Saturday, June 18, 2005

Michael Jackson Verdict Engineered by Women's Inhumanity to Other Women

"Jurors Describe “Stressful” Deliberations
They Criticize Demeanor, Testimony of Accuser's Mother

By TIM MOLLOY, AP

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (June 14)

“Jurors said they were put off by the accuser's mother, who tended to stare at them and snapped her fingers at them during her testimony.

Cook said the mother had perfect hair and makeup when she appeared in a video made by Jackson's associates to rebut the damaging BBC documentary in which Jackson said he slept in a bed with young boys. But when the woman took the witness stand, Cook said, she appeared disheveled, with no makeup and unkempt hair.

''When she came into court, she looked like Mother Teresa after a bad rain,'' she said Tuesday on ''Good Morning America.'' ''She was trying to be pitiful to us, I felt.''



So once again it came down to women’s inhumanity to other woman and a not-guilty verdict based upon the disheveled appearance of the mother of the victim. God forbid that she should be unnerved at the situation and forget to visit her hairdresser or not have her makeup and manicure perfect before entering the jury’s presence. How dare she show up looking unkempt?

Well now at least now America can sleep comfortably in their beds knowing that a probably child molester did NOT beat the case because of any serious problems with our judicial system; but due to the fact that WOMEN were so busy judging and clawing apart one of our own that we missed the whole point of what we were supposed to be doing in the jury room…not picking apart one woman’s appearance for those critical fashion faux pas, but examining the evidence which seemed to pretty clearly demonstrate that the defendant had a pattern of victimizing young boys…and was finally, finally being prosecuted for it by Santa Barbara’s County District Attorney Tom Sneddon, which, btw, I just want to add my personal thank you to this man for taking a chance and trying this case against a wealthy and famous defendant.

Sneddon put up one hell of a case there and under normal circumstances I think he would have gotten a guilty verdict.

Thanks anyway for trying.

Just to quickly review Sneddon’s case (which as I mentioned above was excellent) as he even had a former child victim, now a man, actually testify for the prosecution.

The former victim laid out a very convincing case for what happened to him over ten years ago and it followed, pretty much, the same story that the current victim had laid out. Some said the two victims even LOOKED alike, same skin, hair and eye coloration, certain mannerisms, etc. Numerous other witnesses testified, who worked at the ranch or in other positions where they came in touch with the defendant while he was out and about unsupervised with the children, including a former police detective who reported his suspicions earlier; yet it appears that this jury composed of 8 women and 4 men chose to believe that EVERYBODY but the defendant lied.

Odd…

Additionally it never seemed to occur to the jury that the Neverland Ranch itself was probably created with treats, amusement park rides, and animals to specifically lure child victims into it, similar to a certain Gingerbread House we are all familiar with. Can everybody say Hansel and Gretel, Gingerbread House, witch, children in trouble and connect the damn dots here???

Obviously not…

Of course, this jury would have considered nothing less then a videotape of the actual encounter as being clear and convincing evidence and even that MIGHT have been disregarded if a woman without a perfect manicure was shown to have been involved with the production of it.

Sigh…

It appears that Phyllis Chesler in her groundbreaking book “Women’s Inhumanity to Other Women” was not off the mark when she addressed these issues back in 2002. Yet I’m not sure that enough women read her book or seriously thought about the implications for all of us in Chesler’s thesis. I still see a level of viciousness being exhibited by women against other women, particularly against vulnerable mothers…not just in this recent acquittal because other women jurors didn’t like the victim’s mother; but we only have to look at the Bridget Marks situation here in New York and what happened there to know what I’m talking about.

I mean those two girls and their mother were ONLY saved from having their lives destroyed by MEN at the appellate level that overturned the original ruling. Of course they probably only changed their ruling due to the public outrage expressed over the original court decision, but even MOST of that public outrage was generated by other men in newspaper columns and on TV ie., on the Bill O’Reilly Show and Dr. Phil’s…

Sadly, I didn’t see any women speaking out during that firestorm…

Not to mention that on a daily basis I’m emailed or confronted with stories regarding mothers being subject to vicious and unprincipled family court rulings, many handed out by female Judges or instigated by spiteful female Evaluators, GALs, etc. These women seem to have no problem whatsoever with the wanton destruction of the lives of the women and children who come into their sphere looking for justice. Instead of finding it, these mothers are set upon and subject to what can best be described as psychological and emotional abuse at the hands of other women who appear to have no other agenda, but hatred of women. I mean I sometimes watch a TV show, the name I won’t mention, where a female Judge presides over a court that is so vicious to women coming in front of her (particularly if they are mothers) that’s it is terrifying…and the really really scary thing is that this Judge practiced in New York family court for YEARS…I mean I shudder to think of what the mothers went through who were forced in front of this woman…

Anyway, let’s take a look at an interview here with Phyllis Chesler discussing some of the women-on-women cruelty issues she discussed in her book "Women's Inhumanity to Other Women":

"The cruelty you document ranges from mothers-in-law burning their daughters-in-law because of dowry disagreements to women stealing each other's boyfriends. Can it all really be lumped together?

It helps to understand that in these non-Western countries where you have mothers-in-law dousing daughters-in-law with kerosene for their dowries and we say ''how shocking,'' we have a version here. You have here mothers who think their daughters have to be thin, their daughters have to be pretty and their daughters need to have plastic surgery and their daughters have to focus mainly on the outward appearance and not on inner strength or inner self. It's not genital mutilation but it's ultimately a concern with outward appearance for the sake of marriageability.


Although you note that women don't have as much power as men, you view them as equally culpable for many of society's ills.

I'm thinking back to the civil rights era and the faces of white mothers who did not want little black children to integrate schools. What should we say about those women who joined the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi party? You have a lot of women groaning under the yoke of oppression. Nevertheless, there are women who warm the beds and are the partners of men who create orphans. Women are best at collaborating with men who run the world because then we can buy pretty trinkets and have safe homes and nests for ourselves.


You say that women are the ones who police and monitor one another and silence dissent.

Women are silenced not because men beat up on us but because we don't want to be shunned by our little cliques. That applies to all age groups. That's one of the reasons that women are so conformist and so indirect: we end up sabotaging her rather than risking the loss of her intimate companionship. Women stealing each other's lovers and spouses and jobs is pandemic.”


What can I say about Phyllis Chesler…

Clearly the woman is a genius…

Buy her book, read it, study it, live it…Okay…

Anyway, I think that the reason behind the not guilty verdict of Michael Jackson needs to be closely examined by us. Personally I think Jackson is guilty but I don’t ultimately care if he winds up in prison or in a mental hospital. If his family has any concern for him, they’ll take the steps to get him some help NOW before he gets in trouble again, because maybe next time he won’t be lucky enough to have mostly women hating other women on his jury.

But no matter what happens to him, WE, women, need to examine why this happened for our own sakes. We need to make ourselves aware of our capacity for savaging other women, to make other women aware of it when they are doing it and most of all to control our own behavior as it’s happening…

Women should not have to worry when they walk into a courtroom (or other situations) and see women there, that they are going to be mistreated because some of us cannot control the auto remote biological trigger that tells us to immediately savage other female competitors in our vicinity. We’re been out of the jungle for a while now and can relax, there is plenty of resources for ALL…so get over that retro sh*t already…

Peace!!!

33 comments:

Pseudo-Adrienne said...

"Women's Inhumanity to Other Women"

Why not put up "Girls' Behavior in Junior High and High School"? (Hi, by the way) I think that's where we're conditioned to be misogynist against ourselves. We were (and still are) encouraged by all the b.s. from pop-culture to be "catty", petty, be in competition with one another over whose the most popular, beautiful, who has the "coolest" clothes, biggest boobs, and the hottest boyfriend, etc. It's no surprise that when we become adults, some of us still behave that way. But since their adults now, they can do far more damage with their internalized misogyny. Whether it's a female juror completely dismissing a witness all because her hair "looked ugly," or refusing to vote for a candidate all because her shoes didn't match her suit--yep, some of us still act like it's sophomore year in High School. It's unfortunate that sometimes I hear grown women--several years my senior--gossiping and ridiculing other women for "wearing that" or "their hair looks that way," and other such crap. If we keep bickering and gossiping amongst ourselves over superficial crap we'll remain factured and unable to be taken seriously because we're too busy slaming each other over hair styles. Yes, we really can be our own worst enemies.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NYMOM said...

"Let's review this innocent (is there any other kind?) mother:"

Let's NOT because she was NOT the one on trial...

Okay...

If they felt she was negligent and should NOT have left her son with the defendant, THEN they could have charged her with endangerment AFTER the TRIAL...

Okay...

You don't let someone guilty go free because you don't like one of the victim's mothers...

Oh...I forgot in your world you do things like that...if you don't like someone it's okay to do whatever to them...and not be held responsible...

NYMOM said...

Hi pseudo-adrienne...

I've been by your blog a few times, just never posted (for obvious reasons)...

LOL...

Anyway, I would have LOVED to be able to attribute this to Junior/High School behavior; unfortunately, women NEVER appear to grow out of this. It carries over into their adult lives and here's some of the results...

I mean how can we have women in professional and trust worthy positions if they are going to act like this...I can see now where a LOT of prosecutors (and even defense attorney) might NOT want too many woman on their juries, and certain not to have them in the majority, acting like loose canons and deciding a case based upon this retro bs...

AND it's not JUST jurors where this problem is happening BTW...but with Judgeships and other professional positions...I can't tell you how many mothers have told me horror stories of the viciousness and cruelty underlying their treatment at the hands of other women in family court situations...

I mean how many times can you just overlook it and say it's a coincidence...

NYMOM said...

Anonymous:

I told you before about inappropriate language and that includes inappropriate ACRONYMS as well...

Sorry...I missed it this morning when I first responded to you but I caught it now and you're been erased...

I left in my response which includes PART of your comment but if you return and use any words or acronyms I consider inappropriate AGAIN, they'll be erased as well...

I know you're allowed to do that on the other sites you frequent, but you're not doing it here...

Clearly you like to use filthy language and you hate mothers, so you shouldn't even bother coming here...you'll only be aggravating yourself and me having to analyze everything you say before probably having to erase it...

So have a nice life or not, frankly, I could care less...but stay off this blog...

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NYMOM said...

Sorry jerk...

You obviously have too much time on your hands...why don't you spend it taking care of those children, instead of bothering others on the internet...

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NYMOM said...

Clearly this post bothers you for some odd reason even MORE then anything else I've ever put up...

Perhaps it hits a nerve....

A little too close to the truth maybe????

I examine my reasons if I were you for WHY this particular article has caused you to act like such a fool over the last few days...

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NYMOM said...

It's one of my biggest failings...always trying to give the benefit of the doubt to people...probably due to spending too much time around nuns...

However, I won't continue making that mistake with YOU in the future...you'll just be erased w/o comment going forward...

crella said...

Was that all it really was? They didn't like the mother? It wasn't that she has sued a few other people before...it wasn't that her testimony was the opposite of previous comments?

Micheal Jackson's former staff members floor me...testifying that they 'saw him fellating a small boy'etc. They saw this and just...walked away and kept it to themselves for years? That would not be my initial reaction were I to see a man with a small boy's penis in his mouth 'Oh gee look what Micheal's doing...well gotta go weed...'The way they tell what they saw through the cracks of doors etc makes you wonder why, oh why, didn't they tell anyone then, and save other potential victims? Why now? I am always suspicious of celebrity help etc who come out with gossip years after the fact. While no fan of Micheal Jackson's, I had no confidence in the witness testimony, and not only that of the mother.I read the trial transcript and was not swayed.

This comment was interesting-

"We were (and still are) encouraged by all the b.s. from pop-culture to be "catty", petty, be in competition with one another over whose the most popular, beautiful, who has the "coolest" clothes, biggest boobs, and the hottest boyfriend, etc. It's no surprise that when we become adults, some of us still behave that way."

You can be encouraged to act a certain way 'by pop culture'but all you have to do is say 'No'...

There are societal standards for appearance , like it or not. You won't get a job if you show up at the interview unkempt and disorganized...this witness surprised everyone with her demeanor, actions as well attitude.

I still don't think it is the only reason she lost the case.

Anonymous said...

This has got to be the worst blog ever. Get a job.

NYMOM said...

"Micheal Jackson's former staff members floor me...testifying that they 'saw him fellating a small boy'etc. They saw this and just...walked away and kept it to themselves for years? That would not be my initial reaction were I to see a man with a small boy's penis in his mouth 'Oh gee look what Micheal's doing...well gotta go weed..."


Well guess what...there are going to be a LOT MORE PEOPLE who just walk away now NOT wanting to get involved in a situation which can negatively impact their livlihood (since who is going to hire them to work in their home NOW that they testified against a former employer) and for what...since the perp walked away ANYWAY...

So you think even a former police officer lied? He worked on security for Jackson and claimed he saw him acting in a suspicious manner around certain children. You also think the stewardess on the plane lied who testified she saw Jackson fill a coke can with wine and saw the current victim drinking it...You think even a former victim lied, who came back to testify...Many said he even look like the lastest victim, same hair, skin coloring, even some of the same mannerisms...

Those were just three, but there were others...but you believe ALL OF THEM LIED and only Jackson was telling the truth...that's what you believe.

Well I don't...

AND the only thing I could hear those jurors saying on every interview after the fact was "Well what kind of mother would leave her kids to sleep overnight with Michael Jackson"...the bottom line is that those are precisely the kinds of mothers that people like Jackson LOOK for when they're looking for victims and it was NO REASON to find Jackson not guilty...If they felt the mother was negligent, that could have been addressed later with child endangerment charges but you don't let one criminal go because you don't like another one...

This is the same sort of thing that happens with rape cases by the way if there are too many women on the jury...where it will end is with DAs and even defense lawyers (as nobody wants a bunch of loose canons on their jury) NOT wanting many women on juries anymore...so that will be another door quietly closed in our faces because too many of us don't act responsibly when put in positions of power...

Sad, but true...

NYMOM said...

"This has got to be the worst blog ever. Get a job."

You'll be happy to hear that I already have a job but I'm on vacation for the next few weeks so I'll have a LOT of time to put up some more interesting articles...

Upcoming will be an article about the PA decision Colonna vs. Colonna and how New York is now looking to adopt the standards set there...

crella said...

I'm sorry but the former policeman said he saw Micheal Jackson fellate a small boy and then he said he went back to his duties.

There HAS to be a time in one's life when you get SO righteously angry at something that you risk yourself to right it, and this was such a time. What job is worth watching a child's life ruined? What kept him from getting sick in disgust, bursting into the room , and putting an end to it? I conclude that either the incident in question most likely did not happen...to go 'Hmmm' and return to whatever you are doing at the time is not a normal reaction.

crella said...

By the way, my point was not that all the witnesses lied. Our system of justice relies on the principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt', a worthy goal. I think that in this case, this jury could not be convinced. I do not think it was simply because the mother was unkempt, and the jurors didn't like her.

"This is the same sort of thing that happens with rape cases by the way if there are too many women on the jury."

I find that difficult to believe in a era when men are prosecuted for not stopping in the middle of intercourse if their date says "I have to go home now'.

crella said...

'but we only have to look at the Bridget Marks situation here in New York and what happened there to know what I’m talking about.'

A mother who coached her children to say that they'd been molested, and even took them to an emergency room for vaginal exams at three or four years old to try and get dirt on her lover. A woman involved in an ongoing affair with a married man that resulted in the twins being born, even as she carried on another relationship on the side , which continues today.

Nope, I wouldn't speak up on her behalf either just because she's a woman...women do not always make good mothers, it's far from automatic.

NYMOM said...

"I'm sorry but the former policeman said he saw Micheal Jackson fellate a small boy and then he said he went back to his duties.

I conclude that either the incident in question most likely did not happen...to go 'Hmmm' and return to whatever you are doing at the time is not a normal reaction."


OR that we're dealing with ordinary people, not heroes, who NEED their jobs...it's that simple...it would be nice if everyone in the world could be as courageous as YOU appear to be and ready to just throw away a good-paying job they might NEED in order to report a millionaire who they observed doing wrong...that would be nice...

Unfortunately not too realistic...

OR maybe he had been a police officer for a long time and knew what the result would be and didn't feel like losing a job and/or the possibility of getting another in the same field if he spoke up...particularly since he probably figured Jackson would walk anyway...

AND guess what, it looks like he was right...

NYMOM said...

"I find that difficult to believe in a era when men are prosecuted for not stopping in the middle of intercourse if their date says "I have to go home now'."

Oh please...how many times is a case like that prosecuted...that is propoganda put out by MEN in order to negate the more likely scenarios of rape that their fellows commit everyday...

I mean it's only in the last 15 years or so that getting a girl drunk and having a couple of guys pile on her and have sex was even DEFINED as rape...that's just a recent development in the legal arena...

Years ago when this happened, it was just a girl's tough luck that she went out and had a few too many drinks with the wrong men, if she was smart she just shut up about it and moved someplace where nobody knew her and started her life again...sadder but wiser...

AND it's very common knowledge that rape cases with too many women on the jury usually result in a not guilty verdict...

As it appear there are far more female-enablers out there always ready to give the benefit of the doubt to a man versus a woman...as Phyllis Chesler pointed out too many of us "warm the beds and are the partners of men who create orphans. Women are best at collaborating with men who run the world because then we can buy pretty trinkets and have safe homes and nests for ourselves".

It appears to be a hard habit for us to break, isn't it???

NYMOM said...

"A mother who coached her children to say that they'd been molested, and even took them to an emergency room for vaginal exams at three or four years old to try and get dirt on her lover."

That's ALL you got out of that whole episode...that she tried to "get dirt on her lover"...

No realization of the threat that that ruling favoring an asshole like John Alysworth posed to EVERY OTHER NEVER MARRIED MOTHER IN NEW YORK if it was allowed to stand... that a status quo custodial arrangement that existed with his implicit approval for THREE YEARS could then be tossed out the window at his wimp and a custody trial ensue...for NO OTHER REASON then that Alysworth felt like changing the arrangement...This coming from a man who never even bothered to have his name added to the twins' birth certificates...

If you can't understand why that being allowed to happen posed a threat to EVERY OTHER NEVER MARRIED MOTHER IN NEW YORK well then you're not very bright are you????

Many of these situations happen to people who I would not identify as my friends or normally affiliate myself with, YET the rulings that ensue from their foolish behavior has the ability to impact ALL OF THE REST OF US...thus I support them to that extent...

AND I also happen to believe that in spite of everything Bridget Marks will be a better advocate for her children then their father's wife...

Anonymous said...

"If you can't understand why that being allowed to happen posed a threat to EVERY OTHER NEVER MARRIED MOTHER IN NEW YORK well then you're not very bright are you????"

Then perhaps those other never married mothers in NY shouldn't open their legs for married men in the first place. Bright solution, right?

NYMOM said...

"If you can't understand why that being allowed to happen posed a threat to EVERY OTHER NEVER MARRIED MOTHER IN NEW YORK well then you're not very bright are you????"

Then perhaps those other never married mothers in NY shouldn't open their legs for married men in the first place. Bright solution, right?"


Well you know what? I misspoke originally...what I should have said is EVERY MOTHER IN NEW YORK...as sadly when a law is passed or precedent made whether the ruling involves a $2.00 crack whore or a good stay-at-home mother who goes to church every Sunday and follows ALL THE RULES to the letter, guess what, the impact is the same...

The Judge doesn't look and say, gee Mrs. Smith, you were such a good girl, you followed all the rules, took care of your home, husband and children went to church every Sunday, voted regularly, never broke the law, so you know what I'm just going to IGNORE THIS BAD OLD LAW HERE AND TREAT YOU DIFFERENTLY...

Guess what, that's not what happens...

Good women or bad, doesn't make a bit of difference, we don't get any special points for previously following the rules or being nice girls when we are facing a custody trial and have to go in front of a Judge...

Okay...just so you're clear on that...

Thus, a Judge who allows a man to come back after three years because he decides to change an already established custodial situation for ANY reason at all OR NONE whatsoever, that Judge is a MENACE TO ALL MOTHERS IN THIS STATE...

Okay...

Am I clear...jerkoffs like John Alysworth treaten ALL MOTHERS as does a never-married, child-free feminist Judge, who's best friend is probably her cat...because the precedents they establish impact ALL MOTHERS...not just the 'bad girls who open their legs for married men' but every single other mother as well...

Okay...

So I should have made that clearer in the beginning...

crella said...

"how many times is a case like that prosecuted"

One time is too many. Too often men are automatically assumed to be guilty.

"OR that we're dealing with ordinary people, not heroes, who NEED their jobs."

If you can need a job so much that you can watch a child be violated and not step in, then I'm afraid you're too far out there for me...you're supposed to be this advocate for MOTHERS and CHILDREN but you can dismiss an ex-policeman witnessing felatio being performed on a pre-school child and looking away to keep his job!?

"getting a girl drunk and having a couple of guys pile on her and have sex was even DEFINED as rape..."

I object to 'getting a girl drunk'...unless someone poured the drinks down her throat, she is at least partially responsible for her own actions, although I realize that blind-drunk people don't make the best decisions...are you saying it should be classified as rape even if she willingly went along with it, a sort of 'buyer's remorse', that if you regret it the next day it's rape?

"That's ALL you got out of that whole episode...that she tried to "get dirt on her lover"..."

No I learned that:

1. She's a gold-digging slut who was messing around with a married man.
2. Possibly not smart enough to use birth control?
3.She would willingly harm her own children to get custody. You don't seem to be very concerned about the psychological effects of being told to lie against your own father, being given a vaginal exam at three years old to prove a point. But she's a woman so that's okay. Reverse the sexes in your own mind. A man who took his 3or 4-year-old girl to an emergency room , and prompted the kids to lie...you'd be all over him like a rug.

That's what I got out of this episode.

"Women are best at collaborating with men who run the world because then we can buy pretty trinkets and have safe homes and nests for ourselves".

Interesting quote...isn't that exactly what Bridget Marks chose to do?

"well then you're not very bright are you????"

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically less intelligent than you? Why have a blog then? Every person who comes here is not going to agree with you, but discussion of varied points of view IS the point of a blog, is it not?

"The Judge doesn't look and say, gee Mrs. Smith, you were such a good girl, you followed all the rules, took care of your home, husband and children went to church every Sunday, voted regularly, never broke the law, so you know what I'm just going to IGNORE THIS BAD OLD LAW HERE AND TREAT YOU DIFFERENTLY..."

I'm calling 'road apples' on this one. No judge in their right mind will take the kids away from a law-abiding church-going mother...please...do you really think Brideget Marks was an apple-pie mom?

NYMOM said...

You know Crella, I'm going to be honest with you...you're getting on my nerves...

I fully understand that the ex-police officer who worked for Jackson SHOULD have reported him immediately and that Bridget Marks SHOULD NOT have done what she did and that women who drink too much and get raped, while drunk, are at fault...

YET these factors are NOT the main focus of anything that I was saying in my response to you; NEVER mind your hyjacking of the entire thread...which I could still tolerate if it made some sense as I'm not that strict about people staying on topic...I'm always open to interesting conversations or viewpoints, NOT however this constant back and forth of, well he shouldn't have, she shouldn't have...

We agree they shouldn't have done these things okay, the point however is where do we go from the point that THEY DID DO THESE THINGS to the one that still ensures justice for all involved, in spite of doing these things...

Okay, that's the freakin point...

My main point, which you keep not seeing (I don't know if you're stupid or just playing stupid) but anyway my point is that people are NOT PERFECT and sometimes we must OVERLOOK the imperfectability of them in the larger interest of JUSTICE getting DONE.

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT...

Do you see the larger picture here that I'm referring to...

...it's called the 'good' versus the 'perfect'...

Do you understand that concept at all??? Have you ever heard of it???

I mean to be honest debating this with you I feel like I'm talking to an idiot who refuses to understand anything and just keeps focusing on issues that have already been hashed out...

YES, we all agree with your points; YET justice STILL needs to be done in spite of those points...

Get it???

Can you understand a concept where imperfect people have to receive justice as well; not just the wonderful, perfect ones you know that NEVER do anything wrong????

Justice must still be served, it must exist even if everyone involved in the case (from witnesses, on to mothers, or drunken women) is not up to your high standards...

Okay...

Thus even though a police officer SHOULD have known better JUSTICE does NOT = Michael Jackson goes free...

That even though Bridget Marks should NOT have made a false charge against her childrens' father JUSTICE does not = Alysworth's wife being a better person to raise Marks' daughters then Marks herself...

AND that even though women should know better then to drink so much when hanging out with a bunch of men JUSTICE does not = it's okay to rape someone when they are in a vulnerable position because they drank too much...

Can you understand ANY of these concepts????

Now do NOT respond back to me again with anymore comments that ONLY scratch the surface of ANY of these situations anymore...or continue with this juvenile rant: well the police officer, or Bridget Marks, or drunken women...

I don't care...

Okay...

Unless you have a comment to make that sheds some totally NEW light or a deeper understanding on any of the above situations I just highlighted then shut the hell up already...

Thanks.

crella said...

Hmmmm I thought someone who'd bother to have a blog would be more inclined to discuss things without insulting them. I have not insulted you once, but again and again you make aspersions towards my intelligence level.

If none of this was the point you wish to make, then I don't understand you going the extra milein more than one post to exonerate the ex-police officer in the Miceal Jackson case...all I am doing is addressing points which you yourself brought up. And then that proves I'm stupid.

"that women who drink too much and get raped, while drunk, are at fault..."

That's not what I said...I said tha women who feel bad the next day and call (albeit drunken)consensual sex rape should not be protected.NOw don't jump on me for being 'off topic' now, as this is an answer to a point you brought up.

I was discussing originally the Micheal Jackson case...it was you who brought up the Marks case, it wasyou who brough up drunken girls being raped. Sweet, accusing me of skewing the discussion.

'Hyjacking'(sic) the thread? So sorry I didn't realize that y postings were keeping hoards of people who want to post here fr doing so, I'll bow out...

crella said...

Pardon the typos, the batteries in my wireless mouse and keyboard are going...

NYMOM said...

"Hmmmm I thought someone who'd bother to have a blog would be more inclined to discuss things without insulting them. I have not insulted you once, but again and again you make aspersions towards my intelligence level.

If none of this was the point you wish to make, then I don't understand you going the extra milein more than one post to exonerate the ex-police officer in the Miceal Jackson case...all I am doing is addressing points which you yourself brought up. And then that proves I'm stupid."


Here we go again...The police officer was NOT on trial thus he didn't NEED to be exonerated...I did NOT exonerate him...I MENTIONED him as someone who I considered a credible witness and you instantly ran off into a tangent practically accusing me of saying it was okay for him to observe a boy being sexually abused and NOT report it...when I said NO SUCH THING...just that he was an imperfect human being who should have reported something, reported it late, but nevertheless that does NOT make him out to be a liar...it just makes him an imperfect human being who should have acted sooner and didn't...

Okay...


"that women who drink too much and get raped, while drunk, are at fault..."

That's not what I said...I said tha women who feel bad the next day and call (albeit drunken)consensual sex rape should not be protected."

No you didn't say it, I DID...as in women who get drunk and are subject to a couple of guys piling on her to have sex ARE at fault for getting drunk....YET that is NOT consensual sex, it is still rape according to the LAW...

GET IT...as a drunk cannot give an okay for sex...

No more then they can give you the okay to stick your hand in their pocket and remove their wallet if they are lying on the side of the road drunk...so it's called robbery...

Just like having sex with someone too drunk to give consent is called rape...

Okay...

End of discussion...don't bring up issue again, it's closed...


"It was you who brought up the Marks case, it wasyou who brough up drunken girls being raped. Sweet, accusing me of skewing the discussion."

No...it was you because this original post was about women's inhumanity to other women and I used Marks' Judge Arlene Goldberg as an example...you began bringing up all these other issues about Marks which if you had read any of this blog you would have seen they were discussed a long time ago...

The issue here was NOT whether or NOT Marks was wrong in what she did, we agreed she was, but whether or NOT the appropriate punishment for what she did was to destroy the lives of two children by handing them over to her boyfriend's wife to be raised...that was the issue...

AND whether or not that constituted yet another example of womens' inhumanity to other women...THAT issue you didn't address instead getting bogged down in rehashing the Bridget Marks case all over again...

So if you cannot understand WHAT we are talking about, then again, you should just shut up...

Sorry if you consider that an insult but I believe you understood the issues very well but were just trying to confuse them by bringing up irrelevant ones...

So to wit...the ONLY valid discussion vis-a-vis Marks is whether or not the Judge in her case should have handed over custody of her children to her bf's wife...or was this another example of womens' inhumanity to other women...

Get it...

crella said...

"or was this another example of womens' inhumanity to other women..."

No it was case of a judge doing the best thing for the children.

Women's inhumanity to other women has nothing to do it.It's just another shield for women to hide behind.THAT is why I detailed the Marks case, as I did not think she was either worthy of protection,or a victim of a nasty judge. I should be able to give details to support my opinions, surely you don't want me to just go off at the mouth with no personal convictions about what I'm saying...

"Sorry if you consider that an insult "

In most polite social circles telling someone they're stupid usually qualifies as rude behaviour...

NYMOM said...

"THAT is why I detailed the Marks case, as I did not think she was either worthy of protection,or a victim of a nasty judge."


Well then let me say this...since you've given your opinion numerous times already about Bridget Marks, Michael Jackson, rape while drunk being consensual sex...and continue to pretend to NOT understand the issues I'm trying to address in each of these situations.

This is a site created by me for women in their role as mothers. I specified stated in the very begining of the blog (if you wish to return to the home page to review it, fine) that I wish to discuss, with LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE, ways to stop people like you from denigrating mothers...whether these mothers are saints or sinners doesn't matter, THAT is the ultimate purpose of this site.

Okay..

Again, this site is for me to discuss with like-minded people ways to stem the tide of negative propaganda against MOTHERS put out there by people like YOU...

Okay...

Not to spent my time arguing with you or others over every single thing I've written on here...I don't have the time and frankly even if I did I do NOT want to spent my time on that anyway...I'd rather have NO responses here then have to do this all day...

So I suggest you go and find a blog with more like-minded people who agree with you about Bridget Marks, Michael Jackson not guilty verdict, rape while drunk being consensual sex, etc., I'm sure there are many many sites in cyberspace with the criteria you are looking for, but sadly there is only ONE so far like mine and I don't want to waste it arguing with you for hours at a time...

Okay, hope I was clear.

Nice talking with you anyway...

Catherine said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NYMOM said...

Sorry Catherine...but I decided to erase your post...it was nothing personal but it was a total rehash of all Crella's positions and as I told her earlier and I'm telling you NOW this blog EXISTS to support women in the role as mothers...for that single reason ONLY...

There are probably other sites out there on the internet where you can go and talk about how women should be better and thus, whatever happens to them when they aren't, is okay...

This site is NOT one of them however...

So find another place to post...

Thanks for the interest anyway...

crella said...

"support women in the role as mothers."

Right or wrong? Gotcha...