Lebanese Female Scholar/TV Host shuts down a Rude male Guest
- Thread starter Akаsh
- Start date
Brian Griffin
Member
Feminism has everything to do with Hitlers rise to power.He used Girls to brainwash German males to go for World war 2
You must be registered for see images
It was
You must be registered for see links
who created modern feminism we see today
You must be registered for see links
.2nd world war was between Germany and RussiaFascism vs Communism.If you check history you will find Joseph Stalin was more evil than Hitler and killed more people than Hitler.
America helped Stalin win against Hitler and Stalin helped america with how to use women to control society.
Feminism work by taxing men to get women money from government just like in Communist government tax rich give to poor.
women getting alimony payments turn them in to Gold diggers.They divorce men soon after they marry them.
Women paid less is just a myth.They get less money because they have to take leave when they get pregnant.
Feminism means
1) More rights to female (men get arrested and put jail over lies more now)
2) Women works cheap to corporations making corporations to fire most men
employed.Women only fight for equal pay with men not for rise in salary which is a win win for corporations.
3)Women has most good Jobs now(Doctors,Nurses,Office Jobs) and should pay birth control themselves with dignity than relay on men who they treat like dirt.Most men do Jobs like(Plumber,Electrician,Pizza man) give as a break.
MGTOW men,Gay people,Chronic Bachelors should not be forced to pay Tax for women because we don't want to have *** with females anyway,so its a conspiracy.
[video=youtube;P3g3g_0r01c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3g3g_0r01c[/video]
Poor Poor Men...:NO: Damn those Feminazis
Last edited:
You're a MGTOW...lol been to the forums, sad sad individuals. I would like to think they're smart but they're just a bunch of butthurt men who got rejected by women or incapable of jerking off without abusing women. Seen the cr*ap posted and said by MGTOW, their idealistic views to be rude as **** without a care.
That's not exactly manly, just as I said, a bunch of butthurt men.
It's easier to be a **** than a gentleman.
slayerdanger
Active member
Lol at you believing in the Wage gap myth in 2015. It's already been debunked, just do a google search about it. More than likely you have read why it's false, but still spew it as fact to make your feminazi cause seem more righteous. 70 cents to a man's dollar? Pffft, what a bunch of BS.
narutojunky
Member
This argument is point by point crazy.
crazy.
crazy.
Modern day feminism dates back to the enlightenment period in Europe and takes a more recognizable form with the suffrage movement of the early 20th century.
Women getting paid less is not a myth. I have worked for companies who pay women substantially less then their male counterparts.
Not all women get pregnant or choose to have children. Would you be willing to have your wages slashed because I decided to have kids?
Women are not working for cheaper to take over corporations. In fact only 4.5% of women are running fortune 500 companies, which seems like a pretty poor success rate for fifty years of "conspiracy".
Some women may divorce men for their money, then they're just jerks not representative of all women.
And if you want to talk about gold digging, men have controlled a vast majority of the wealth in the world for centuries that seems a bit more gold diggy then a few women divorcing their rich husbands for profit.
The number of women divorcing for profit is far less then the number of men profiteering off the wage disparity of women in the work place.
Most men do jobs like CEO, President, General, Admiral, Manager, Doctor, Surgeon, Professor, and yes NURSES as well. They are also welders, construction workers, engineers, artists, directors, actors and etc..
Most women do not hold jobs of CEO, Admiral, General, President. There is still a glass ceiling.
To say that women want to have birth control on their health insurance is not a conspiracy. A conspiracy is when a group of organized people get together, create a plan in secret and go about executing it in secret. To say that women conducted a conspiracy is like saying that 52% of the population got together and made a plan behind your back. Which is crazy.
Also, viagra is supplied on health insurance plans provided by the government, so what you're saying is that tax payers should subsidize boner pills but not healthy family planning.
Communism in particular Stalinism and Fascism in particular Nazism do not have anything to do with this discussion, they're two system of governance that no longer work or are used. Of course tyrants would utilize any part of the population to control any other part of the population.Do you not think that all of the men in control of both of those government were not responsible in some way for their actions as men? Does the standard you apply to women not apply to men? Or the women were more responsible for the decisions that they were not making in those countries? Ironically you fail to notice that Stalin wasn't a woman and neither was Hitler, funny.
The government, in fact, no governments have a plan to redistribute wealth to women. Some politicians may have an agenda to have women earn the same wages as men and to help them gain access to fields of work that have been denied to them based only on their gender not on the quality of work that they produce.
MGTOW is deluded. Men are not losing their place in the world, we just happen to be opening up the world to women as well. Which to me says that men who can accept women as equals are strong, confident and masculine.
And to present ideas of using women as some sort of *** object and only seeing them as a *** object seems like a pretty good way to turn a human into a *** toy.Which is f'd.
I just want to let you know that it's going to be o.k.
Women are not going to hurt you, take your stuff, your job, or your status.
They're just people who want a fair shake in life, just like you.
That's it.
So once again...
Here's the list of things feminists want.
1.equal rights
2.equal pay for equal work
3.family planning and birth control including abortion
That's it.
Seriously, they're not out to get you.
I'm married to one, and you know what, we don't have secret rallies or hidden pictures of Stalin or swastikas tattooed on the inside of our eyelids.
You know what we do.
We go to work, we raise our kid, we eat dinner and pay our rent.
Just like people do.
That's it.
So sleep a bit easier tonight, you can take the tinfoil hat off.
Last edited:
narutojunky
Member
1.In 2010 the median income of FTYR workers was $42,800 for men, compared to $34,700 for women. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.81, slightly higher than the 2008 ratio.[2] The female-to-male earnings ratio of 0.81 means that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 19% less than male FTYR workers.
2.The raw wage gap data shows that a woman would earn roughly 73.7% to 77% of what a man would earn over their lifetime. However, when controllable variables are accounted for, such as job position, total hours worked, number of children, and the frequency at which unpaid leave is taken, in addition to other factors, the U.S. Department of Labor found in 2008 that the gap can be brought down from 23% to between 4.8% and 7.1%.
3.Of 38 countries assessed in the International Labour Organization's Global Wage Report 2014/15, released Friday, Americans had the widest reported total gap, at 36 percent. That's a bigger paycheck bite than the Census Bureau's most recent estimate, which has women earning 78 cents for every dollar men earned. In comparison, the ILO report's front-runner, Sweden, has a pay gap of just 4 percent.
4.women fall further and further behind the eight ball over time. AAUW’s research report The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap found that women are paid about 90 percent of what men are paid until age 35, when women’s median earnings typically drop to 75–80% of men’s. So, not only does the pay gap make us feel like we’ve traveled back in time, but it’s also only going to get worse over time — and women cannot ever truly recover. Salaries dictate how much women will have for retirement and function as the starting point for all future raises.
5.Rearranging women into higher-paying occupations would erase just 15 percent of the pay gap for all workers and between 30 and 35 percent for college graduates, she found. The rest has to do with something happening inside the workplace.
6.Take doctors and surgeons. Women earn 71 percent of men’s wages — after controlling for age, race, hours and education. Women who are financial specialists make 66 percent of what men in the same occupation earn, and women who are lawyers and judges make 82 percent.
7.Other occupations have managed to narrow or even close the pay gap. As pharmacists, women make 91 percent of what men make and as computer programmers they make 90 percent. Male and female tax preparers, ad sales agents and human resources specialists make equivalent salaries.
8.“There is a belief, which is just not true, that women are just in bad occupations and if we just put them in better occupations, we would solve the gender gap problem.” Goldin has found that the pay gap is widest in some of the highest-paying fields. Female financial specialists make 66 percent of what their male counterparts make, female doctors earn 71 percent, and female lawyers and judges make 82 percent. That’s all controlling for age, race, hours and education.
Well, that's about five minutes of google searching and for some reason I couldn't find anything to bear out your logic.
So let's be clear about a couple of things.
1. I am not a feminazi, those don't exist. I am a feminist though.
2. The cause of equal rights for all people, so that all people in this world can live in peace is more righteous then the bile filled vitriol you spew. I do not need false information to appear more righteous. I am more righteous than you, because I have peace, logic and facts on my side where you have ideology, and fear.
I'm sorry that women scare you so much that you want to keep them from achieving everything that you might have, or that you think that there is simply not enough to share.
In theory if the gap has been closed what is the harm of making a law to ensure its permanent closure?
What is so scary about women being strong and working alongside us men?
What is so scary about women getting a fair shake in life?
What are you afraid of?
Last edited:
narutojunky
Member
I suppose there is another question to ask.
Does Naruto want to keep Sakura down?
Does Naruto have problems answering to Tsunade?
Why would Naruto use teamwork with women if they're so damn useless?
Why would Naruto marry a woman and love her for her strength and kindness?
Why would you even be a fan of Naruto, because that dude is clearly a feminist.
Does Naruto want to keep Sakura down?
Does Naruto have problems answering to Tsunade?
Why would Naruto use teamwork with women if they're so damn useless?
Why would Naruto marry a woman and love her for her strength and kindness?
Why would you even be a fan of Naruto, because that dude is clearly a feminist.
Brian Griffin
Member
I am not a fan of Naruto character,I am a Sasuke fan (before he became good),I watch the show to see Madara,Itachi,Deidara,Orochimaru,Kabuto
A lot of feminists have quit Feminism and are making you tube videos against them.They call themselves Humanitarians
You must be registered for see links
Not crazy at all.Lenin travelled to Europe and Britain to spread his ideas before he started revolution in Russia.He started worker unions all over Europe with help of the women who followed his marxist Feminism ideas.
Lenin used his Influence in Germany to attack Russia during world war 1 but failed.after 20 years Hitler and Stalin used Lenin's ideas to rise in power again and succeeded.I would suggest you to learn history first before you call my statement crazy.
I know the old feminism that existed in Britain but its not the Modern feminism that exists now.
Fascism and communism have the same roots of Lenin the man who created modern feminism.
Yes Men created feminism and still controls feminism today,but only a rich few.
It helps them to control society.Women are most of the voters and they gave birth to boys who later dies for the country and the rich men as well.Its just pure brainwashing.
Men did not control wealth in past but their entire family did which included their wives and children.I never heard all rich men old times were MGTOW's.
Most men do jobs like CEO, President, General, Admiral, Manager (the rest on the list is wrong most men don't do Doctor, Surgeon, NURSES many are imported from India and China to look after old people and HIV patients) but their are only be few CEO, President, General, Admiral, Manager unlike the jobs below.The corporations give few men these jobs to make women believe Men are in charge of this world and they can get married to a rich man in future.This belief blinds you from seeing the corporation don't hire men any where as much as women.Women are easy to brainwash and control by corporations and TV and Movies.Both in TV and Movies they place a smart white girl between 5 or more White Mangina men who act idiot to make her look smarter(take any show at all,not cartoons).
welders, construction workers belongs in same salary list of plumbers.Actors are true but they are given high payment because girls loves to watch good looking men for example Tom Cruise.Female Actors and male Actors who are loved by males get less money.Feminism give male actors more money and they tell messages like worship women in TV.Artists don't have salary they sell their arts for money,its usually low unless they are famous artist.
Actually a conspiracy only take a few people who controls all forms of medias like News paper,TV,Radio,Internet for example the illuminati.it donot need 52% of women but with media you can brain wash 100% women with false female rolemodels.I always see they exaggerate Female rape in TV and more time spend on them, but male rapes and children rapes are barely mentioned.Children get raped 4 times the Females.Females rape men by drugging them.Older women have more physical strenth when rapeing a boy who is 12 or 14 years old.Also media tells people Men and boys are lucky to get raped by women.
I did not fail to notice Stalin and Hitler are men but they used feminism like we see today.they are a minority of men.very evil people.
politicians have an agenda to say women need equal pay they and corporations work together here.Corporation will give 1 man few money higher and politician will help women to get equal pay because they are most voters.After they win election they help corporations,their family,their wallets instead of women.Its sad women falls for such eazy scams.
Men don't see women as *** objects only a few does.The TV is lying to people.
4)Feminism destroyed many many families.A lot of divorces now on silliest reasons.
Feminists terrify me with TV commercials every 15 min saying stop hitting women.Government wasting money in them when they could be helping poor.I despise women after watching such advertised lies.
[video=youtube;4-L6cF1uc4c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-L6cF1uc4c[/video]
0.1% evil men uses Feminism to control 99.9% men,in past and now.
MGTOW is the only truth.:scorps:
Last edited:
The problem with the word "feminist" is people like you and idiots who are "sexist" and claim to be feminist; the word in itself doesn't create the harm nor what it stands for. MGTOW is really just a group of men, sexist pigs, who decided to form such group because "Oh no, females will have rights, can't let that happen!"I am not a fan of Naruto character,I am a Sasuke fan (before he became good),I watch the show to see Madara,Itachi,Deidara,Orochimaru,Kabuto
A lot of feminists have quit Feminism and are making you tube videos against them.They call themselves Humanitarians
You must be registered for see links
Not crazy at all.Lenin travelled to Europe and Britain to spread his ideas before he started revolution in Russia.He started worker unions all over Europe with help of the women who followed his marxist Feminism ideas.
Lenin used his Influence in Germany to attack Russia during world war 1 but failed.after 20 years Hitler and Stalin used Lenin's ideas to rise in power again and succeeded.I would suggest you to learn history first before you call my statement crazy.
I know the old feminism that existed in Britain but its not the Modern feminism that exists now.
Fascism and communism have the same roots of Lenin the man who created modern feminism.
Yes Men created feminism and still controls feminism today,but only a rich few.
It helps them to control society.Women are most of the voters and they gave birth to boys who later dies for the country and the rich men as well.Its just pure brainwashing.
Men did not control wealth in past but their entire family did which included their wives and children.I never heard all rich men old times were MGTOW's.
Most men do jobs like CEO, President, General, Admiral, Manager (the rest on the list is wrong most men don't do Doctor, Surgeon, NURSES many are imported from India and China to look after old people and HIV patients) but their are only be few CEO, President, General, Admiral, Manager unlike the jobs below.The corporations give few men these jobs to make women believe Men are in charge of this world and they can get married to a rich man in future.This belief blinds you from seeing the corporation don't hire men any where as much as women.Women are easy to brainwash and control by corporations and TV and Movies.Both in TV and Movies they place a smart white girl between 5 or more White Mangina men who act idiot to make her look smarter(take any show at all,not cartoons).
welders, construction workers belongs in same salary list of plumbers.Actors are true but they are given high payment because girls loves to watch good looking men for example Tom Cruise.Female Actors and male Actors who are loved by males get less money.Feminism give male actors more money and they tell messages like worship women in TV.Artists don't have salary they sell their arts for money,its usually low unless they are famous artist.
Actually a conspiracy only take a few people who controls all forms of medias like News paper,TV,Radio,Internet for example the illuminati.it donot need 52% of women but with media you can brain wash 100% women with false female rolemodels.I always see they exaggerate Female rape in TV and more time spend on them, but male rapes and children rapes are barely mentioned.Children get raped 4 times the Females.Females rape men by drugging them.Older women have more physical strenth when rapeing a boy who is 12 or 14 years old.Also media tells people Men and boys are lucky to get raped by women.
I did not fail to notice Stalin and Hitler are men but they used feminism like we see today.they are a minority of men.very evil people.
politicians have an agenda to say women need equal pay they and corporations work together here.Corporation will give 1 man few money higher and politician will help women to get equal pay because they are most voters.After they win election they help corporations,their family,their wallets instead of women.Its sad women falls for such eazy scams.
Men don't see women as *** objects only a few does.The TV is lying to people.
4)Feminism destroyed many many families.A lot of divorces now on silliest reasons.
Feminists terrify me with TV commercials every 15 min saying stop hitting women.Government wasting money in them when they could be helping poor.I despise women after watching such advertised lies.
[video=youtube;4-L6cF1uc4c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-L6cF1uc4c[/video]
0.1% evil men uses Feminism to control 99.9% men,in past and now.
MGTOW is the only truth.:scorps:
If you can't be a successful in this world while competing against a woman for a job fairly, then you should just crawl in a whole and stay there.
It's ironic how you call feminism brainwashing, that's exactly what MGTOW is. The group is full of self-centered asssholes. At first, I thought I would find intellectual men who were truly just "going their own way" but all the female bashing was childish and stupid. I lost a few brain cells trying to comprehend the amount of stupidity that was going on.
Lovely story you got there. (sarcasm)
Brian Griffin
Member
Feminist kill men with marriage.
Modern feminism has turned in to a new religion used to ruin life (like terrorists use Islam)
Feminism=Terrorism
MGTOW help men survive.
You said MGTOW brain wash men,So feminism has never brainwashed women!
You must be registered for see links
When responses started flooding in to the Ottawa Citizen article about a new book by law professor, Elizabeth Sheehy, the professor had a choice; face the criticism bluntly or weasel out of her responsibility. Sheehy is a feminist so she chose the latter option.
A Voice For Men and Barbara Kay, writing for The National Post, both addressed the insanity of Sheehy’s recommendations in her book Battered Women on Trial but it was Kay’s article that moved the good professor to explain herself. And what a treat that was. The recommendations Sheehy put forth are quickly summarized as follows:
1. Battered women who kill their spouses should not be tried for murder.
2. They should not go to jail as they have already been “prisoners of war” in their own homes.
3. We should refine the definition of “excessive force” to allow women who kill sleeping men the ability to claim self defence.
4. Charging women, who have murdered men, with murder is “arbitrary”
Surprisingly, the Canadian public are not yet ready to tolerate a public academic and legal scholar advocating the murder of their sons, brothers, husbands, or male colleagues. Barbara Kay’s own rejection of Sheehy’s intellectually bankrupt ideology seems to have hit its mark, but actually gave the morally-depraved professor entirely too much credit.
Where Kay excused her with the comment that “[w]hen ideology takes up the brain space normally reserved for reason and the golden principle of equality under the law, the very best minds can go AWOL” Elizabeth Sheehy should not be coddled as one of “the very best minds”. Despite that misplaced generosity by Kay, she correctly points out that the existing “theory” called Battered Woman Syndrome, used to excuse murder and other violence by claimed abuse victims, is essentially a pile of shit.
In fact, “battered woman syndrome” (BWS) is merely a theory, with the “science” behind it too flimsy to support any change to the legal codes. (See David M. Paciocco’s 1999 book, Getting Away with Murder: the Canadian criminal justice system. Ironically, Paciocco was a colleague of Sheehy’s at Ottawa U’s law faculty.) Moreover, BWS has been rejected in other high courts, such as Australia’s, which used Canada as a (negative) precedent.
The University of Ottawa’s murder advocate replied “I wish I were the radical that columnist Barbara Kay claims I am in her column”.
That’s the first line of Sheehy’s “defence” of her own position, and she’s already lying. Barbara Kay does not claim Sheehy is a radical. The word “radical” appears nowhere in Kay’s criticism. Rather, the columnist correctly identifies Sheehy as follows:
She is an ideologue, whose gender-biased advocacy has been honoured by the Canadian Bar Association. Which begs the questions: How can a Bar Association throw centuries of hard-won legal protections out the window in the name of political correctness? And how can a faculty of law endorse such intellectual corruption in their classrooms?
Sheehy next positions herself as no more than simply a reporter of the news.
I am a rather boring law professor who knows history and the law. The Ottawa Citizen reported that I said women are justified in killing their abusers, even if they are asleep or passed out. The thing is, back in 1982, a Nova Scotia jury of Jane Stafford’s peers said just that, when they acquitted her of murder after a lengthy trial for the death of her husband Billy Stafford — of Life With Billy fame.
The thing is, Professor Sheehy, for a rather “boring” law professor, you absolutely have had a lot to do with shaping the current law that resulted in those acquittals.
I don’t find her boring at all. Sheehy has an impressive feminist biography that outlines her extensive involvement with Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) which has been, arguably, the most aggressive organization in lobbying for changes to the law. “As intervenors at the Supreme Court of Canada, LEAF has argued that…women who murder their husbands who battered them may have a defence of battered women’s syndrome.”
Where Sheehy tells us she’s just studying legal history, absolving herself of responsibility for what the courts have already decided, it is a contemptuous farce. LEAF credits Sheehy with being “involved in many law reform activities around equality rights and social justice issues and was a co-counsel for LEAF in its intervention in R v JA (“advance consent” to sexual assault) (2011 SCC 28).”
The professor would have us believe that it’s not her who thinks battered women should get away with murder, it is merely a precedent set by a jury of our peers and a Canadian Supreme Court judge. She doesn’t think it’s important that she was key in instituting the laws that caused them to reach those decisions. Let us make this clear: Sheehy claiming that the acquittal of women who have murdered isn’t her fault is like Charles Manson claiming he didn’t kill anyone because he, himself, never held the knife.
How stupid does she think we are?
Sheehy backpedals with “I would never advocate homicide and I don’t in my book. Instead, I ask readers to judge for themselves.” She pretends that her book isn’t advocating a pro-murder position at all. All of Sheehy’s hard work devoted to changing the legal system, for which she has won an award, is shoved in the closet when people start asking questions. “Who, me? I’m just a boring nobody,” says the serial killer. In fact, isn’t that what the neighbours always say after the fact? “He looked like an average guy.”
Now, rather than making a moral argument for pre-emptive murder, Sheehy is attempting to downplay her own published position as if it’s merely a legalistic weather report.
We are being asked to ignore what The Ottawa Citizen reported:
Would it not be just, Sheehy asks, “to shift the risk of death to those men whose aggressions have created such dehumanizing fear in their female partners?”
Battered women can justly kill abusive partners “because a woman in that circumstance has already lived in captivity,” she said. “She’s already lived in a form of imprisonment and enslavement in a relationship like that.”
Sheehy was pleasantly surprised by the higher-than-expected number who were either acquitted or had charges dropped. But she said it was “disappointing and worrisome” to see how many women had pleaded guilty.
Mandatory minimums are a “huge, huge barrier” to justice for battered women who kill their abusers, she said.
But forget what you just read. Elizabeth Sheehy is in control of history and she wishes to delete her own words from the public record. She’s studied history and, as a feminist, is well aware that it can be rewritten. Let’s call this the Herstory of Elizabeth Sheehy, in which she is completely innocent of advancing any personal agenda or exercising her position to install a ***** pass for murder into the legal system.
So how long has Sheehy been corroding equality in the law? From a downloadable doc about a seminar she gave:
Elizabeth Sheehy has worked in the area of legal defences for battered women who kill for 20 years; she too worked on the SDR and has participated in research and publications with respect to reform of the law of self-defence. For example, her publications include:
* Thrice Punished: Battered Women, Criminal Law and Disinheritance (2004) 8 Southern Cross University Law Review 96. With Barbara Hamilton.
* Battered Women and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing (2001) 39 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 529.
* Review of the Self-Defence Review (2000) 12 Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 197.
* The Response of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies to: Reforming Criminal Code Defences. Provocation, Self-Defence and Defence of Property. (Ottawa: Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, 2000).
* Stop Excusing Violence Against Women! NAWL=s Position Paper on the Defence of Provocation. With Andrée Côté and Diana Majury. (Ottawa: National Association of Women and the Law, 2000).
* What Would a Women’s Law of Self-Defence Look Like? (Ottawa: Status of Women Canada, 1995).
* Developments in Canadian Law after R. v. Lavallee in Women, Male Violence and the Law, Julie Stubbs, ed. (Sydney: Institute of Criminology, 1994) 174.
* Defending Battered Women on Trial: The Battered Woman Syndrome and Its Limitations (1992) 16:6 Criminal Law Review 387. With Julie Stubbs and Julia Tolmie.
And what was the aim of her seminar?
“This course is aimed at both preparing future lawyers –that is, you!— to defend battered women caught up in the criminal justice system and at developing a package of materials to aid defence lawyers charged with this important task.”
How’s the weather up there, Elizabeth?
In her lame attempt to defend her own arguments, this law professor has shimmied from a moral argument to an economic one. She explains her real concern is not helping women legalize murder but to pose an intriguing question of resources: “Is it an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer dollars to prosecute battered women [who murder] at full tilt, in light of the compassionate response of Canadian judges and jurors who hear all the evidence?”
See? Its not about whether killing your spouse is justified, or morally defensible, it’s just cheaper if we don’t prosecute women who kill. Perhaps the University of Ottawa will grant Sheehy an honorary degree so she can teach economics next semester.
In regards to whether or not battered women should be given the opportunity to murder with impunity, we should look closely at the honesty of their advocates. As it stands, Elizabeth Sheehy can not even justify herself
A Voice For Men and Barbara Kay, writing for The National Post, both addressed the insanity of Sheehy’s recommendations in her book Battered Women on Trial but it was Kay’s article that moved the good professor to explain herself. And what a treat that was. The recommendations Sheehy put forth are quickly summarized as follows:
1. Battered women who kill their spouses should not be tried for murder.
2. They should not go to jail as they have already been “prisoners of war” in their own homes.
3. We should refine the definition of “excessive force” to allow women who kill sleeping men the ability to claim self defence.
4. Charging women, who have murdered men, with murder is “arbitrary”
Surprisingly, the Canadian public are not yet ready to tolerate a public academic and legal scholar advocating the murder of their sons, brothers, husbands, or male colleagues. Barbara Kay’s own rejection of Sheehy’s intellectually bankrupt ideology seems to have hit its mark, but actually gave the morally-depraved professor entirely too much credit.
Where Kay excused her with the comment that “[w]hen ideology takes up the brain space normally reserved for reason and the golden principle of equality under the law, the very best minds can go AWOL” Elizabeth Sheehy should not be coddled as one of “the very best minds”. Despite that misplaced generosity by Kay, she correctly points out that the existing “theory” called Battered Woman Syndrome, used to excuse murder and other violence by claimed abuse victims, is essentially a pile of shit.
In fact, “battered woman syndrome” (BWS) is merely a theory, with the “science” behind it too flimsy to support any change to the legal codes. (See David M. Paciocco’s 1999 book, Getting Away with Murder: the Canadian criminal justice system. Ironically, Paciocco was a colleague of Sheehy’s at Ottawa U’s law faculty.) Moreover, BWS has been rejected in other high courts, such as Australia’s, which used Canada as a (negative) precedent.
The University of Ottawa’s murder advocate replied “I wish I were the radical that columnist Barbara Kay claims I am in her column”.
That’s the first line of Sheehy’s “defence” of her own position, and she’s already lying. Barbara Kay does not claim Sheehy is a radical. The word “radical” appears nowhere in Kay’s criticism. Rather, the columnist correctly identifies Sheehy as follows:
She is an ideologue, whose gender-biased advocacy has been honoured by the Canadian Bar Association. Which begs the questions: How can a Bar Association throw centuries of hard-won legal protections out the window in the name of political correctness? And how can a faculty of law endorse such intellectual corruption in their classrooms?
Sheehy next positions herself as no more than simply a reporter of the news.
I am a rather boring law professor who knows history and the law. The Ottawa Citizen reported that I said women are justified in killing their abusers, even if they are asleep or passed out. The thing is, back in 1982, a Nova Scotia jury of Jane Stafford’s peers said just that, when they acquitted her of murder after a lengthy trial for the death of her husband Billy Stafford — of Life With Billy fame.
The thing is, Professor Sheehy, for a rather “boring” law professor, you absolutely have had a lot to do with shaping the current law that resulted in those acquittals.
I don’t find her boring at all. Sheehy has an impressive feminist biography that outlines her extensive involvement with Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) which has been, arguably, the most aggressive organization in lobbying for changes to the law. “As intervenors at the Supreme Court of Canada, LEAF has argued that…women who murder their husbands who battered them may have a defence of battered women’s syndrome.”
Where Sheehy tells us she’s just studying legal history, absolving herself of responsibility for what the courts have already decided, it is a contemptuous farce. LEAF credits Sheehy with being “involved in many law reform activities around equality rights and social justice issues and was a co-counsel for LEAF in its intervention in R v JA (“advance consent” to sexual assault) (2011 SCC 28).”
The professor would have us believe that it’s not her who thinks battered women should get away with murder, it is merely a precedent set by a jury of our peers and a Canadian Supreme Court judge. She doesn’t think it’s important that she was key in instituting the laws that caused them to reach those decisions. Let us make this clear: Sheehy claiming that the acquittal of women who have murdered isn’t her fault is like Charles Manson claiming he didn’t kill anyone because he, himself, never held the knife.
How stupid does she think we are?
Sheehy backpedals with “I would never advocate homicide and I don’t in my book. Instead, I ask readers to judge for themselves.” She pretends that her book isn’t advocating a pro-murder position at all. All of Sheehy’s hard work devoted to changing the legal system, for which she has won an award, is shoved in the closet when people start asking questions. “Who, me? I’m just a boring nobody,” says the serial killer. In fact, isn’t that what the neighbours always say after the fact? “He looked like an average guy.”
Now, rather than making a moral argument for pre-emptive murder, Sheehy is attempting to downplay her own published position as if it’s merely a legalistic weather report.
We are being asked to ignore what The Ottawa Citizen reported:
Would it not be just, Sheehy asks, “to shift the risk of death to those men whose aggressions have created such dehumanizing fear in their female partners?”
Battered women can justly kill abusive partners “because a woman in that circumstance has already lived in captivity,” she said. “She’s already lived in a form of imprisonment and enslavement in a relationship like that.”
Sheehy was pleasantly surprised by the higher-than-expected number who were either acquitted or had charges dropped. But she said it was “disappointing and worrisome” to see how many women had pleaded guilty.
Mandatory minimums are a “huge, huge barrier” to justice for battered women who kill their abusers, she said.
But forget what you just read. Elizabeth Sheehy is in control of history and she wishes to delete her own words from the public record. She’s studied history and, as a feminist, is well aware that it can be rewritten. Let’s call this the Herstory of Elizabeth Sheehy, in which she is completely innocent of advancing any personal agenda or exercising her position to install a ***** pass for murder into the legal system.
So how long has Sheehy been corroding equality in the law? From a downloadable doc about a seminar she gave:
Elizabeth Sheehy has worked in the area of legal defences for battered women who kill for 20 years; she too worked on the SDR and has participated in research and publications with respect to reform of the law of self-defence. For example, her publications include:
* Thrice Punished: Battered Women, Criminal Law and Disinheritance (2004) 8 Southern Cross University Law Review 96. With Barbara Hamilton.
* Battered Women and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing (2001) 39 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 529.
* Review of the Self-Defence Review (2000) 12 Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 197.
* The Response of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies to: Reforming Criminal Code Defences. Provocation, Self-Defence and Defence of Property. (Ottawa: Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, 2000).
* Stop Excusing Violence Against Women! NAWL=s Position Paper on the Defence of Provocation. With Andrée Côté and Diana Majury. (Ottawa: National Association of Women and the Law, 2000).
* What Would a Women’s Law of Self-Defence Look Like? (Ottawa: Status of Women Canada, 1995).
* Developments in Canadian Law after R. v. Lavallee in Women, Male Violence and the Law, Julie Stubbs, ed. (Sydney: Institute of Criminology, 1994) 174.
* Defending Battered Women on Trial: The Battered Woman Syndrome and Its Limitations (1992) 16:6 Criminal Law Review 387. With Julie Stubbs and Julia Tolmie.
And what was the aim of her seminar?
“This course is aimed at both preparing future lawyers –that is, you!— to defend battered women caught up in the criminal justice system and at developing a package of materials to aid defence lawyers charged with this important task.”
How’s the weather up there, Elizabeth?
In her lame attempt to defend her own arguments, this law professor has shimmied from a moral argument to an economic one. She explains her real concern is not helping women legalize murder but to pose an intriguing question of resources: “Is it an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer dollars to prosecute battered women [who murder] at full tilt, in light of the compassionate response of Canadian judges and jurors who hear all the evidence?”
See? Its not about whether killing your spouse is justified, or morally defensible, it’s just cheaper if we don’t prosecute women who kill. Perhaps the University of Ottawa will grant Sheehy an honorary degree so she can teach economics next semester.
In regards to whether or not battered women should be given the opportunity to murder with impunity, we should look closely at the honesty of their advocates. As it stands, Elizabeth Sheehy can not even justify herself
Feminist kill men with marriage.
Modern feminism has turned in to a new religion used to ruin life (like terrorists use Islam)
Feminism=Terrorism
MGTOW help men survive.
You said MGTOW brain wash men,So feminism has never brainwashed women!
You must be registered for see links
Oh I've heard that one and all the rest in your fairyland of sausages.
What I've learned through the years is that both sexes are the same; capable of being asses and kind people. I honestly will never understand the fight between "my gender is superior" nor why there's ever a need for minorities to be treated indifferent. I put minorities in italic because the female "race" isn't such but it was made as such by sexist individuals. Also race is in italic because there's no such thing as a female race.
You want to stereotype every feminist to be that way, while you're completely wrong. I have a the pleasure of being good friends with 3 of them and my girlfriend is a feminist; the type that doesn't bullshit with "women >men"
As I said, the term feminist has been corrupted and not everyone who claims to be one even comprehends what it stands for. If you're going to bring out the horrible deeds done by lunatics, you should bring out everything from both sides equally.
I can find similar articles about men who raped/killed women from personal hatred towards them, but does that imply we men should be categorize as that individuals, absolutely not.
The problem is you wanting to find the crimes committed by those who claimed to be feminist; while ignoring that it can be argued that far worse crimes were done to women.
We live in the future, we learn from the past but if the MGTOW wants to walk into the future backwards they will be on their own and at the ends, they'll just be seen as self-centered imbeciles.
Last edited:
Brian Griffin
Member
Yes women get raped,but not more than males(males also get raped by other males).I don't see any advertisement that says Girls stop rapeing men or men stop rapeing men,its always men stop rapeing men,it feels they believe all men are rapists.
You did not say feminists are corrupt,i did
You can find rape stories on women by a press of google,but can you show me a MGTOW male raping girl.Stop taxing MGTOW'S to protect girls.
Good for you to hang around feminists who respects man,i have never met one in my entire life.
Funky Tiger
Active member
Awards
every time people on this forum decide to debate either religion or feminism, a few of members' brain cells die. but you guys ****ing combine the two now? goddammit
slayerdanger
Active member
I find it funny how your avatar is some feminazi looking hipster, you fit the feminazi stereotype perfectly, spewing bias towards women and calling other people self-centered? Stfu, also women have their rights, so you can stfu about that too. You're the sexist pig.