Would You Do It To A Lesbian?

By "Do It," I meant "link," obviously. And I didn't mean "Lesbian," I meant "feminist". See, I have to link this moron at Feministe just to display her stupidity. The Jill that posted this crap is apparently so dumb, screwing her brains out would probably be less substantive than masturbation. Evidently, there's no there there when it comes to something resembling a mind with this gal. She does for honest debate what the air guitar has done for Rock music ... zip .... unfortunately.

A pregnant woman is brutally murdered by the father of her children, and all some “conservative values” bloggers have to say about it is, I’m not saying she deserved it, but she pretty much deserved it. First, Dan Riehl:

...  you read that right — Dan does appear to be saying that it’s unfortunate that the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes a crime in the Heartland.

What a pathetic bit of crap that is. Read my post, I never said or even suggested she deserved to be killed. And I clearly stated she was not directly responsible for her death. What did I do wrong, write it in English?

Let's see, you get drunk and drive your car over a cliff ... your fault? To some extent it is. But, somehow getting involved with a philandering creep with children by who knows how many other women and at least one previous restraining order against him by the Mother of one of his other kids ... and when it goes bad, it isn't at least partially a result of your poor judgment? And I really didn't even go that far. I simply suggested the whole case displayed a sad aspect of life in America today - one where traditional values don't seem to count for much any more.

Of course, according to feminazi Jill ... that's like suggesting someone should behave  responsibly. We can't have that in a liberal America, now can we?

BS. Something tells me when this Jill went up the hill, Jack didn't fall, he jumped just to give himself a break from her insipid liberal ranting. Jack's absence caused Jill to take a tumble for her high school gym teacher and the poor girl hasn't been right since, hence the horrible snarl. feh ... Check this out ... looks like she's getting ready to bite the head off the head waiter at some trendy Seattle bistro! Biatch probably didn't even leave a tip! ; )

Back in your cage, Jill ... you idiot!

Comments

[BobInStamford]

Lets see, angry old unaccomplished man (30 + years of voting, yikes!) v. fine young thing who managed to get into a top 5 law school. Game over, stick to pimping surge petitions. How pathetic...

[templar knight]

HairyBob, quit lying. You hate fine young women and love hairy men. You said so yourself. So STFU, and go back to your gay bar.

[Ex-Fed]

I wonder, Dan -- if I call you a whiny little bitch, will the feminists be offended? There's really nothing even nearly as pathetic as the bully who can dish it out but not take it.

Really, I know you and your gravel-knuckled pals get great traffic by the write-like-an-asshole/pretend-outrage-at-being-called-an-asshole cycle. But wouldn't it be quicker and ultimately more of a contribution to Western thought just to post Paris Hilton porn?

[Purple Avenger]

Wow, that poor lifestyle choices can have unpleasant consequences is such a hateful observation.

We're gonna have to stop telling the smack addicts that being a smack addict is bad for them cuz it might be considered as suggesting they'd deserve it when some dealer gives them a hot shot when they become a PITA to him.

[Gordon]

Wow, come for the posts, stay for the scintillating commenters.

Hey Dan, keeping out of trouble I see.

[Jill]

Well, Dan, you did say, "Unfortunately, if this is what constitutes crime in the heartland of America, that heart is very sick and we can only expect more of the same." Perhaps you just phrased that poorly? Because as it reads now, it really sounds like you're saying that it's sick and unfortunate that "this" (which seems to refer to Jesse's murder) is what constitutes a crime in the heartland.

My point was that violence against women wasn't any better (and was, in fact, a lot worse) in the heyday of your "traditional values." You can wish for the good old days all you want, but the fact is that more women like Jesse were killed back then than they are today -- traditional values have long involved violence and control over women. I think it's a good thing that we're moving past that. I think it's problematic that you don't, especially when a simple perusal of DOJ intimate partner homicide statistics make it pretty clear that women and men are being killed far less often by intimates than they were before progressive legal and social policies took root.

But sure, I'm a dumb feminazi bitch who fucked my gym teacher (?) and doesn't tip. I especially liked your last line -- the "...you idiot!" really burned.

And excuse the blog outage. We're working on getting it back up so that your readers can decide for themselves whether they'd do it to me.

[Nomine Cervus]

Dan,

I vaguely recall you posting in the past about the good qualities of Christianity. Are you yourself a Christian?

If so, how do you justify the hateful words you said about Jill? Isn't it enough to just say "I disagree with Jill in issues X,Y, and Z, because ..."

[Phoenix]

"You can wish for the good old days all you want, but the fact is that more women like Jesse were killed back then than they are today..."

You mean more unmarried white girls shared a black man with other women and had his babies?

"My point was that violence against women wasn't any better (and was, in fact, a lot worse) in the heyday of your "traditional values.

Can you source this, please? The statistics that prove your claim....

[Phoenix]

"You mean more unmarried white girls shared a black man with other women and had his babies?"

Goodness. I left out the killing part.

[Purple Avenger]

What's the left all upset about? They're supposed to believe in evolution and natural selection right?

[Uncle Mikey]

You can wish for the good old days all you want, but the fact is that more women like Jesse were killed back then than they are today -- traditional values have long involved violence and control over women

Prove it. This kind of bullshit is not just knee-jerk but without factual basis of any kind, or you'd substantiate it. You just kinda figure it must be true, right? Like most of your "beliefs," I'm guessing.

Nice commenters defending you, Jill. As usual, logical fallacies reign and no one will offer an alternative argument, just character assassination. Pathetic.

[Uncle Mikey]

Shit, forgot to put the first paragraph in quotes above. I suck at html

[Jill]

"You mean more unmarried white girls shared a black man with other women and had his babies?"

No, I meant that more women in general were killed by their male partners 30 years ago than are killed today. But thanks for confirming my suspicions that race is a major factor in the attacks on Jessie. Perhaps anti-miscegenation laws are part of those "traditional values"?

The DOJ stats are here:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm

[BobinStamford]

Kindly refrain from confusing these flatearthers with statistics. They prefer slogans, i.e. "Stay the Course", "Mission Accomplished", "Turning the Corner", "Shock and Awe", and the incomparable "Bring Em On".

Did I mention "Smoke Em Out"?

[templar knight]

Hmm...why hasn't the murder rate for white women declined, given that all the other categories have made significant declines over the charted period? Any statistics on that, Jill?

[Jill]

"Hmm...why hasn't the murder rate for white women declined, given that all the other categories have made significant declines over the charted period? Any statistics on that, Jill?"

From the DOJ:

"the number of white females killed by intimates rose in the mid-1980's, then declined after 1993 reaching the lowest recorded in 2002.The number increased slightly after 2002."

[Jill]

(In other words, the murder rate for white women has declined. It hasn't declined as significantly as the murder rate for women of color, but over in feminist-land we think that all women matter, not just white ones)

[Phoenix]

"But thanks for confirming my suspicions that race is a major factor in the attacks on Jessie."

What a load of crap. You found just what you were looking for.

Back in the 'heyday' of 'traditional values' a white woman would have found it unseemly to procreate with a black man. That's not racist. That's fact. Or did you not want to go that far back in the 'heyday'? Are the 1980's the 'traditional' times? Exactly what era do you want to label "The Traditional Era" so we can grok your spiel here?

As for those of you in 'feminist-land' caring about all women, think again. Margaret Sanger is the leader of your movement and her purpose....... Her purpose was to insist on birth control and abortion for blacks with the hope they would disappear. Do some studying of various sources and you might find your do-gooderism smacks of racism. Early feminism is predicated on the desire to get rid of blacks.

So, stuff it, you whiny little uneducated, brainwashed twit.

[Joanne]

Dan, let's leave aside for the moment the fact that Jill is your intellectual superior by a factor of three or four, and the fact that there's some delicious irony in bemoaning the erosion of "traditional values" while you're slinging words like "biatch" and "feminazi" and making thinly veiled rape jokes.

Let's turn instead to your own words on the Natalee Holloway case:

"Nothing at all tells me that Natalee was a hater; no, not at all. In some ways, after seeing some of her most ardent would-be supporters, I think, thank God she's finally free of it. Perhaps that's why she made some of the choices she did, took some of [the] risks, maybe wanted more than anything to just sit on a beach late at night looking foggily up at the stars. Not only might it have been preferable to a certain reality, perhaps at least she could pretend for a minute that there really was no hate in the world at all.

"To all the haters who try to don some distorted mask of love and concern for a missing young girl - your ugliness underneath the mask betrays you. None of your thoughts, feelings and actions display any genuine sense or understanding of compassion, let alone love."

Can you help us all understand why....
1) you didn't mind romanticizing Natalee's "risk-taking" and questionable choices, but you're quick to condemn Jessie Davis's?
2) you seem utterly oblivious to the fact that the entire second paragraph quoted above is a perfect indictment of your own behavior in this case?

Thanks! I'll leave a tip.

[sglover]

"The Jill that posted this crap is apparently so dumb, screwing her brains out would probably be less substantive than masturbation."

Oh, now there's some information-packed commentary. And then we come to the conclusion:

"...Something tells me when this Jill went up the hill, Jack didn't fall, he jumped just to give himself a break from her insipid liberal ranting. Jack's absence caused Jill to take a tumble for her high school gym teacher and the poor girl hasn't been right since, hence the horrible snarl...."

What the hell is your problem, Riehl? Children blather on like this.

And then the in-patients chime in:

"You hate fine young women and love hairy men. You said so yourself. So STFU, and go back to your gay bar."

Clever!

Jesus, every time I peek in on this zoo you lickspittles are a little more rabid and incoherent. Hey, which betrayers are you going to turn the hate on tomorrow? I hear William F. Buckley (some of you yahoos may have heard of him) isn't sufficiently awed by The Decider. When are you going to accuse him of being a gay liberal?

[Jill]

"What a load of crap. You found just what you were looking for.

Back in the 'heyday' of 'traditional values' a white woman would have found it unseemly to procreate with a black man. That's not racist. That's fact."

Right, "traditional values" do dictate that it's unseemly for a white woman to procreate with a black man. That is indeed a fact, and I don't dispute it. But it IS racist to think that white women procreating with black men is unseemly. In other words, the traditional values that you guys love so much? Racist. Get it?

"So, stuff it, you whiny little uneducated, brainwashed twit."

FYI, "uneducated" is not a synonym for "stupid." If you want to call me stupid, then you should just do that, because you make yourself look pretty dumb when you call someone "uneducated" and it turns out that you're flat-out wrong. Subjective insults will probably suit you much better. "Twit" was pretty good. Go with that.

[Buzzy]

I'm waiting to find out why Cutts killed Jesse and if, in fact, he did.

I see lots of killings, most of them domestic in nature, and I know that many of the reasons aren't earth shaking or dramatic. In fact, most of them come from a lack of love which with constant friction devolves to hatred and loathing. When it all comes down to dust and the killer decides to tell you why he took a life the reason often sounds silly and tiny, often the result of a thousand tiny insults rather than one big imposing reason.

I don't know enough of the circumstances behind Cutts and Jesse's relationship to begin to form an opinion as to if her choices reasonably led her to being killed. For example, if there is a history that he beat Jesse, threatened her harm or exhibited anything along the normal abuse syndrome path on a regular basis and yet she stayed in her victim position in the relationship, I would say that YES, she brought on her own demise. If that didn't happen and he just snapped to everyone's surprise then how could anyone, let alone Jesse for see this violence.

Of course this all assumes that he was her killer. I'll wait for the details that won't surface till trial to decide if Jesse led herself to her own demise or not.

[gofoto]

DOJ, 2005, Criminal Victimization In The United States. This takes you to a document "Victims and Offenders". In table 42 you find 115,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault.In the 111,590 cases of rape or assault of white women; 44.5% were white males, 33.6% were black males raping/sexually assaulting white women.
In the 36,620 rapes of black women 100% was by black males. 0% was by white males.
42,3059 white females raped by black males, and not one black female raped by a evil white male.
So, Jill, know of any white females raped and sexually assaulted by black males? Why I bet you do, since truth goes out the door when a "ism" is your truth. I bet you know a black female feminist who was raped by a black male and you console her with making the victim not see the skin color of the rapist but that it was a male.
Care to explain this strange form of male dominance that black males have toward white females?
Care to explain why white males have not raped on black female?
If you answer that white males are racist and would not "touch a black women", then what is the reason of black males raping and murdering white females? Could it be(raping white females) is the most pure form of racism fostered from you and other professional victimologist?
Is it that black males only touch a white female with a mind set that white women are inferior and deserve their rape from just being white or female?

Now, Jill, you know fear leads to anger, and anger leads to rightous actions by former victims that always justify de-humanizing their victims.
Hmm, like Maggie Sanger was a victim of poverty, and found a typical immoral way to get rich, was to be a stooge for rich white males with racist designs.
Whew-whe, she was one pissed off women, who hated where she came from. And you Jill?

[Oh, I don't think so.]

"I've no desire to insult the victim or her family and no one should. But the sad reality is that Jessie Davis was either the victim of poor self, or impulse control and poor decision-making, perhaps both, long before she became a murder victim. And to suggest that one isn't in any way related to another only endorses the notion that values don't matter. They do. And while Ms. Davis certainly isn't in any way directly responsible for her own death, had she been a bit more responsible with her life, it likely wouldn't have ended in such a tragic crime."

Dan? Just so you know, when you say 'I don't mean to blame the victim' and then follow up that statement by...blaming the victim...you have pretty much forfeited any claim on tolerance for your fucktardity by any woman. And, yes, suggesting that a murder victim's 'poor impulse-control or decision-making abilities' contributed in any way to her death is, indeed, victim-blaming, no matter how desperately you try to disclaim it.

[Amanda Marcotte]

Do you have any reaction to being outsmarted by a woman outside of engaging in pathetic fantasies about violent sex ("screwing her brains out")? I know learning something is out of the question, but seriously.

[seekeronos]

Meh. What a disturbing post, followed by even more disturbing comments (particularly from the lefty lunatic fringe).

First:

"The Jill that posted this crap is apparently so dumb, screwing her brains out would probably be less substantive than masturbation."

For shame, Dan.

Normally, I like reading what you post here, but this kind of statement is at best demeaning to women by implying that the cures to thier perceived ills lie in being coerced into sex (sort of like the old Victorian medical thinking behind "hysteria", which held that women were subject to bouts of insanity due to movements of their uterus [or "hyster", from the Greek root word] and needed to be sexually handed to cure that same "hysteria").

At worst, it is an appalling and brutal way to view a woman, even if her (Jill's) statements are incorrect and misguided by her leftist political agenda. Even if intended as jest, I would hope that this does not accurately reflect an opinion of women as "irrational beings" who must be continually wooed or forcibly brought into submission.

That said, the politics and premises of "feminism" have done untold damage to our society, and have undermined our families and family-scale economics greatly.

Compare for example, the number of stable families in 1950 with a single income (typically from the husband) with dual-incomes (meaning both parents work full time) --- and then do so again for today.

It was possible in the 1950s for a family of four or five to live comfortably, make the house payments, with little or no consumer debt, on a single income.

Today, to live according to the standard of living seen as "comfortable", a family must have *both parents* working full time to make the minimum credit card payments, the mortgage on a McMansion, the car payments on both SUVs, and of course, daycare for the tots.

Trying to pull that off today on a single income is virtually impossible - especially in the major urban corridors like LA or NYC unless you are (a) a member of the idle rich (2) an investment banker or corporate vice president or (3) willing to live __very__ frugally and within your means, which in the greater NYC exurb, probably means foregoing the $600k McMansion and the new-ish SUVs.

Feminism has also been very ruinous to our society by agitating our women and co-ercing them to "compete" with men, and creating a class barrier that ought not be. This is not to suggest that women are incapable of doing things as well as men, but there are some things that women are best at -- such as being a wife to her husband, a mother to her children, and one to whom her husband can turn to for counsel and support.

In like manner, she should submit to her husband's leadership, just as much as the husband should love her and protect her: not as a fragile object, nor as one lording it over her, but rather as two different and complementary parts of a greater whole, even as a man and a woman are joined together as one flesh, just as the Lord Jesus Christ has ordained.

The problem with all this is that "feminism" is yet another tine on the Devil's pitchfork - yet another ploy of his to divide, confuse, and maintain his control over the unregenerated souls of men and women yet still under his sway, during his limited time remaining as "the god of this world". (2 Corinthians 4:4)

[Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

"Care to explain why white males have not raped on black female?"

Oh. My. God. Gofoto, you are such an asswipe. "Raped on black female?" What?

The WORLDWIDE sexual abuse of brownskinned women by white men THROUGHOUT HISTORY is so thoroughly documented that it's not even worth DEBATING. That white men are rarely convicted for raping dark-skinned women, despite all the evidence that the problem is rampant, shows how much rape is treated like the white man's entitlement.

Idiot: Only the smallest fraction of rapes are even reported, let alone brought to trial, and most rapists get off scott free. Conviction rates are conviction rates, stupid. They have no place is this discussion.

[Phoenix]

"But it IS racist to think that white women procreating with black men is unseemly. In other words, the traditional values that you guys love so much? Racist. Get it?"

Yeah, I get it. You and your ilk figure anyone from the 'traditional' era, which you still refuse to name, are racists and you are enlightened and therefore not a racist. Let's see.... you are just 20 according to your grotesquely vapid self-description, so anyone over, say, 25 is racist. That includes your parents, grandparents, and half the country. And that is all political parties - all racists.

Here is what makes you stupid: ""traditional values" do dictate that it's unseemly for a white woman to procreate with a black man. That is indeed a fact, and I don't dispute it." BUT, it IS racist. BUT, as long as we 'racists' think as you do, we'll lose the racism and become enlightened and in the process wipe out the facts of history? Great idea.

You are uneducated because you know nothing of your cause. If you held to the orginal tenants of your mighty cause, you'd tell black people to quit breeding. Get it?

[Paul L.]

That white men are rarely convicted for raping dark-skinned women, despite all the evidence that the problem is rampant
Care to show the evidence.
Or are you going to cite the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax.
Do you have "evidence" that supports Ms. Mangum's story.
I should note that mentioning the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax will get you banned from Jill's and Amanda's blog.
"Idiot: Only the smallest fraction of rapes are even reported, let alone brought to trial, and most rapists get off scott free. Conviction rates are conviction rates, stupid. They have no place is this discussion."
Since you are so knowledgable about rape. Can you answer the question I posted here?
According to RAINN (Rape Abuse & Incest National Network), over 59% of rapes remain unreported. I've seen stats as high as 75%.
Some questions for you about this stat.
Are these reported or unreported rapes since the victims were killed and could not report the rape?

The Making of a Proper Victim

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder

Were these included in the stat you quote.

Does that stat include statutory rapes such as a 16 year not saying anything about having consensual sex with her 19 year old boyfriend to keep him out of trouble?

[Phoenix]

Hedonistic,

Bring it up to CE. The statistics don't lie.

[seekeronos]

"The WORLDWIDE sexual abuse of brownskinned women by white men THROUGHOUT HISTORY is so thoroughly documented that it's not even worth DEBATING."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another gem of an undocumented "fact" from the Lefty Loony Brain Trust, I bet.

I'd scale that back a few notches, if only because in the world, white males are a distinct minority, compared to everyone else (non-European-descended peoples).

Speaking as a male of Nordic descent myself, I'm pretty sure that for most of that "history", we were quite busy commiting atrocities upon one another (whites, not non-whites) - at least up until the 16th century when a very small few of us decided to build boats and check out the far edge of this flat earth some of y'all libs seem to think we still beleive in.

Sure, the Greeks under Alexander had a very short run of war, rape and pillage, but that lasted all of about two generations befor it fell apart. The Romans got around to, but they limited their abuses to what was then largely a Caucasian sphere (the northern African coastal kingdoms could be considered largely Caucasoid, with very little admixture of the African tribes found in the African interior).

As compared to other men of other races smacking around "brownskinned" (Eh? "Brownskinned"...? How racist is that? Sounds almost as bad as "Redskins" or "Darkies" to me) women, the tribal Africans had been doing it for far longer beating up and raping and enslaving thier own, the Arabians/Persians beating up and enslaving Africans for nearly as long, and the various ethnicities of Chinese routinely enslaving one another over the millennia.

I can't speak much for Meso-american cultures as they were fairly homogenous, but I reckon that if they fall under the banner of being "brownskins", then they were doing greivous things to one another long before Cortes showed up.

Therefore, H.P., one has to reject your rather long-reaching implication that white males are the predominate source of rapist predations upon (brownskinned) women, even if one entertains the probability that there are numerous undocumented white-on-nonwhite rapes.

I'd tend to receive your argument more willingly (that there are numerous undocumented white-on-nonwhite rapes in American history based upon a racially biased system of jurisprudence) if your "evidence" was based on something more solid than a dodgy, dogmatic statement made with many CAPITALIZED words of EXASPERATION at us "ig'nant flatearthers".

[Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Seekeronos: Nice try at humanity, but honestly: Women are just "better" at domestic servitude? How could it be that women are so conveniently "better" at what amounts to repetitive, boring, soul-sucking shit work? The kind of work that, lacking a wife, people contract out to slaves, servants and/or immigrants? How convenient for the traditional Patriarch as it frees him up to do more worthwhile, creative and productive work.

I suppose the next thing you'll post is that black folk pick cotton not because of racism, but because the negroes are just "better at it" than white people.

What you imagine is "feminism" is not responsible for this woman's death any more than SHE is. Fighting for the rights of women to exist unmolested by men, determine the course of their own lives, and participate in public life and productive work (beyond producing children) will not cause the space-time continuum to collapse. I promise.

What is behind the economic struggles of the ordinary American family is not feminism but an of control oligarchy skimming profits, screwing customers, suppressing the wages of ordinary hardworking people, and marketing a culture of rampant consumerism. Put simply: Our wages have not kept up with inflation. We're squeezed. When it comes to the gap between the rich and poor we're effectively back to the days of the Robber Barons. Laying this problem at the feet of women who just want to be left alone to earn a living and shape their own destinies without being SCREWED OVER by the men around them is just really, really LOW.

If you really want to put the blame somewhere, perhaps you might take a look at what constitutes "free market capitalism" in America today. It's, not "free;" it's criminal. Taking a critical look at the Conservative Agenda of wingnut Republicans won't cause the collapse of the space-time continuum, either.

And what this has to do with the death of this poor woman is beyond me.

[Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Folks, when it comes to the issue of sexual violence toward women of any color, I'm not going to chop wood and carry water for you. I could do it if I felt like it since I'm a certified sexual violence counselor and have a BS degree that encompasses these issues, not to mention access to all the necessary resources. There: I've laid down my street cred. Carry on with your entitled whiteboy delusions.

Also, you are SO outranked by the commenters at those feminisit-friendly sites it's almost pathetic to watch y'all flail. I'm embarrassed for you.

[Phoenix]

"...marketing a culture of rampant consumerism."

Shit. I just fucking hate it when I'm forced to buy something. Fucking free-mart capitalism. Damn.

[Phoenix]

"I'm not going to chop wood and carry water for you." Who asked you?

[Rudy]

"Shit. I just fucking hate it when I'm forced to buy something. Fucking free-mart capitalism. Damn."

Wow, what vulgar trailer trash.

[seekeronos]

Please don't misunderstand me: somewhere in this, you seem willing to automatically thrust the woman into the role of permanent victim. Shall a woman indeed always be so incapable as this, that she must ever be a victim?

But such is the problem with "victimization politics", which afflicts any group of people who must play to this game of being a perpetual victim to secure "rights".

The ideal is that a husband and wife are a team. Like any team, there must be one leader, and he must lead with a view for the success of the team (in this case, his wife).

This does not mean she is to be a "slave", however people have misread or misinterpreted the Bible's instruction for wives to be submitted to their husband's headship. It is difficult to grok this without the leadership of the Holy Spirit which comes from being regenerated by a true faith in Christ's redeeming work at the cross -- so I do not expect you to grasp this:

It is part of God's plan that a man and his wife work together in harmony, the wife supporting her husband, the husband lovingly providing for his household and the godly instruction and rearing of his children.

I'm not for coercing a woman to marry against her will, or for her to give up her high-powered career to be a baby factory, or even to endure getting beat down by her husband - nothing of the sort. I think though, that a woman may find herself happier and fulfilled if she can be married to a faithful, God-fearing who loves her "as Christ loved and gave Himself for the Church" and indeed, as much as he loves himself. (Ephesians 5:25, 28)

Rather, I think that a wise woman is she who discovers this on her own. H.P - do you want to see an example of a POWERFUL, STRONG woman in the context of the "patriarchal" era of the Bible?

I beg you to read through Proverbs 31 (link below this paragraph) objectively. This woman is no slave, but rather an example for all women everywhere.

I'll wait for you to get back here after reading it. :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2031;&version=9;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still with me? Great!

So ask yourself - how many women - deep in their hearts - are truly satisfied with the grind of trying to eke out a career, AND balance that with keeping a household running AND being a suitable mother to her children (assuming that she doesn't cache them away in daycare, or plug them into that electronic babysitter called the "hellivision" [that is, most TV programming]) AND having time to be anything approaching a wife to her husband?

Those are simply too many balls up in the air for her to juggle: eventually one or more of them will get dropped - and woe to her (and her family) if one of them happen to be the glass balls of "children" or "husband".

What I am basically saying is, however, is that things go a lot better for us individually and as a society, when we choose to follow God's word.

Ms. Davis has suffered greatly at the hands of that villianous man (of colour, for all the importance that doesn't bear)... but her case is yet another tragic example of what happens when we (meaning our American society) turn our backs on God's Word - indeed, godly principles for a well-ordered society.

[Paul L.]

"I could do it if I felt like it since I'm a certified sexual violence counselor and have a BS degree that encompasses these issues, not to mention access to all the necessary resources."
I am guessing the BS degree is Woman's Studies.
Care to respond to my post
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/06/would-you-tap-a.html#comment-74149438
Here is the post I reference:
http://pghwomenbloggers.blogspot.com/2007/06/fewer-rapes-in-pittsburgh-ha.html

[Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

No, never even took a women's studies class. BS in human dynamics and family social science.

Back to work now . . .

[Phoenix]

I'm thinking Hedonistic Pleasurer has a degree in BS.

The name bothers me. I mean, if he is a counselor of sexual violence and refers to himself as a 'pleasurer of hedonism', I have to wonder. Does he pass out vibrators and butt plugs if his charges go one week without hitting one another? Oh, heck, I don't know. He's the 'pleasurer' so maybe he uses the sex toys on his victims...
er....his patients.. to show them how to become REALLY REALLY happy as opposed to smacking one another around for cheap thrills. What a guy.

[Phoenix]

Wow, what vulgar trailer trash.

Posted by: Rudy

No, Rudy. You perhaps are not aware that the girls on the site that Dan speaks about got fired from the Edwards' campaign for trash-talking. Remember? One in particular can't go four words without a nice 'fuck'.

Although she managed not to use any filth in her one comment here. It was too stupid for filth, I guess. :)

[bryce]

Dan:

Maybe you should explain what you met in your now infamous post. As it reads right now it sounds like you are saying that women who are promscuous should die. Sounds an awful lot like sharia law. Are you going to start calling for public stonings next?

[Matthew]

Pheonix, how about we just appoint some random dead person with distasteful views as leader of your movement? Margaret Sanger said some good things, and some bad things. I'd like to think that we feminists have discarded the bad and kept the good.

And since when are feminists a monolithic movement? We're not. There are some feminists who have different ideas about the very same topics. It is considered perfectly okay.

You keep asking us to name the time you're taking your "traditional" values from. They're your values, why don't you tell us?

But the issue at hand is this whole murder thing. Saying that her life choices led to this is blaming the victim. Now, you might think it's okay, but you have to call it what it is. And what we call it is blaming the victim.

So what we feminists are arguing is that it's not okay to blame the victim. She may have chosen to stay with a guy who was a total shit. But he's the one who pulled the trigger. He may have hit her before and she still stayed. He's still the one that pulled the trigger, and for that matter, hit her. Did she make him hit her? Did she make him pull that trigger? No. He is solely responsible for pulling the trigger (or whatever method he used to kill her, and no, I have no idea if there was abuse involved before the murder... I mention it by way of example).

Every time you blame the victim for the crime, you are taking away the agency of the perpetrator by saying that, in some way, they were coerced into committing the crime by the victim. As if they were too weak to resist the siren song of murder. Guess what? That's the fault of the perpetrator, not the victim.

[Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Phoenix, that you can't tell the difference between one and the other speaks volumes about you.

[Phoenix]

Thanks, Matthew. That was really moving. I am moved. Mostly I'm moved that you're name is Matthew. Why are you a feminist?

What?, Hedonistic Pleasureseeker. Maybe I need some counseling? Ya think? Jeepers. I would call you, but you only do violence and obsessive happy-seeking. Besides, I'm thinking maybe you're about 22 1/2 years old.

I have to laugh thinking of some crying wife and a belligerant husband sitting in your office counting on you to 'fix it'. Heh.... just think what they'd think if they knew you skulked the Internet as "HedonisticPleasureseeker.

ha ha..... <----- I'd do some more "ha ha's" except that might look as if I have Hedonistic Stress Disorder.

:)
.

[Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Phoenix, you are such a knob. You have absolutely no clue.

OK I'm outta here, got some nonviolent pleasureseeking to do. Oh wait, I'm at work. Nevermind.

[Joanne]

"Mostly I'm moved that you're name is Matthew. Why are you a feminist?"

Wow---I've only been acquainted with "Phoenix" for the duration of this comments thread, and I still saw that bit of idiocy coming from a mile away.

By the way, Phoenix, the "girls" who RESIGNED from the Edwards campaign had nothing to do with Jill's site, and you've got the story rather mixed up. What a surprise.

Oh, and your "butt plug" comment was yet another valuable contribution to an intelligent discussion about so-called "traditional values."

It's sort of entertaining that you're willing to keep embarrassing yourself like this.

[Matthew]

Phoenix, good to know you were moved by my name. It has been known to have that effect on people. It's no accident that my name means "gift from god."

Why am I feminist? Because I think women are people too, and deserve to be treated as such.

I too am moved by how you are elevating the level of discourse here by refraining from ad hominem attacks and sticking to arguing the substance of people's postings. Good on ya.

[Bill]

“You are uneducated because you know nothing of your cause. If you held to the orginal (sic) tenants (sic) of your mighty cause, you'd tell black people to quit breeding. Get it?”

Phoenix, we get it. You, the competitive bitch and obsessed with oral sex, foul-mouthed supposedly edjamakated skool teacher misuses a word. Imagine that. Try "original" “tenets,” Miss Phoenix. You’re all over the board and rarely consistent; you manipulate, honey massage, crudely ingratiate and bitch pummel with words as the immediate situation suits. All to get your way.

Well, fine. Just get the words right if you’re going to treat people as being beneath you and not as educated as you. Too bad you never learnt any humility or basic decency. Or basic vocab.

[templar knight]

Oh, Jill, I'll try to rephrase this question so that it makes sense to you. Do any statistics you are familiar with show why the deaths of white women by intimates has hardly declined since 1976. Looking at the graphs, the number of women murdered by intimates in 1976 is about the same as 2005.

It's cool that you take the death of all women seriously, but one wonders why the murder of white women has not dropped off nearly as much, and in fact is about the same as in 1976. All the other subsets declined dramatically during the same period.