Amanda of Pandagon (who is also a frequent poster on “Alas”) will be appearing on Glenn Sacks’ radio show today. (Glenn has been mentioned on “Alas” a few times in the past).
As you might recall, Glenn’s show, “His Side,” is men’s rights activist central, so if anyone’s free from 5pm to 6pm pacific time (8pm to 9pm eastern) today, I’m sure Amanda would appreciate feminists calling in to give her some support while she’s in “enemy territory.”
You can listen to the show live on the web here, where you’ll also find instructions for calling in.
And even if you can’t call in, join me in sending “good luck vibes” Amanda’s way today!
Heart just completely demolished David’s argument, and he just keeps going as if she hadn’t said anything.
^ I second that.
Cheryl, that was impressive. That’s better than most of the papers I write (research wise, at least). Did you track all that down yourself?
Even before Cheryl’s impressive post, saying something like “Certainly not denying the [wife-beating] behaviour exists, simply that it is not, nor has it been the widely accept norm since the dawn of civilization, if ever” seemed to me quite a naive, ignorant statement to make.
Great job, Cheryl.
Hey, thanks, Antigone and Ann, but no, I didn’t put all that together– it’s excerpted from one of the links I posted way up there somewhere in response to David’s questions:
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/herstory/herstory.html
There’s much more than what I excerpted; well worth saving off.
Heart
That’s our David. Great job, Heart.
Y’all are having a disagreement about what is a prevailing social norm, versus what is legally permissible, I suspect.
Not really. We’re not talking about relics, where it didn’t occur to anybody that spousal rape was legal, as if it were one of those “you can’t park your giraffe in Minneapolis” kinds of laws. The laws did reflect a prevailing social norm.
For example (to bring up a prior thread): “Until the passage of laws that specifically prohibited a custodial parent from spending support money on cigarettes, it was the prevailing social norm.”?
Your analogy is backwards. You use an example of something not specifically prohibited != no proof of a social norm. Marital-rape exemptions stemmed from, and are an example of, something specifically permitted = proof of a social norm.
Tuomas: “How the hell (almost) no one, or at least majority didn’t think about changing the law earlier if they condemned spousal rape etc. so strongly?”
You call for a great deal of speculation about what people think or what motivates them. Speaking for myself, having been of (legal) voting age for a relatively short time, I certainly had no capacity to change any law “earlier.” Once reaching the age of majority, I cannot honestly tell you when I may have first learned of “marriage rape” as a social issue but can assure you I was firmly against violent behavior and therefore would have been supportive of legislation punishing such behavior.
In the sense that you pose a rhetorical question, I didn’t grow up to be a rapist, to believe rape was not violent, criminal behavior, or, as you suggest, ever believe that as a male I might view rape as my privilege. Thus, your question is a common fallacy because it does not allow for my condition. It implies that one must EITHER approve of spousal rape OR have changed the law. The exception disproves the rule.
Good for you, David (it’s not like I’m accusing you of supporting marital rape exceptions or being a rapist, so cut the bullshit whining about your condition, sheesh). But how does the fact that people haven’t removed marital rape earlier by legislation (or at least, made it a punishable, therefore not condoned act) with your claim it was never widely condoned by society? It doesn’t. And it DOES NOT imply that one must either approve spousal rape or have changed the law (more straw). Also, your claim
You’ll note that it used to be legal, it isn’t (in most places anyway) anymore. It’s like claiming that whether murder is a crime or not doesn’t have anything to do about whether murder is condoned or condemnded in the society, and claiming that people can still murder (that is strictly true, but making murder a punishable crime does give an incentive not to murder, right?)
Seriously, I think you are just playing dumb (to my post) and deaf (to Cheryls post). And I’m done with elementary logic for now.
I did read Cheryl’s entire post and before y’all get so smug I am formulating an appropriate, honest, response.
In the meantime, most crime statistics appear irrelevant (I am making no value judgement to the accuracy or inaccuracy of such only stating most do not address Cheryl’s assertion or my rebuttal). No response will be formulated to anecdotes (or references) to what happened in Japan, China, etc. until Cheryl establishes their relevance to English common law and our own prevailing social norms. The many stats such as “1968 The Harris poll interviews 1,176 American adults in October. They find that 1/5 approve of slapping one’s spouse on appropriate occasions” will be addressed only if they are not clearly specious.
Carry on..
Tuomas: “But how does the fact that people haven’t removed marital rape earlier by legislation (or at least, made it a punishable, therefore not condoned act) with your claim it was never widely condoned by society?”
That’s a bit of a tortured double-negative. Can you restate that in the affirmative? Also, please be careful about substituting the word “condoned” where it doesn’t appear in my argument. Also, be careful about changing the subject to “incentives” when that was never a stated element of any of your previous comments. Thanks.
Bullshit. She needs to do no such thing. You claimed domestic violence was never condoned, you were proved wrong. You can’t just change the rules of the debate everytime your back is against the wall. And there was nothing about Japan and China on Cheryls’ post.
What you need to do, is start taking responsibilty for your claims, instead of making broad claims and expecting others to prove you wrong. You prove your claims, ok? And when you are proved wrong, you make up excuses, ignore, whine about being a victim here, and change the rules.
End of rant.
“…before y’all get so smug …”
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Okay. Let’s make it simple. Laws are made by elected officials. Until very recently, there were marital rape exceptions. You (and Robert) claim marital rape was not the social norm, or at least were sceptical about it. Mythago pointed out that previously people had made specific marital rape exceptions to law. Therefore, people had elected representatives, who had appointed judges that put those laws in place (maybe this is simplified version on how governments work, but you get the basic idea – people make the laws). This, to me, is quite clear indication that marital rape was the social norm. It is not your fault, btw, but it is a fact.
What is it about “incentives” that irks you so? I merely pointed out that actions that go against basic human rights need to condemned, like child abuse, marital rape and murder, and incentives are needed for some people to follow those laws. Of course those actions still happen, but something can be done about them.
By “social norm” I mean what is normally encountered, what is typical, what is ordinary. Not what is occasionally, or even often, found.
It’s entirely legal for every male American to marry 18-year old girls, impregnate them, and then divorce them once the baby is born, and repeat this cycle perpetually. But it’s far from the norm.
Laws can certainly codify the norm, but the norm is generally found pretty far from the boundary created by the law. When it isn’t, the law generally moves.
From my own reading, it seems pretty clear that spousal rape (or what we would consider rape; the women in question probably mostly didn’t, because they bought into their oppression) and child beating have been the norm in most societies for most of history. Wife beating has been the norm in many societies. Wife killing and child killing have been the social norm only under very restricted circumstances and very limited time frames.
Alsis, Republican Rome is one of the most thoroughly documented ancient societies in existence. I would be delighted to see you articulate a theory of knowledge that simultaneously permits us to know much of anything, and which makes it implausible to make reasoned suppositions about the mores of this particular culture.
Documented by who, Robert ? Men and women in equal numbers ? Profiling who ? Both genders, all classes and races in equal numbers ?
Please. We’re a long way from unearthing the Roman version of Studs Terkel, last I heard.
It’s absurd to even humor the Davids of the world by getting diverted into ridiculous arguments over whether or not rape, beating of wives and children, domestic violence were ever or are “social norms.” They are history. That’s what matters. What has been under discussion here is the fairness, or not, or the justice, or not, of laws around child support , spousal maintenance, divorce, custody of children. MRA’s and FRA’s want to forget thousands and millions of years of history relating to how men have treated women and their families. They want to forget history in the U.S. all the way up through the past 15, 20 years or so, the point at which, for the first time in history, men weren’t able to call ALL of the shots, as husbands, as fathers, as men, the way they always had been able to. They still could, and still can and do, call plenty of the shots. The laws and the courts and the judges still, by and large, favor men. But for the first time in this country’s history, once in a while, there is justice for women who are mothers and divorcing. And this is just intolerable to the world’s patriarchs and patriarchists. As I said before, they labor under a sense of entitlement and male privilege that is roughly the depth and breadth of the Rocky Mountain Range. If the system doesn’t work for them, favor them, vindicate them 10 times out of 10, as it used to, instead 8 or 9 times out of 10, as it does now, all hell breaks loose: sound the alarm, call out the Army Reserve, call 911, things didn’t go my way, this cannot BE! Whether or not rape, DV, abuse are “social norms” is irrelevant. As those links and others here and everywhere establish, throughout history, in large numbers, men have consistently beaten and mistreated their wives and children and have often raped their wives with the full support and approval of the surrounding culture. The laws were on their side, in virtually ALL cultures, until very recently. The sentiments of those who wrote and enforced the laws were also on their side– they were universally men, after all. It’s time now that women and children begin to see some justice, begin to be heard– even if once in a while, in the process, a man ends up untreated fairly. Women and children have been treated unfairly by men, who have ruled the world, for millennia. As that wrong begins to be righted, a few men might be treated unfairly. Men of conscience will understand and accept that there is no way around this, and that the alternatives — returning to the days when there was no justice for women and children or making justice for men the only or primary consideration — are much worse. In the meantime, even if some men are treated unfairly in the course of divorce, they will continue to enjoy the benefits of being men and hence at the top of the male heteropatriarchal heap. In other words, even if they are treated unfairly sometimes, in general, compared with women similarly situated with them, they will come out ahead, regardless.
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
Heart
http://www.gentlespirit.com/margins
Hmm. Maybe the issue about social norm should be reframed as follows:
In extremely patriarchal (like ancient rome) societies, the social norm has traditionally been that husbands/fathers own their wives and underage children and thus have property rights on them, which allow the father to beat, rape or kill their wives/children, while making the reverse punishable.
Of course, it doesn’t mean that every wife gets raped (altough if a woman is completely powerless, then there is kind of a rape-like situation) or every child gets killed, but it is fair to say that it is the social norm, as a notwillingly consenting wife can be raped (she is property, after all) without fear of punishment, and a disobedient, rebellious or simply not good enough child can be killed without fear of punishment.
I suppose it is far from the norm, and I suspect the fact that those 18-year old young women might not agree to marry those men is a big factor in that (in addition to the fact that most men wouldn’t be that big jerks), so the issue of consent plays a role in this. It’s not as clear case as marital rape “right”, which every male used to have regardless of what the woman wanted. Clear distinction there.
That seems a fair framing of the issue, Tuomas.
I agree with Cheryl that these questions are peripheral at best; they may be very important in really understanding the history of the family and of gender relationships, but there isn’t much application to the real question of what the law should look like now.
Well, these questions are peripheral at best;
Only if you’re not getting raped for free under them, that is.
Wow, what a battlefield this thread is.
I just want to say that I agree with the amp-fans that I don’t think any kind of mandate (or should that be persondate) of how CS is spent, or audit, or debit card will change anything in any significant way.
Why? Implementation.
It won’t be implemented in nearly the spirit of how the framers intended. So many laws governing due process do not apply when concerning man/woman’s/families relations as it is now, that I absolutely am sure that the teeth, gums & jaws will be removed from any bill about a CS audit.
As things stand now, divorced mothers are not pushed to allow the visitation that has been ordered. women are not prosecuted for perjurous testimony against their ex regarding child molestation, DV, or spousal rape. Why should I believe this will be any different? One of my main questions to the amp-fans is this:
Why is anyone surprised that NCP’s want this law passed? Let’s look at what has happened to CS laws over the past 20 years for a minute.
#1 A federal tracking program is instituted allowing NCP’s to no longer cross state lines to avoid CS. Law enforcement/medical/employment/DMV records can all now be used to track NCP’s anywhere. Why?
IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!
#2 The bradley ammendment was enacted dis-allowing for a Judge to retroactively forgive any CS burden. (let’s ignore the fact that 5% of downward modifications are approved, and that many states make errors in the thousands of dollars that now cant be removed). Why?
IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!
#3 New criminalizing laws are enacted for failure to pay child support, jail removal of hunting/fishing/drivers/CDL/doctor/lawyer licenses are all now common place tools. Why?
IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!
#4 Child support laws are federalized and states now get huge matching dollars for all CS collected. Now the states have a very gr8 incentive to make errors in ‘their’ favor, and when they do the errors can’t be removed.
Once again, why?
IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!
#5 Part of the federal calculation method is the following: when the mother remarries income from the new hubby CANNOT be used to LESSEN the father’s burden. But if the father remarries, he has a GREATER ABILITY TO PAY and his new wife’s income can be used for this purpose! Why?
IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!
Well, radical feminists have been picking the tune for the past 20 years and beating up NCP’s, now the time has come to pay the piper and:
PROVE IT!
As an example let’s say an NCP with two kids pays 50% pretax income to the CP for child support(which is pretty accurate in most states).
Then he pays about 33% tax burden, without the added comfort of using the kids as dependents. This leaves 17% of his gross income to take care of himself. Add to that the fact the CP usually gets the house(IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN), best car(IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!), and all of the kids toys/clothes/bedding. If the father doesn’t want child protective services he has to replace all these things out of his 17% pay. What I have learned here watching everyone chat is that any reversal of any of these decisions will be seen as a black-hearted attempt by the NCP to remove food out of the mouths of his own kids. And there will never be any punitive law so heinous and unfair that it can’t be thrown at NCP’s. Why? IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN! As long as feminists can use this sickening mantra, there will be no justice for NCP’s. There will be no torment or extreme of poverty too great to inflict upon the NCP because it will always be SEEN as benefitting the children. The only real solution for fathers to receive justice will be shared custody, because then there will be two households that have to equally share resources, due to the fact the children will be more or less split between them.
Also, I would like to make one more point about shared parenting in regard to child sexual abuse. The most common form of child sexual abuse is actually sibling abuse. After that is sexual assult abuse by some male in the household. But, here is an important sidenote. The OVERWHELMING majority of the time this is not the father, but a step-dad, live-in boyfriend, or uncle by marriage. By pushing fathers out of children’s life you actually increase the chance (in some households) of children being assulted or molested. The children with the lowest incidence of attempted or completed assault/molesting are the ones that have the most BLOOD-TIE adults in their live’s everyday. And the opposite is true: kids with the highest incident are the ones with the least blood-tie adults in their life. Divorce is ALREADY going to make kids’ lives a mess. THERE IS NO PRESERVING CONTINUITY! By using this “best interest for kids to stay with care-giver” BS to insure that kids stay with the mother, the primary loser is the kids, because they lost an extra blood-tie adult to love, comfort, and protect them. With shared parenting, the kids are the winners.
Last issue: the posts regarding whether or not mom’s or dad’s are discriminated against in custody. If you don’t believe that their is discrimination against fathers, then you must also believe that when mothers are awarded sole custody 80% of the time, the judge had a good reason. It’s a simple point and very logical. BUT! BUT! If a judge decides to retroactively forgive a child support burden to an NCP, don’t you also think that he “had a good reason”? By radical feminists instuting laws to pre-empt the decisions of judges in one area, then saying in a different area that they trust the judges decisions, shows them to be HYPOCRITS! HYPOCRITS! HYPOCRITS!
Men’s rights activists are making progress in many states. Shared parenting has been enacted in a number of states. A handful more are talking about ballot initiatives. A couple of states have passed laws saying a woman accusing a man of DV can not kick him out of a house she has no financial stake in (in other words a live-in lover cannot kick you out of a house a man owns & she does not, just by alleging DV). We are fighting for justice plain & simple, and their will be remarkable sweeping changes in the next 20 years to repair the american family.
Well, Ginmar, if you have a time machine and are using it to travel back to 100 BC and are getting raped by your owner/husband, then you have my sympathy.
Well, ginmar, I hope you feel put in your place. We’ve come a long way from pretending that rape and abuse of women in ancient Rome wasn’t a social norm. Now we get to pretend that they haven’t been social norms SINCE ancient Rome. Either that, or 1993 is ancient history and countries like England had no influence on modern U.S. law. Be proud. :/
“…By the way, speaking of collective invisibility, Alsis, would you mind dropping me an email? I’ve been wanting to send some political stuff your way..”
Done, Brian.
Yeah, I sure feel put in the place that Robert thinks is mine, that is. One where a 33% share of examples devoted to lying bitches isn’t somehow discriminatory, and one where women’s opinions just don’t matter cause the menfolks don’t cotten to that kind o’ thinkin’.
Yep, I think I’ll go get myself barefoot and pregnant now, which we totally know did not happen ever.
OK, you guys are right, and Cheryl is wrong. Your discussion SHOULD refocus on what David thinks is important. Because that way, you get to continue scoring beaucoup points against your strawman! Which is WAY more important than talking about creating a legal code that offers fairness and justice for women and men and children.
Although I must say, it’s somewhat enjoyable, in a patriarchal kind of way, to have such absolute control over ginmar and alsis. Any time I want them to ignore a refocusing request from a feminist with serious chops, all I have to do is agree with her. Sweet!
“I agree with Cheryl that these questions are peripheral at best; they may be very important in really understanding the history of the family and of gender relationships, but there isn’t much application to the real question of what the law should look like now. ”
Robert, perhaps you should go back and read mythago’s link about forcible sodomy perpetrated by husband against wife. Her link actually sites the same Lord Hale that made it onto Heart/Cheryl’s list of misogynist milestones from that Minnesota website. That pretty much trashes your pretense that the past in no way influences the present, but I suspect you knew all along that this was the case. After all, you base your whole rasion d’etre on the very history that Cheryl cited. You cast yourself as a benevolent, rather than malevolent dictator, but in both cases, the first syllable of the most important word in the phrase has a dick in it.
My reasons for being are tucked in to their beds.
The past has a major influence on the present. As I noted, the question of what comprised a social norm at a given time or place is important in understanding the history of the family and gender relationships. In terms of writing today’s laws, not so much. Does knowing that wife-beating was cool in 17th century New England really add much to deliberations on whether it should be cool today? Does any conceivable answer to the 17th century question change your answer to the 21st century question? It doesn’t mine.
Odd that you suddenly want to place so much importance on this question – you know, the question that you attempted to mock me for believing it was possible to have an approximate answer to. Usually your raging logical contradictions have a post or two between them.
I would like you to pay particular attention to the court cases of early medieval English common law in which women were victorious. Absent in the actual written records of the times are descriptions that would suggest that beating and raping wives was common or encouraged. To the contrary, it shows the concepts of social justice taking root and does not mention such behavior.
The Nature of Courts and the Law Before 1176:
Anyone who has studied modern law will think reflexively about law and legal systems in certain ways. It is essential for understanding the origins of the common law, however, to understand what went before, and for this certain preconceptions must be discarded. The following will introduce you to jurisdictions and court structure of the law before 1176. You should be thinking about the relationship of court structure, discretion and rules of law, and the implications of a non-bureaucratic society on conceptions of law.
England is divided into counties (which in turn are subdivided into hundreds), which constituted substantial communities with their own customs, evidenced and created by the county court. The county courts should be considered the “natural” venue for all cases, unless for some specific reason an individual case or a class of cases is withdrawn elsewhere. In nature, it is omnicompetent and needs no authorization to hear a case, although for specific reasons, such as sheriffly inactivity, the king might order it to hear a case. Likewise, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, increasing restrictions were placed on the county courts; and written authorizations or orders to handle cases (such orders being called “writs”) became commonplace. Nevertheless, keep it in mind that county jurisdiction is by nature omnicompetent; they are the natural venue and any other venue must be explained. It will be easy to forget this, since [this] will be concentrated so heavily on the king’s central courts, which by and large are courts of special jurisdiction and can only operate by virtue of an express royal order to hear a case, by virtue of a writ. The writ system, central to the growth of the common law, derives from the fact that, since the counties were the natural venue, the king’s court had to have express authorization for the exercise of jurisdiction.
Henry I’s Coronation Charter: 1100 AD for example “… And if, on the death of a baron or other man of mine, a daughter remains as heiress, I will give her, together with her land, by the counsel of my barons.[11] And if, on the death of a husband, his wife survives and is without children, she shall have her dower[12] and marriage portion,[13] and I will not give her to a husband unless it is in accord with her own wish.[14] ….If, moreover, the wife survives with children, she shall yet have her dower and marriage portion so long as she keeps her body legitimately,[15] and I will not give her except in accord with her wish. And the guardian of the land and the children shall be either the widow or another one of the relatives who more justly ought to be guardian.[16] And I command that my barons shall conduct themselves in the same way toward the sons or daughters or wives of their men.[17]
When King Henry I died in 1135, he left only a daughter (Matilda), but a daughter to whom the English magnates had sworn loyalty and undertaken to acknowledge as queen.[50] Henry I’s nephew, Stephen, was in fact acknowledged as king in 1135, and, because of mismanagement, there ensued a war between Matilda (reinforced by husband, who was a French count) and Stephen. The war was indecisive, but at one time or another both Stephen and Matilda had seemed to be victorious. Henry, Matilda’s son and thus grandson to Henry I, eventually took over his mother’s fight; because of a compromise in 1153, Henry became king (Henry II) at Stephen’s death in 1154. It was during Henry II’s reign (1154-1189) that the common law began. Note that the common law is designated “common” because it was a law common to all of England and administered by a central court, as distinguished from the customary law that varied, albeit often only in minor ways, from county to county, lordship to lordship, or manor to manor. Moreover, the common law began as the result of political occurrences, not from jurisprudential considerations.
Novel disseisin, in traditional analysis, was only a possessory protection of property rights, not connected with major political events. Its origins were uncertain, perhaps as early as the 1150s, probably by 1166, even though it was admitted that no exemplar predated Glanvill. Since it was thought thus that novel disseisin predated mort d’ancestor, novel disseisin appeared as a preliminary undermining of feudal power by protecting knightly possession of their property rights, preparatory to the introduction of mort d’ancestor and the possessory protection of inheritance rights. The transformation of royal justices into judgment-giving officials was not a part of the theory, nor was the discretionary quality of feudal justice.]
Note that a woman could receive homage from men, but could not give homage to men. Giving homage (before around Magna Carta in 1215) meant willingness and ability to fight as a knight: a woman could not do it. Thus, when she inherited, her husband did homage for her land. Nevertheless, she could receive homage for men, because receiving homage meant nothing about fighting, only about lordship.
The Reign of King Stephen (1135-1154) and The Treaty of Winchester (1153)The Treaty of Winchester was the formal conclusion of the war between King Stephen and Henry, Matilda’s son and the future Henry II. The treaty was arranged because the armies refused to join battle, so that Stephen and Henry were effectively in stalemate. This treaty occupies an important position in the origins of the common law, because it set the pattern by which the king undertook an obligation for the maintenance of certain tenures and thus interfered for the first time in a regular way between his tenants-in-chief and their tenants. For the first time the holding of such land became a concern for the king, instead of being a contractual matter between the lord and his tenant to be handled in the lord’s own feudal court, a court structured as a communal court. The treaty itself shows none of this, but the terms must be understood to understand what happened.
The Broader Compromise (1153)
The Writ of Right
The Assize of Northampton, cc. 4-5 (1176)
The Assize of Novel Disseisin
This is the earliest example of the writ of NOVEL DISSEISIN we have; it comes from Glanvill, 13.33 (circa 1188).
[Novel disseisin, in traditional analysis, was only a possessory protection of property rights, not connected with major political events. Its origins were uncertain, perhaps as early as the 1150s, probably by 1166, even though it was admitted that no exemplar predated Glanvill. Since it was thought thus that novel disseisin predated mort d’ancestor, novel disseisin appeared as a preliminary undermining of feudal power by protecting knightly possession of their property rights, preparatory to the introduction of mort d’ancestor and the possessory protection of inheritance rights. The transformation of royal justices into judgment-giving officials was not a part of the theory, nor was the discretionary quality of feudal justice.]Note that a woman could receive homage from men, but could not give homage to men. Giving homage (before around Magna Carta in 1215) meant willingness and ability to fight as a knight: a woman could not do it. Thus, when she inherited, her husband did homage for her land. Nevertheless, she could receive homage for men, because receiving homage meant nothing about fighting, only about lordship.
Glanvill
Glanvill is a legal treatise written around 1188, probably not by anyone named Glanvill. The treatise is organized around the writs and details procedure; in a few instances, the author abandons the writs and seems to write in terms of substantive law, detailing common custom. There had been other books on English law before, preeminently The Laws of Henry I, but they were not organized treatises, nor did they reflect anything more than diversity of law. Glanvill is carefully organized and reflects a growing centralized court. Moreover, if examined in excruciating detail, it shows the law in transition from the discretionary justice before 1176 to adherence to rules of law, from tenures as contractual arrangements to tenures as property. Glanvill is, finally, our best look at early law. The king’s court has left written records (plea rolls) from 1194; although a bit sparse at the beginning, by 1200 the records have survived almost intact down to the twentieth century, constituting the longest run of European secular court records. Glanvill is an overview of the law written about six years before the plea rolls begin. Information from the early plea rolls is difficult to glean; the author of Glanvill was both literate and knowledgeable about the law and is of immense help in gaining insight into what was happening at the beginnings of English common law.
Turroc v. fitz Walter (RKC, 40)(1194, king’s court)
The assize came to recognize if Clement son of Walter unjustly and without judgment disseised Matilda of Turroc of her free tenement within the assize.
Clement comes and says that he disseised her by judgment of his court.
The court is present and records that she occupied more of her lord’s land than she had in dower by the sheriff and by order of the lord king,[98] so that she was summoned and distrained to come into court, and she so responded that she remained in mercy of 10s by judgment, so that for that amercement and for other complaints she made fine with her lord for 1/2 mark and put her land in pledge in his court and did not want to render the 1/2 mark. And therefore by judgment of his court he seised it.
Matilda denies all word for word.
And the same Clement only produces two men from his court; and it is considered that it was no court.
Judgment: let Matilda have her seisin and let Clement be in mercy for disseisin.
Magna Carta
Although everyone has heard of Magna Carta and it did indeed have a monumental influence on constitutional history, the clauses of Magna Carta seem less than enthralling. From our perspective, it is instructive to note the kind of things the barons were interested in and what that indicates about the way in which they perceived what had happened in their lifetime.
Richard & Roburga v. W.G. (1365)
Lib. Ass. 39 Ed. III, pl. 11, f. 234
In an assize of novel disseisin brought by one Richard and Roburga his wife against one W.G., it was found by verdict that one H.G. and J. his wife (as of the right of J.) had been seised etc.,
IX. The Statutes of Edward I
The origins of the common law came between 1176 and 1215. For decades thereafter the common law grew, whether by chancery action, judicial action, or legislative activity. By the second half of the thirteenth century the social and legal anomalies produced by piecemeal growth had become serious. The problems were such as to focus attention on the central government. Parliament became an institution in 1258, acting to answer petitions from people experiencing difficulties with the law, legislating general answers to difficulties, responding to demands for taxation. Parliament, it should be noted, was centered on the king’s council, although the enduring elements that would soon constitute Parliament were king, the magnates (soon the House of Lords) and representatives of both the counties and boroughs (soon the House of Commons). The king was absolutely essential to Parliament, and Parliament exercised only the king’s authority. Those who were elected, were selected to enter into that sphere of governance that the king had constituted to help him exercise his powers of governance. That he would solicit such help was the contribution of feudalism: a strong lord acted with the consultation and advice of his men. Still, there was no notion of popular sovereignty, that the ultimate responsibility for governance was in the people and they conferred their authority to govern to their representatives. They were subjects, not citizens
In the name of God, Amen etc. The suit having been legitimately contested by negative words to the same, the oath offered by the parties having been said concerning the challenges and concerning the truth, the witnesses produced having been sworn, examined, and their testimony publicized, days having been given to talk with the witnesses, to talk over their testimony, and to put all things together consistent with the facts, and the order of law which is required in this case having been observed in all things, because we have found that the said Alice has sufficiently and legitimately proved her intention brought before us in judgment, we have adjudged judicially and definitively the aforementioned William as the legitimate husband to the same Alice.
1. We are used to matrimonial suits being for divorce. Most medieval matrimonial suits were to prove marriage.
Robert, I’d really appreciate it at this point if we could go back to ignoring each other. Thanks.
Drake
Question for you. Why exactly do you think that it should be up to feminists to attempt to change laws which (in your opinion – I haven’t checked out either set of links so I can’t comment on the validity of this claim) exclude male rape victims? It seems to me that if the laws needed to be changed and the victims themselves saw that need and tried to make a change then that’s pretty much the way the system works. Male rape victims would logically be more aware of the specific issues they face than anyone else would be, and therefore if makes perfect sense that they would be the ones to push for a change. Why is it the job of feminism to make this change? Don’t get me wrong, if feminists were actively opposing efforts to get recognition of and help for male rape victims that would be a terrible thing. However, they are not in fact doing so. Why should you assume that it’s their job to lead the way?
Before you start accusing me of being unsympathetic I’d like to point out that I actually do know a male rape victim (an ex boyfriend). He was raped by a group of guys because they thought he looked like he was gay. The only help he was ever offered was from a feminist run rape crisis center, which was more than happy to offer him counselling. So, it’s not as if feminists are somehow conspiring against male rape victims, it’s just that this isn’t really our fight. I’m not at all sure why you think it should be, unless you think that it’s our job to solve all the world’s problems just because we’re women.
Gotta agree with BritGirlSF. It’s not womens’ problem.
However, that was what was legally permissible. It was not the social norm to kill disobedient children. Someone who did would be looked askance at.
Robert, it’s true that the pater familias had legal power of life and death over his family (and slaves, if they had any), but the reason killing your own children wasn’t a widely practiced sport was because, aside from all possible distinctions between legally permissible/morally condoned, it was not convenient. The pater familias institution was about property rights, and the property was passed on via the children. It wouldn’t be in the interest of fathers to kill their own heirs (or their workforce, for the plebs).
If you’re talking infanticide, that’s a different story, and the other way round – it was practiced even after it was made illegal.
BritGirl: The real issue for Drake is his wish that women never, ever point out that men in fact do rape women. It has SFA to do with sympathy for male rape victims, who are only trotted out by MRAs as a tactic to silence women’s discusions of rape, and who receive little to no support from other men at those times when there are no women around to bully.
The laughable part of this tactic is that, as so many here have pointed out, the vast majority of male rape victims are also raped BY MEN, so the MRAs’ pointing this out just adds more ammunition to the argument that there is something seriously wrong with the way men in general are socialised.
Drake, put your money where your mouth is: if you’re really so worried about male rape victims, organise political action on their behalf. But be aware that this means you will have to face the reality that these men are suffering nearly always at the hands of other men. Be prepared to do something about that, as well.
And never, ever come round with the absurd idea that just because some men are being raped (by other men) that this automatically means that any–let alone all–female victims of rape (again, nearly always raped by men) should just shut up and stand aside and not be heard or have any justice. Maybe you feel compassion and empathy are zero-sum games, but most of the rest of us don’t. I can care that a man is suffering without denying the millions of women who are suffering as well. Maybe you ought to learn how to do that too, you know?
Crys T
Yes, that was actually my point. I want to see if Drake can actually provide any explanation of why he believes it should be the job of feminists to deal with this problem. I want to see what he comes up with. I agree that MRAs often try to derail feminist discussions by saying “but what about the problems men face”, and I think that the appropriate response is “why is it our job to fix this problem?” .
Marital rape wasn’t just accepted as normal – when 1960’s hit and it became more common for couples to live together wothout marrying, some states extended the marital rape exception law to cover cohabiting couples. They didn’t want to discriminate against men for not having married the girl before they raped her…
“In 1962, the Model Penal Code, for example, supplemented its comprehensive marital rape immunity with a provision that included cohabitants. It said: “Whenever in this article the definition of an offense excludes conduct with a spouse, the exclusion shall be deemed to extend to persons living as man and wife, regardless of the legal status of their relationship.”
Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, North Dakota, and West Virginia enacted statutes that gave partial immunity to men who sexually assaulted women who had previously permitted them sexual contact. If a man had previous consensual sex with a woman, he could not be convicted of raping her.For example, from 1986 to 1998, Delaware’s criminal code on first-degree rape provided:
“A person is guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse in the first degree when the person intentionally engages in sexual intercourse … without the victim’s consent and the defendant was not the victim’s voluntary social companion on the occasion of the crime and had not permitted the defendant sexual intercourse within the previous 12 months” ”
From
“But if you can’t rape your wife, who can you rape?” ~ Senator Bob Wilson, Democrat, California, 1979
“Damn it, when you get married, you kind of expect you’re going to get a little sex.” ~ Senator Jeremiah Denton, Republican, Alabama, 1981
“It’s a waste of the court’s time to get into that area…a woman who is in marriage is presumably consenting to sex. Maybe this is the risk of being married, you know.” ~ Charles Burt, President, Oregon State Bar (1979)
Ahhhhh, yes, I now understand why marriage is so sacred.
The sheer hatred those men express for women makes my blood run cold.
Is this the same Robert who stated: Tradition must always be respected. Being respected and being obeyed are not identical.
Not to tangent here too much, but Robert, you’ve been pretty inconsistent with this sort of viewpoint.
Ouch!
No, no, Kim. It’s not “inconsistency.” It’s a “raging logical contradiction.” Get with the program.
I agree with Cheryl that these questions are peripheral at best; they may be very important in really understanding the history of the family and of gender relationships, but there isn’t much application to the real question of what the law should look like now. “?
I don’t think that the issue of marital rape, domestic violence, men abusing wives and children as “social norms,” or not, or where, or when is peripheral at all. My point was that laws around custody, child support, and dissolution reflect the historic subjugation of, and male ownership of, women, which ownership allowed for all of the above. And so the laws have to change. In that process, men will sometimes not be treated fairly and there is no way to avoid that, and not only that, in that process women and children will CONTINUE to be treated unfairly, as they always have been, in greater numbers than men will be treated unfairly, because we still live under male heterosupremacy.
Heart
Tuomas:
Nothing much “irks” me. This forum serves my amusement for the moment. When it ceases to amuse me I will move on. This is not the blog one would come for a serious discussion on social policy.
For example, Cheryl has used “the rule of thumb” to support her position that beating one’s wife is/was the social norm. I was recently in a more serious forum discussing this very issue. No-one was able to find this “rule” codified. The conclusion everyone in that forum reached is that it was a myth. We could all be wrong but we all agreed that no one could find proof of it’s existence. Here, it is held out as “proof” and and accepted without question although the reference to the “rule” merely describes it rather than providing it.
The irony of you using multiple fallacies in an attempt to define my argument as fallacy doesn’t “irk” me. Such irony I find amusing, especially given the ferrocity at which you rigidly believe yourself factual and unbiased.
David, why should we care about, or read all that stuff up there about English Common Law. What is your point?
I will tell you this, whatever “evidences” you can find that women occasionally were treated fairly under English Common Law, or however you can demonstrate that sometimes women in Medieval times were “victorious” when they pursued their claims, you can twist it, turn it upside down, inside out and backwrads and the truth and the facts will remain the truth and the facts: throughout history, everywhere in the world, until the 19th century, women were PROPERTY. They were owned, as chattel — like pigs and horses and cows and children and shovels and rugs and brooms — by men. With very, very few exceptions, they could not vote, own property, hold public office, attend schools, attend colleges, work in the public sphere, serve on juries, own money, have bank accounts, keep their own names, divorce. They were owned. I have no doubt that occasionally they received fair treatment in some venue or another. Slaves and indentured servants undoubtedly occasionally prevailed as well. That they ever did prevail is irrelevant to the discussion here.
And I will also remind you that a few centuries AFTER the time in history you want to talk about there, FOR several centuries, there were phenomena occuring like thousands of women, up to 100,000, isthe estimate, just randomly burned, hanged, tortured and murdered for being witches– many of them midwives, woman healers of various kinds, herbalists, some of them lesbians, single women, but sometimes they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time or they had been in a fight with the wrong person or whatever. Women were subjected to a reign of terror– for centuries in the public sphere and at home where they were property.
Considerations as to how the Courts may have treated women can’t be shut up therefore to the laws that were written or the comparatively few instances in which they received some sort of justice or vindication. We have to consider who women were in the world– property. Chattel. Human beings who could be beaten, raped, whose movements were severely restricted, who could be murdered if somebody decided to call them a “witch”. This reflects a level of contempt for women which is evidenced in the laws which pertained to women– for centuries. So social norms, or not, are really not the issue. And English Common Law and occasional male benificence is not the issue. The issue is men have treated women hatefully *always*. And they still do. And that is very much reflected in laws around divorce and custody and child support– still.
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
Ha! Touche.
That’s the beauty of being a Burkean, though. You can appeal to tradition if it supports your view, and discount its importance when it doesn’t.
But seriously. Knowing the history is important. However, unless you’re going to make an argument in favor of legalizing spousal abuse, the history ought not control the debate.
As to the rule of thumb, I have also heard that it is a myth. And maybe it is, although I don’t think so. I think it was likely true.
But focusing on that possibility that it is a myth obscures what we know to be true: that men did and do still beat women, including with weapons. That they beat their wives. That for thousands of years there were no laws against this. Whether or not there ever was a “rule of thumb” on the law books in some jurisdiction or other, or not.
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
Which blogs do you suggest one go to? Links please?
Links please? I would be very interested in reading the discussion.
The etymology of “rule of thumb” is murky but probably not related to wife-beating. More likely carpentry or brewing. There does seem to be a relatively modern usage of rule-of-thumb relating to the size of the stick one could use, but it came into use as a play on the existing phrase rather than originating it.
There’s an informal but fairly comprehensive essay on this subject here.
Astonishingly I find myself in agreement with Robert.
>
The satirical cartoon from which the association between the phrase ‘rule of thumb’ and domestic violence originated can be seen here
What a nice way of saying you’re a troll. How ever could anyone assume you’ve got an anti-mother/anti-woman bias in light of such respectful serious behavior on your part. That said, I’ll go ahead and dismiss all that you’ve said up until now as baiting, and offer you a smile and one fingered salute of ‘C-ya’.
Now, Kim, that is a fallacy. Perhaps you ought to take lessons from David so that you, too, can identify everything said to you as a fallacy.
David:
You dont know me well enough to make such a statement about the rigidity of my beliefs, or my beliefs about factuality or unbiasednes on the first place. And about my “logical fallacies”… well I’m not here just to have a conversation with you. That’s why I occasionally put new points to my comments that *gasp* are unrelated to you or your comments, or my previous comments. Sue me.
Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on your way out :-).
Oh, I think David’s “amusement” claim was a back-up plan that kicked in when Cheryl showed up to point out to him that his pain over his kids didn’t make him the center of the universe, and the rest of us failed to hold his hand to his satisfaction.
YMMV.
Agreed, alsis.
It’s another form of “Oh, I was just kidding.”
Did everyone else miss David’s comment about the “ferrocity at which you rigidly believe yourself” ?
What, so we rigidly believe ourselves only when at the site of a city made entirely of iron?
His grasp of the English language seems to be slipping. I think we’re making him angry. We won’t like him when he’s angry…
And I second Tuomas. Although to be fair, David’s “it’s all about me, damn it” little temper tantrums have in fact provided me with some amusement. It’s always kind of funny to watch people who are unaware of their own privilege throw a hissy fit the first time someone challenges that privilege. I’m beginning to think that the entire MRA movement bears a striking resemblance to Cartman, except without the humor.
I seem to remember that rule of thumb came up in an 1877 case that was cited in Ann Jones’ Women Who Kill. All I remember was the date and that the state was Southern.
Cheryl: “the truth and the facts will remain the truth and the facts: throughout history, everywhere in the world, until the 19th century, women were PROPERTY. They were owned, as chattel … like pigs and horses and cows and children and shovels and rugs and brooms … by men. With very, very few exceptions, they could not vote, own property, hold public office, attend schools, attend colleges, work in the public sphere, serve on juries, own money, have bank accounts, keep their own names, divorce. They were owned. I have no doubt that occasionally they received fair treatment in some venue or another. Slaves and indentured servants undoubtedly occasionally prevailed as well. That they ever did prevail is irrelevant to the discussion here.”
Look Cheryl, your ignorance of English common law, or of the any number of queens that have ruled prior to 1800, is relevant if you continue to make statements like that. I provided you with text of the ACTUAL DOCUMENTS that proves women could own property and money, had standing under the law, and the law, rather than proclaiming women should be beaten, actually shows compassion.
History is full of anomalies and atrocities that we could cite at great length, including immense slaughter and enslavement of men throughout history. That women died as accused witches does not evidence a social norm of wife beating any more than the Holocaust is evidence of a prevailing social norm of murdering Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, and whomever else the Nazi’s targeted.
Toumas, in a rather semantically unambiguous way says ‘fuck you and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out’ yet the claim is that it is me who is angry or having a tantrum. Go figure. I understand that you don’t agree with me but third-rate, half-baked, personal attacks come off as desperate attempts to save face.
I know a load of crap when i see it yet I make a reasonably civil attempt to point out the flaws in your arguments. If you think I should have all the answers to every gripe everyone has about men or fathers you are not being realistic.
David, you are fighting a losing battle. You’re going about this all wrong. What does it matter if you write a 5000 word post? They’re not reading it, they don’t care. And they’re just going to come back with all presidents/judges/senators/representatives are men! Men wield ultimate power, you can’t be discriminated against!
Which is really a misleading statement. Because it doesn’t really matter who is in charge. What matters is who is pulling their strings. And in terms of social issues regarding man/woman relations it’s been all feminists all the time. Besides, men might hold places of power, but men also occupy the lowest positions in life: garbage men, commercial fishers (who are the highest death occupation and drownings a terrible way to go), construction workers, poultry workers (who constantly lose limbs & fingers due to a speed quota), etc…
Men make up 95% of workplace deaths, 75% of violent crime victims, and die 7 years sooner, and die more often from most major diseases due to their being socialized to abuse their bodies to provide for their families.
If you want to argue with these types of people you have to:
#1 illustrate how feminimism has hurt men, women & children
#2 sarcastically display all of radical feminist’s hypocrisy
#3 and mock mock mock
Just as in my most excellent post #321. If any1 wants to argue they should take a look at that.
“That women died as accused witches does not evidence a social norm of wife beating any more than the Holocaust is evidence of a prevailing social norm of murdering Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, and whomever else the Nazi’s targeted”
Witch burning is to misogyny & wife beating as the Holocaust is to anti-semitism (which *was* a prevailing social norm for a very long time indeed).
David:
You haven’t made many reasonably civil arguments to point out flaws in arguments for a while now, you prefer declaring arguments that contradict you flawed and fallacious and that’s it. There is a difference, and the latter is kind of insulting (It’s not much better than saying “you’re just a stupid liar” really, using educated words doesn’t change the content that much)
Take a good look in the mirror and your previous comment (the amusement one), and then figure out why I said what I said.
My mistake, it was Kim who suggested the one finger salute but the point was to be all-inclusive.
Jabes: The contradiction is well understood. i.e. Oprah Winfrey, a black woman, has accumulated more wealth, economic and social power by virtue of the vast corporate media empire she controls than the vast majority of men on the planet will ever have. To them this is simply proof that men are all about raping, beating and otherwise oppressing women.
But indulge me just a moment. Let’s look at the latest: “Witch burning is to misogyny & wife beating as the Holocaust is to anti-semitism (which *was* a prevailing social norm for a very long time indeed).”
It’s not about “winning.” C’mon. I love this stuff. Where else can you go and get comments like this delivered non-stop for free? You are correct though, a “win” might involve saying something like ‘men should be gutted like pigs and their entrails set afire.’ Now that’s entertainment!
Are you going to respond to what I posted, or just continue spewing?
Ampersand – remind us again: hosting such people, making them feel welcome, helps progressive causes (in general) & women (in particular) *how* exactly?
All right, it’s time to crack open the ol’ songbook now. Sorry, Amp. Take it down if it makes you feel old.
[To the tune of “I Love Trash” as sung by Oscar the Grouch]
Oh, I love trolls
Anyone sexist, rude and patronizing
Anyone spamming porn or advertising
Yes, I love trolls !!
I have here a troll with a rank song and dance
Its brains are located way down in its pants
I’ve read better prose in a Cartland romance
I love it ’cause it’s a troll !!
Oh, I love trolls
Anyone fighting the war from his armchair
Anyone clueless on choice or on childcare
Yes, I love trolls !
Now trolls are diverse
They have rich, varied lives
Be they gun-freaks or Rand-ies or “surrendered wives”
Yet one feminist thought makes ’em drop dead from hives
I love ’em because they’re trolls !
Oh, I love trolls
Any triathelete of hate, greed and misquotes
Any ass blaming the world’s ills on my votes
Yes, I love trolls !!
So it’s evil to feed ’em and pointless to vent
Sure, it drags down our discourse 100%
Still, if you can’t shell out for both cable AND rent
You’ll love ’em because they’re trolls !!
(last chorus same as the first)
It makes some of you look better by comparison.
“Are you going to respond to what I posted, or just continue spewing?”
Are you going to retract your insult?
Stick around, Sheena. I’m waiting for one of these clowns to state that since the Rothchilds had all that money, anti-Semitism was no big deal back in the day, either. It’ll be fun.
yeah. and how all those men buried at Normandy were just misogynistic Jew-hating bastards, blah blah blah…………………boring
Are you claiming that we entered WWII to free the Jews? Or are you–how old are you, by the way?–claiming credit for D-Day on behalf of your sex? Does the fact that your granddad killed people for the right reasons mean that none of his contemporaries were otherwise violent, selfish, bigoted, or wrongheaded? Does anti-anti-semite warfare abroad erase anti-semitism at home?
Finally, WTF, dude?
Your arguments have been pretty odd for awhile now, but this is the first time I’ve been genuinely baffled.
Yes, Oprah is really, really wealthy, really, really successful, and also a black woman. Her example is a very unusual one; it’s like concluding from Condoleeza Rice’s achievements that most black women are Secretary of State. And if you knew the first damn thing about her life, you wouldn’t be using her as an example of how misogyny isn’t commonplace. Bill Gates could probably afford to support all of the children of divorced parents in this country all the way through four years at an Ivy-League school of their choice. Do his financial circumstances mean that child-support payments would not be at all burdensome to you? You’re both white and male, after all.
>>Besides, men might hold places of power, but men also occupy the lowest positions in life: garbage men, commercial fishers (who are the highest death occupation and drownings a terrible way to go), construction workers, poultry workers (who constantly lose limbs & fingers due to a speed quota), etc…>>
Don’t forget prostitution!
Wait….
No, actually, it’s when you cease to amuse me that you move on. (Unless PA disagrees with me, of course.)
You’ve become tedious and shrill, David. Please don’t post on this website anymore.
They’re not reading it, they don’t care. And they’re just going to come back with all presidents/judges/senators/representatives are men! Men wield ultimate power, you can’t be discriminated against!
Yeah, it’s so funny, all those men making laws that deny women their rights! It’s all the feminists’ fault. That totally makes sense.
Which is really a misleading statement. Because it doesn’t really matter who is in charge.
Then fork over the government, fuckwit. Doesn’t matter? Hand over the goddamn keys now. Give it up. Let’s see what happens when we get women controlling things like abortion and BC and EC and shit like that. C’mon, babe, bring it on. Let’s prove it, right here and now.
What matters is who is pulling their strings. And in terms of social issues regarding man/woman relations it’s been all feminists all the time.
Hey, pal? I guarantee that if feminists were controlling things, that for starters no pharmacist anywhere in this country would so much as think of denying BC, abortions would be federally funded–and pretty damned rare, because we wouldn’t have this stupid abstinence only shit. Rapists would get arrested, and convicted—for a nice change of pace. Wife-beaters would get arrested long before they turned into wife-killers. Half the damned TV stations, half the radio stations, and half of everything would be liberal—-and real liberal, not just the kind that guys think will get them laid. If you opened a fucking newspaper, you’d see more than All White Guys, All The Frickin’ Time. Women wouldn’t have to starve themselves to be ‘attractive’ and men would have to appeal to women. Womens’ magazines would cover issues other than men. Women wouldn’t have to stay with men who abused them, and men who whine about on site job deaths would have to share those damned jobs—which are pretty damned high-paying—with women for a change. Half the House and Senate, needless to say, would be female. We’d have our first female President. Suddenly, a view of the world that wasn’t All White Guy, All The Time would prevail. In other words, women would actually have some say in what goes on, instead of having to pathetic trolls whine about conditions that prove them wrong. Oprah Winfrey? Oprah Winfrey? Hey, I know. How about I take that style of reasoning and point to OJ when it comes to summing up the condition and lives of men, okay?
Is that enough of a clue?
What I really want to know is if these fools actually believe this crap. I mean, come on—How could anybody with a brain stem believe this crap? I swear to God—what the fuck? The Feminist Illuminati? How pathetic does a guy have to be to whine that the world is secretly controlled by women? Because you know that women who secretly pull the strings would do in such a way as to leave women everywhere in dire straits. Like if we got power the first thing we wouldn’t do wouldn’t be something practical and helpful—-like helping other women. In terms of conspiracy theories, it’s like the lowest of the low.
$5.00 says he tries to whine about combat next. Bring it on, dude. Bring it on.
Also? I just love it when they bitch about the death gap. Yeah, river, cry me, one of—–you know the drill. You’re responsible for your own death gap there, babe. All that ill-gotten power must be pretty stressful when you keep trying to wiggle out of all the responsibility that comes with it, and then try to stand on the people you’ve victimized and blame them for your sorry ass state. You made your own ulcer.
Ampersand, you said, “If you are banned, it’s not because you’ve disagreed with me. It’s because you’re a condescending liar who doesn’t even have the intellectual integrity – or guts – to admit when he’s made a clear-cut factual error. ”
If we add to that, “You’ve become tedious and shrill” there wouldn’t be many posters left.
I found some of David’s comments distasteful, but generally civil and reasonably stated.
I found some of David’s comments distasteful, but generally civil and reasonably stated.
I don’t think announcing that you’re only present on another person’s blog for your own amusement, and will leave when the people present cease to be entertaining, is very bright, much less “civil and reasonably stated.”
“I don’t think announcing that you’re only present on another person’s blog for your own amusement, and will leave when the people present cease to be entertaining, is very bright, much less “civil and reasonably stated.”?
Childish and petulant might be a more apt description.
Always late to the party
In the long chain of male v female posts Ampersand hit the nail on the head. I truly feel that the basic problem with the child support system (here in Oz where I live anyways), is that child support is not a tax deduction. It is something that I have discussed with my welthy female family law attorney. It is problematic in that there are many people who support others that they may or may not live with – my parents supported my grandparents for many years when they were ill. They did not recieve any tax benefits for doing so (and got about 20cents a day from the governement for doing so, even though my mother gave up her job to do this). Taxation systems in Oz are also unfair to families fullstop. You don’t get much of a discount for supporting a spouse, and it doesn’t matter if you have 0 or 5 kids (which is ironic considering our govt is despartely trying to get people to have children). I truly believe that much of the hoohaa about child support – and david I will account for how I spend the children’s child support payments if my exspouse also accounts for how he and his new wife spend their money and we’ll all get together and reconcile at the end of the year, it’ll be so so easy too, we’ll all agree on what is a necessary expense for the children, dream on – is because the taxation system is unfair to families. If people paid taxes according to how many people the income supported, wealthy payers may find that it costs them nothing to pay child support, and low income payers may find that they have no taxes to pay. If taxes were paid “per capita” rather than “per income” many social problems could be solved, and I’d bet divorce rates (and child birth rates) would move in the dircetions our government is hoping. At the moment wealthy folk who can afford fancy financial schemes, and those that run their own companies are able to income split. If this benefit was bestowed to the entire tax paying population, the growing disparity between the wealthy and unwealthy would also be closed. I suspect that this is why it hasn’t happened in my country. The policy makes are generally wealthy male CS payers who enjoy family trusts. If we could all have a little bit of what they are having, then maybe we’d all stop hating each other and making ridiculous requests like “what is she spending it on”.
Amanda it is a shame that more folk here don’t seem to hear what you are saying. The current system does not work for anyone, most importantly the children. Stop looking at your spouse and start looking at your government.