mother away also?"
Completely irrelevant. Ridiculous to even bring it up.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Agreed, completely off topic. A red herring.
How often does a father get to keep his kids after killing his wife, the children's mother, because one parent is better than none?
The answer is: NEVER, and that is as it should be.
Stat:
In 1988 the justice system in the Nation's 75 largest counties disposed of
an estimated 540 spouse murder cases. Husbands charged with killing
their wife outnumbered wives charged with killing their husband. Of the
540, 318--or 59%--were husband defendants and 222--or 41%--were wife
defendants.
On the other blog that I was participating in it was implied that wife killing husband almost never happened.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
There are too many comments to respond to now, but I'd sure like to give it a try. I don't think that courts have overwhelmingly favored mothers in custody situations out of any desire to harm fathers. In order to assume that, you'd also have to assume that most of the judges ( mostly men of course ) were out to harm these fathers. I think a lot of the comments here are opinions that assume facts not found. The reason women received custody for so many years is because society implemented a policy whereby "men earned the money" and "women raised children". How does this constitute discrimination?
Furthermore. Does anyone here really believe there is a conspiracy in the legal system? If so, I would like to ask the following questions:
Women comprise what percent of the legal system? How many judges in child custody cases are men?
*
Bernie, I really prefer to argue with facts. You haven't cited a single fact yet. I have at least tried to cite facts in support of my arguments. You have cited "facts" but not provided a single piece of evidence in support thereof. And sorry, but your comments are full of logic errors, fallacies, and bias. I can't consider your posts well-formed arguments but I am happy to file them under "opinion".
*
With respect to an earlier commentor who says that I work for the government - I don't.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
John your right, women don't kill thier husbands. They kill his kids. Just watch papers like Chicago Tribune. Happens almost weekly or sometimes more.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
John, please feel free to cite the source of your statistic.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Amy, please feel free to cite statistics, or provide evidence for your statements. Otherwise I think it's fair to assume that this statement is your opinion, and not a fact.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
All anyone has to do is read the paper and see for thierselves. I would read for one to two weeks and let my peirs be the judge, not you.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Amy, how convenient to make a statement of "fact" that you won't support. I'm not interested in being the judge, I'm just interested in whether or not the facts support your statement. That's all. Nothing wrong with facts, right? If you are going to make a statement such as:
"John your right, women don't kill thier husbands. They kill his kids. Just watch papers like Chicago Tribune. Happens almost weekly or sometimes more."
I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to support your statement. Is maternal filicide really an almost weekly occurence in Chicago? Do women really kill their children more often than men? Or do an equal number of fathers and mothers kill their children? Do you even know? Because if you don't know, you probably are not qualified to talk about it. Don't you agree?
Please don't expect
September 20th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Okay Anonymous,
I'll bite,
Source of the statistic is the USDOJ
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spmurex.pdf
Women kill and abuse children more often simply because they more often primary caregivers.
Male judges are just as capable of being misled by incorrect sociological facts as women are. There is no conspiracy just an effective lobby from the feminists.
Will continue later.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Here are three examples, 1. mother smothered her child and later went out in front of a train. It was also talked about how she was in the middle of a custody dispute with the childs father. There was even former teacher that were worried about the child and nothing was done.
2. The mother who went and got gasoline and burned her and the children while thier father was at work.
3. The infant that was beat to death because he was not potty trained at a year and a half.
There are others but these three stick out in my mind.
Oh and lets not forget the disabled teenager who was beat to death.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Amy, Thanks for citing the examples but they certainly don't support your statement. Citing three cases in support of your statement is simply an example of bias and certainly not the whole picture. I can cite, and certainly provide a lot more detail, three cases of men from Chicago who murdered their children. What insight have we gained if I present three examples in opposition? None.
We can't gain any real knowledge from ad hoc citations. Find the actual statistics and cite the source here or simply say you don't really know. Not knowing is fine. But I am seeking facts... because facts have the neat property of stripping away rhetoric and leading to ... the truth. I'm sure we all agree that the truth is important.
John, thanks for providing the link. Interesting statistics and I agree with your remarks about an effective feminist lobby in lieu of a conspiracy.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:53 am
John Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Men appear to be held reponsible by the feminists establishment for all the ills committed by other men (and women) since the beginning of time.
It is the worst form of systematic injustice. Dooming future generations of boys and young men to suffer for the perceived sins of others. Why do law makers not consider their sons when drafting legislation that puts them at a disadvantange in society.
Equal rights not special rights are the cause that progressive thinkers should strive towards.
Anything else is bigotry and needs to be fought.
John Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I think Anonymous does this full time.
and gets paid by the Government in some fashion.
The rest of us have to work.
Straw Poll: how many men on this site "feel" the great power granted to them by our "mysogynest" society, or do most feel powerless most of the time?
I'm one. I'm powerless, I do as I'm told, or else. "Hear me roar".
Usually the only "power" granted to men in our society is the "power" to end their own lives, especially if they're poor.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
=========================================================================================
Here here!!!
I am not afraid to say many times I feel powerless but I will endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune to continually chip away at the injustices in this world and to let all people know that everyone is not a buffoon and influenced by repetitive rhetoric and can find the true facts of subject matters at hand.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Anonymous Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
*
Bernie, I really prefer to argue with facts. You have not cited a single fact yet. I have at least tried to cite facts in support of my arguments. You have cited "facts" but not provided a single piece of evidence in support thereof. And sorry, but your comments are full of logic errors, fallacies, and bias. I can't consider your posts well-formed arguments but I am happy to file them under "opinion".
===============================================
Bernie Misiura Says:
September 14th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
REAL FACTS
You called me childish for making generalizations about women TODAY and accused me of not liking generalizations about men.
1)Debates are dealt within generalizations.
2)Stating that men stand up to be counted and women typically do not is a far cry from stating men are pigs
3)You seem unnerved by what I stated about the way women typically respond to things in today’s society but you wish men to responsible for all men since the beginning of time… WOW is all I can respond to that.
4)I did not make those decisions I did not vote for the people who made those decisions so I have no personal responsibility for their actions even if I did vote for or hire them.
5)You are the one who has the “perception” of inequity. Just because someone is deemed, “in charge” does not mean that they have any power. Read Lysitrada sometime. A farce to be sure but it speaks only the truth.
6)Whether or not it is men responsible for inequities does not mean that the inequities toward men are a fantasy.
A) Men have to register with the selective service
B) Men unless they do cannot:
a) Obtain a GUARANTEED student loan
b) Get a job (in many areas) at the town/county/state level and no federal jobs are allowed
c) Attend school (higher education) funded in full or in part by taxes
d) Obtain a drivers license
C) A business can hire all women but a business cannot hire only men
D) A grade on a civil service test for all intent and purposes’ dose not count for your ranking on the hire list especially for a white male
E) Men do not traditionally receive custody
F) There was never, is not now, nor will there ever be a “Men and children first” attitude of chivalry.
The list is endless and undeniable, and personally, I would love to be on the side that receives the above-mentioned benefits gratis
Therefore, you see women have always had the advantage over men.
However, you are right I have only “perceived” that men are not treated equally.
Bernie Misiura
==================================================
Sorry, there are no opinions in my above quote just facts and to imply as much is just a sinister deception.
Your statement of truthiness that I have not stated "ANY" facts, my “comments are full of logic errors, fallacies, and bias” is blatantly false and you should be ashamed of attempting this type of deception if anything it is you who use this method. Check out my quote above. You have not confirmed that these facts are true you just deflect what you find detrimental to your cause by not answering or confirming these solid facts but by a non-response question. That implies that it is you who does not want to argue the facts. You wish to only acknowledge facts that are advantageous to your cause.
You try to discredit my “facts” by stating that I have no citations. This is not necessary for common knowledge. In addition, if you do not possess this common knowledge you can look these facts up for yourself. It is a poor practice just to deny the facts that some one has presented lest you look like the fool, because you have now done EXACTLY what you what you accuse me of doing. You have not given any contrary evidence (facts and citations) proving that(wow I cannot believe that I have to explain this) men do not have to register for the selective service (by the way the information is in every post office, recruitment center and law book applicable), that men cannot get a student loan with out their Selective Service card (just check at the banks that offer them [perhaps an application would help for those people at the bank that are ignorant of this fact also]), look up laws, NYS, DMV (I believe that it is just a possibility that the DMV lists what is required to obtain a drivers license) etc. etc. Everything in my list about males and the Selective Service is PUBLIC RECORD and not hard to find. Perhaps the Selective Service board can help you out in these matters… oh yea you never thought to call them because you never had a need to because THIS HAS NEVER AFFECTED YOUR LIFE WHAT SO EVER, I take that back this is an area where the law has affected you life by letting you skate.
I hope that the citations I have made are sufficient to meet your standards.
Why do YOU not tell us how many women rather than just making open-ended implications? Again, it does not matter how many women passed any of the legislations if it is wrong and without question gender bias it should be changed. Where are your examples of equivalent government justified gender prejudice against women? This is the biggest difference in discrimination practices regarding gender, if it happens to a woman it is illegal and women have recourse, where as laws have been passed to make it legal to be gender bias against men. This is undeniable fact, sorry that this weakens your argument but just because you wish to play the victim does not mean that you are the victim. As for myself, I will attempt to educate any misinformed persons so that a change will take place.
NOTE: I hope that none of my points are missed but the caps are not yelling they are points that I did not want anyone to miss.
Anonymous try not to answer with the same old and tired question/answer of how many women are responsible for this because it is not applicable. Geeeesssssshhhhh!
September 28th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Bernie, Citations are important because they establish fact and opinion. But I can agree with your point and I will only hold myself responsible for citation. However, I'm going to pick apart the rest of your argument very nicely. ( And in the process I'm going to show you why your argument about selective service is totally void. )
With respect to gender bias and the establishment thereof. Many statements have been made in this series of comments. Some of these statements are facts and some are opinions presented as facts. For the purpose of this debate, I think it's important to sift through known facts. I understand the crux of the opinion-based arguments posed herein but I still don't think the facts support gender bias against men in this country. If anything, the facts set forth by the history of this country, its legislation, and social policies paint a very different picture of gender bias.
Fact: Men are responsible for most of the laws in this country. If there is gender bias, we overwhelmingly have men to thank.
Fact: Women were not permitted to participate in combat until recently. Who enacted the laws and policies defining combat as the exclusive domain of members of the male gender? Women or men?
Fact: Women did not receive the vote until the 1920's. Who enacted the laws prohibiting women from voting? Women or men? Were these rights granted to women as the result of a simple request or did women have to fight for the right to vote?
Furthermore, it is simply a statement of fact to say that you have made numerous logical errors and fallacies in your prior argument. Logic requires facts or at least some attempt to establish facts. Citations are the commonly accepted method of establishing the facts. Any argument that attempts to establish something as fact is automatically fallacious or void if such argument ignores the existing body of evidence. It is also a fallacy to use just a few facts; this is called BIAS. You cite selective service and child custody. Yes, these are are fine examples. You don't, however, cite the rest of the facts or the complete facts; your argument is therefore biased and therefore fallacious. This is just ad hoc debate. Which is fine, but you can't expect everyone to automatically believe that a few arguments which seem to support gender bias therefore constitute gender bias. That is a fallacy. Will you please open your eyes? I'm not even arguing for or against gender bias, I'm trying to sort of out the real facts, and the facts so far do not seem to support gender bias against men.
For Example:
Yes, it is common knowledge that women are not required to register for selective service. It's common knowledge that women receive preferential treatment with respect to child custody. I can agree these are generally true. But if you go no further then you never uncover the foundation of these statements; who passed the selective service legislation? Are the majority of judges men or women? It's pretty hard to argue gender bias against men when the majority of this country's laws were enacted by men and when the majority of judges in this country are men.
Again. I cannot respect the ad hoc arguments or arguments supported by a few relevant facts. If you want to establish gender bias, you really need to use a lot more facts before you can reach the conclusion that the United States has a culture in which gender bias against men is a significant component. But if you examine a lot of the facts or the entire body of evidence - you'll see that it just isn't true. It's not even partially true or a little bit true. You have not demonstrated any significant gender bias against men because a lot of what you cite as gender bias against men is actually discrimination against women. Gender bias does not result because only men are required to register for selective service. Women - because of laws and policies enacted by MEN - were for many years not allowed to participate in combat. Therefore, the selective service legislation only applies to men because women were not permitted to participate. That's NOT gender bias against men.
If selective service requirements represent gender bias, guess who it's biased against? ( Hint: Not men. )
Who passed the selective service legislation?
Why are women not required to participate in selective service?
Do women receive preferential treatment with respect to child custody?
If these are true, then establish the facts. Otherwise they're just theories.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Anonymous Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
It's pretty hard to argue gender bias against men when the majority of this country's laws were enacted by men and when the majority of judges in this country are men.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you kidding me? Are you trying to tell me that just because the judges and legislators were and are men the laws that I mentioned cannot be gender bias? That my dear is a logical error.
You keep harping on the long since past. I am talking about the now and the future. You can not get anywhere trying to change a past that already has happened. TODAY there are laws that are gender bias against men not women this is FACT.
You use other logical errors like stating that women could not vote until the 20’s the FACT that the law was changed because it was wrong and you now can vote and the bias no longer exists seems totally lost to you.
Let me point out (according to your facts) that women then have had nearly ninety (90) years (of voting) (and have always had power to organize and write to politicians) to change the horrific gender bias against men regarding all laws including the Selective Service, but there has been absolutely not pressure on politicians to change these laws for their boyfriends, husbands, brothers, sons, etc. Why?
What I am asking for is a change in the gender bias laws of TODAY, not the ones from yesterday that have already been changed but again the ones that are affecting people TODAY.
You seem to want to place blame (on men) [you bias and prejudice that solves nothing], for these problems another logical error, because the truth is the blame game gets you nowhere. I was not blaming anyone I just want the bias fixed and for that we have to look at the now and the future not the past, no good will come of that.
I still believe that it is important to have the courage to come out from behind a tree and stand up for the statements you have made. After all you are dragging my logic, statements, facts and character through the mud and I only have Anonymous to address. Typical.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Anonymous Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
If selective service requirements represent gender bias, guess who it's biased against? ( Hint: Not men. )
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WOW! That is just… well I donot know what to say about that other that that is just wrong.
Please give me a cited reference to this statement.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:42 pm
"How is anyone supposed to know how often a man has murdered his wife in self-defense yet the murder occured or was committed because of action taken by the victim? You would have to determine the actions and intent of a dead person."
"I'm sure that find my presentation of facts from credible sources is welcome regardless of whether or not I leave my name; the facts simply speak for themselves." Anonymous
She killed - We can't determine actions of a dead minister.
Is this fact or opinion?
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:27 am
Lane Says:
October 1st, 2007 at 10:42 pm
"How is anyone supposed to know how often a man has murdered his wife in self-defense yet the murder occured or was committed because of action taken by the victim? You would have to determine the actions and intent of a dead person."
"I'm sure that find my presentation of facts from credible sources is welcome regardless of whether or not I leave my name; the facts simply speak for themselves." Anonymous
She killed - We can't determine actions of a dead minister.
Is this fact or opinion?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bernie Says
Touché Lane
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Anonymous Says:
If these are true, then establish the facts. Otherwise they're just theories.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Anonymous: Come on buddy, you have only given facts in 1 or 2 of your arguments, and even then, you have skewed them in you favor, you have also shot yourself in the foot on a few occasions, such as.
You asked "how many men dont pay child support, compared to how many women dont" Well, in proportion, men pay their support 3 times more often than women do, according to a study done by the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, the same place that you are getting your facts from.
Also, your idea that the wage gap is a discrimination is just folly, the wage gap DOES exist, but its not as a result of any discrimination, but rather from multiple factors including the fact that men on average work 7 more hours a week than women, the FACT that women go on maternity leave, that men are more likely to seek promotions and raises, AND that more women will leave work to raise a family full time.
Fact is you refuse to look at ALL the facts, and instead simply present the ones that support YOUR argument.
Lastly, in your first post you accused the posters here of cowardice, even while choosing to remain anonymous! Hypocrisy at its finest.
Go home kid, learn a little bit about the real world, then come back and write something that has a shred of truth to it.