Christina Pike survives execution attempt

[Spooky Owl!]

And, believe it or not, not everything is all about gender.

And sometimes we're not supposed to talk about it when it is.

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

And, believe it or not, not everything is all about gender.

True, but I sense growing resentment towards women after all of the anti-male rhetoric and "over-corrective measures" that occurred during the last ten years.

The Christa Pike and Lindsey Clancy cases (among others) certainly aren't helping ease the gender wars either, especially since there's been noticeable gender bias on display.

 

[Sea - Boo! - Er]

Yes, I don't get that either. And this isn't the first time an execution by lethal injection has been botched here in the US. Sadly, I doubt it will be the last time either.

The answer appears to be partly because medical professionals are barred from taking part, but. still, you'd think that it would not be impossible to have people who are properly trained.

 

[Angela Chilling]

True, but I sense growing resentment towards women after all of the anti-male rhetoric and "over-corrective measures" that occurred during the last ten years.

The Christa Pike and Lindsey Clancy cases (among others) certainly aren't helping ease the gender wars either, especially since there's been noticeable gender bias on display.

Really? Growing resentment from whom and what are they resenting?

There hasn't been an overcorrection, in fact there is still a lot more work to do regarding women's equality and rights. The cases of Christa Pike and Lindsey Clancy are outliers because it is very rare for a woman to commit murder (men are 10 more likely to that).

Less and 4% of reported sexual assaults and rapes by men against women result in a convictuon, women still are paid less than men and are far less likely to achieve a senior leadership position. The gender bias that still exists in society favours men over women, not the other way around.

 

[Frankenstein Underworld]

Really? Growing resentment from whom and what are they resenting?

I mostly hear it from people in the men's rights community, which actually includes quite a few women. Thus, it's only being directed at a very specific type of woman. The resentment is over the mockery of men and their issues, the stereotyping of men as violent predators, and the abundance of anti-male rhetoric and generalizations.

There hasn't been an overcorrection, in fact there is still a lot more work to do regarding women's equality and rights. The cases of Christa Pike and Lindsey Clancy are outliers because it is very rare for a woman to commit murder (men are 10 more likely to that).

Less and 4% of reported sexual assaults and rapes by men against women result in a convictuon, women still are paid less than men and are far less likely to achieve a senior leadership position. The gender bias that still exists in society favours men over women, not the other way around.

Whether they're outliers or not isn't the point. The reaction to those cases (and especially to Lindsey Clancy) has been quite revealing. The fact that some people still believe that gender bias only exists in one direction is odd to me. We've seen plain as day that women can be just as biased for women and against men. Hence why the husband was vilified and assumed to be the real killer, while "poor, innocent Lindsey" was labeled a victim of the patriarchy.

As for the rest of your post, I've addressed it all before. There's no point in repeating myself if you're just going to ignore it.

If you're so inclined, you can read my response to these same exact talking points here in the #MeToo thread: https://tellytalk.net/threads/metoo.3617/page-29#post-443456

 

[Angela Chilling]

I mostly hear it from people in the men's rights community, which actually includes quite a few women. Thus, it's only being directed at a very specific type of woman. The resentment is over the mockery of men and their issues, the stereotyping of men as violent predators, and the abundance of anti-male rhetoric and generalizations.

A men's right's community? What rights do men think they think women have over them? As for stereotyping men as violent predators, most women do not think that so why should anyone allow their opinions be framed by a tiny extreme minority?

Whether they're outliers or not isn't the point. The reaction to those cases (and especially to Lindsey Clancy) has been quite revealing. The fact that some people still believe that gender bias only exists in one direction is odd to me. We've seen plain as day that women can be just as biased for women and against men. Hence why the husband was vilified and assumed to be the real killer, while "poor, innocent Lindsey" was labeled a victim of the patriarchy.

Again, you are using a tiny minority to suggest that it's a widespread opinion of women in general. Yes, women can discriminate against men, but it is rare compared to sexual discrimination against women by men and men overall, still have more better opportunities than women and are generally taken more seriously than women.

As for the rest of your post, I've addressed it all before. There's no point in repeating myself if you're just going to ignore it.

I'm not ignoring your comment, I'm just pointing out that the facts dispute your opinion that there has been an overcorrection in the direction of women. When more that 4% of reported sex crimes against women result in a conviction against the perpetrator, I might start to believe that the #metoo movement has made progress.

 

[Crimson]

The fact that some people still believe that gender bias only exists in one direction is odd to me.

The Cornell case is, at minimum, a strategic reverse Uno play and will likely be a revealing look at the complexities of intoxication and consent. If "she was drunk and/or on drugs so couldn't consent" is a valid argument, then "he was drunk and/or on drugs so couldn't consent" is equally valid. If anyone of these people had gotten into a vehicle and killed a family, no one (presumably) would be defending them based on them being on drugs. Personal responsibility plays out in all scenarios.

As I understand it, "Jane Doe", prior to starting drinking, had performed oral sex on an unconscious male. That's rape, even if the feminist-psychos are in denial about it.

 

[Angela Chilling]

The Cornell case is, at minimum, a strategic reverse Uno play and will likely be a revealing look at the complexities of intoxication and consent. If "she was drunk and/or on drugs so couldn't consent" is a valid argument, then "he was drunk and/or on drugs so couldn't consent" is equally valid. If anyone of these people had gotten into a vehicle and killed a family, no one (presumably) would be defending them based on them being on drugs. Personal responsibility plays out in all scenarios.

As I understand it, "Jane Doe", prior to starting drinking, had performed oral sex on an unconscious male. That's rape, even if the feminist-psychos are in denial about it.

It's different because there is no law saying you have to consent to drive a car but specific legislation outlawing driving under the influence.

It's a more interesting scenario about male sexual consent while they are under the influence. Because a man has to get erect to have sex, it's more difficult to prove that he wasn't aware what was going on because the drugs/alcohol wasn't affecting his ability to get hard (I apologise if my graphic description causes offence). The scenario changes again if he claimed oral sex was performed on him without consent, rather than penetrative vaginal sex. It's so rare that I'm not sure if there is a general view on this and it might just come down to the details of a particular case rather than legal precedent.

 

[CryptCreeper72]

Being in NC and living so close to Duke University during the lacrosse gang rape hoax has made me very skeptical of this Cornell thing. It's way too early to form an opinion.

Unpopular opinion, if a woman is too drunk to consent, can't a man be too drunk to realize she's too drunk to consent? I believe the answer to that is yes.

 

[Spooky Owl!]

The law in NY currently states that a woman who is under the influence can indeed "consent" -- but TPTB in New York are circling the wagons: they're going to change the laws and they're fully intent on burning these guys especially if there was consent.

The feminists are not all that interested in women who are legitimately raped nor the men who commit those rapes. The feminists are so engaged in these recent cases because feminism is about defending Women who Lie and get caught red-handed lying and/or defending women who kill.

If there was less doubt in this latest gang-"rape" case, the feminists would be less interested in it.

Are all feminists of that evil mindset? No, probably not. But the ones who aren't don't entirely understand the movement in which they're ensconced.

When the Cornell case came, I hoped it wouldn't be another case like the Duke University case, but .... here we are.

But we as a culture don't want to address the issue of female evil. We just won't.... And the men are just too damned weak.

Chris Rock a while back said, regarding the Woke stuff, that during the Salem Witch Trials, the first two or three witches "were probably effin' witches" but that eventually they had created "a Witch Office, and so now they had to lie," stating that salaries and pensions now depending on more accusations.