Will NOW Defend This Woman

[dazzleman]

Recalling NOW's support for Lorena Bobbitt (who cut off her husband's penis because of domestic violence) and Andrea Yates (who killed her children by drowning them in a bathtub), I wonder if NOW will support the woman discussed in this article.

I can just hear the feminists saying that she did this because she could no longer deal with the abusive partriachy in American society, or some such nonsense.  Too bad they can't blame this on post-partum depression, as they did in the Andrea Yates case.  Of course, they can say it was the father's fault, as they argued in the Yates case.
___________________________________________

(Columbia) August 19, 2005 - A 24-year-old South Carolina State student was arrested Thursday and charged with unlawful conduct towards a child.
An arrest warrant states Miama Rebecca Kromah cut the scrotum of her three-year-old stepson with a sharp object.

Lt. Chris Cowan with the Richland County Sheriff's Department says it's one of the most horrific cases of child abuse investigators say they've seen in a while.

Deputies say Kromah came to Palmetto Richland on Monday night with her three year old stepson who had a three inch laceration on his scrotum, and the testicle was protruding from the scrotum.

Kromah told the hospital the child was not in her care when he sustained the injuries. However, further investigation by the Richland County Deputies and a statement taken from the three-year-old victim identifies Kromah as the person who caused the injury.

Deputies say Kromah is a native of Liberia and here on a student visa. The three year old's father is also here from Liberia on a work student visa, he was not home at the time of the incident.

The boy was transported to Lexington Medical Center and then to Palmetto Richland Hospital for surgery. After receiving treatment for his injuries, the boy was taken into emergency protective custody and turned over to DSS.

Deputies are now trying to figure out what could have led her to this violent act.

[dazzleman]

When the  did NOW support those? Got a link?

Before I post a link, will you agree that it would be reprehensible for NOW to have rallied to the support of Andrea Yates?

[dazzleman]

Well Jfern, since you have failed to answer, I assume you are reserving the right to defend NOW even if they defended Andrea Yates.  If that were the case, why did you ask for links in the first place, implying that what I was saying was not true, rather than that you support something that is truly reprehensible.

BTW, here are two links.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/front/1021312
http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment082801a.shtml

And here's one on the Bobbitt case.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1562

[dazzleman]

OK, NOW is run by some morons. However, they don't have the power or extremism of Falwell, Robertson, or Dobson.

No, they actually have a lot more power.  And even if they don't, that makes it OK for them to take reprehensible positions? 

What do you think their position would have been if the father, rather than the mother, had murdered those children?  I think I know the answer to that question, and it speaks volumes about the integrity of NOW.

[dazzleman]

OK, NOW is run by some morons. However, they don't have the power or extremism of Falwell, Robertson, or Dobson.

No, they actually have a lot more power.  And even if they don't, that makes it OK for them to take reprehensible positions? 

What do you think their position would have been if the father, rather than the mother, had murdered those children?  I think I know the answer to that question, and it speaks volumes about the integrity of NOW.

What more do you need to know about NOW besides that they're run by morons?

So you're admitting that I was right to begin with?  That's quite a change from your original position.

[dazzleman]

So some woman hurts a child and the first thing you think is to try and involve NOW somehow.

I thought the question was worth asking given NOW's history of defending reprehensible behavior by women while at the same time strongly condemning the same behavior by men.

Call me crazy, but to me, equal rights means a single standard of behavior.  Clearly, NOW is not really for equal rights.

[dazzleman]

No because as Texasgurl pointed out you were wrong to begin with because the case had nothing to do with NOW.

If NOW had come out in defense of this woman, you would have a valid point. They have not as of now, so you do not.

This is quite similar to many posts bandit has made.

So now you've changed the issue.  Typical tactic for somebody who was wrong to begin with.

Your original question was whether NOW had supported Andrea Yates.  You initially doubted that they had, and I showed you that they did.

And cases like this have everything to do with NOW, since they have defended behavior similar to this in the past.

[dazzleman]

Dazzzleman, you're one of my favourite posters on a lot of things but I can't tell why you go after this issue so much.  I mean, it pisses me off too but it seems like half of your topics are about feminism.  Why is it such a huge issue to you?

I go after this issue because I think radical feminists are given a free ride by many people because they have effectively disarmed their opposition by claiming that they are for "equal rights" when nothing is further from the truth.

I think that all men should be concerned about the ability of feminists to use the legal system to harm us when we have done nothing wrong.  In my opinion, it is one of the most unrecognized dangers out there, and I guess that's why I tend to harp on the issue.

I do have indirect personal experience with the issue, though luckily I have not fallen victim to it yet.  But I know several people who have nearly lost their jobs due to false allegations of sexual harassment by women who were either crazy or looking to gain advantage through making such accusations.  The system is set up to support women who do these types of things.  I have seen the hostility with which fathers, and men in general, are treated by family courts.

As I said, I have no direct personal experience with this, and I'm very grateful for that.  But any one of us could, and I find that guys are very slow to wake up to these dangers.

So please forgive me for harping on this issue.  I realize that it is one of my pet peeves, but I don't think it's right to replace one form of discrimination with another.

[dazzleman]

I agree feminism is a nasty sexist cause.  But then I'm an egalitarian.  I believe Dazzleman is too.  But if I were a bitter old c**nt I might not be.  I might be a feminist instead.  Just like I might be a masculinist if I were a bitter old man.  But you can't change attitudes by attack, and I'm still mystified that there are anti-male bigots and anti-female bigots.  Either way, I'm no big fan of NOW either. 

That said, it's true that you are assigning a position to them that they haven't taken, Dazzleman.  That seems a bit unjustified.  I don't know the details of the current case.  And, let's remind ourselves that it was a panel of Houstonians who decided Andrea Yates shouldn't be imprisoned, not NOW.

Remember, I only asked if NOW would support this woman.  They might or might not.

It's funny to see the venom that comes from certain people just from asking a question about NOW.  It's true that NOW supported Andrea Yates and Lorena Bobbitt.  Why is it such a problem to say so?

It seems these people are a bit defensive about this organization, and the philosophy behind it.

[dazzleman]

If Bobbit's wife had abused her, there was nothing wrong with what she did.

Wouldn't it be great if women in Afghanistan under the Taliban had grabbed Taliban soldiers and cut off their penises?

So you think it's OK for a wife to cut off her husband's penis if he abuses her?  Would it be OK to cut off a woman's breast if she abused her husband, or cheated on him?

You really are a retard.

[dazzleman]

I stand corrected.  I see that you did not make any such assumptions.

I mostly jumped in because I agree with your general feelings about pitting the sexes against each other, I think.  We've discussed it many times.  And I agree organizations like NOW and their male counterparts do more harm than good.

anyway, I don't have any guess one way or the other about the current case.  so I'll just duck out.

No problem.  I oppose both masculism and feminism, as you do.  I think it's stupid to make enemies of the two sexes, as I think feminism in particular has done.

It's very interesting to watch the hate that liberals spew when anybody uses facts to question their orthodoxy.  Liberalism as it stands today is true an ugly philosophy, and this thread proves it.

[dazzleman]

[Why don't YOU explain who Annie Sprinkle is? Her name makes me think of a porn star.

Exactly.  This is a standard BRTD tactic.  When he's wrong on the overall question, which is basically all the time, he starts to argue over some obscure detail.

I don't know who Annie Sprinkle is, and I couldn't care less.

[dazzleman]

She is a prominent feminist author who supports porn.

So I guess that makes her a wonderful person.

[dazzleman]

She is a prominent feminist author who supports porn.

So I guess that makes her a wonderful person.

Sounds like sarcasm.

Point is she completely disproves your stereotype you throw on all feminists.

I can name more pro-porn feminists too.

Whatever.  Every movement has disparite elements, but that doesn't necessarily change the thrust of the movement.  And supporting porn does not mean that a feminist is not anti-male.

There are also some dissident elements of feminism, such as the i-feminists, that are for equity between the sexes rather than gender feminists, as represented by NOW.

When I say feminist, I am referring to anti-male groups like NOW who will defend even the most reprehensible conduct by women while condemning the same conduct by men.  And it has nothing to do with whether a person supports porn, which seems to be the yardstick by which you measure everything.

[dazzleman]

What is your point?

As usual, there is none, at least not a coherent one.  Maybe he'll argue that they should have been killed because they didn't support strip clubs or pornography.

Recognize that BRTD doesn't hold opinions; he simply has attitudes.  There's a big difference.

[dazzleman]

Dazzzleman, you're one of my favourite posters on a lot of things but I can't tell why you go after this issue so much.  I mean, it pisses me off too but it seems like half of your topics are about feminism.  Why is it such a huge issue to you?

Dazzleman doesn't actually stand for anything, he just stands against straw man stuff.

You define any fact that lays bare the ridiculousness of the philosophy that you espouse as a "straw man."  Is it a straw man that NOW supported Andrea Yates, as you originally implied?

[dazzleman]

[Why don't YOU explain who Annie Sprinkle is? Her name makes me think of a porn star.

Exactly.  This is a standard BRTD tactic.  When he's wrong on the overall question, which is basically all the time, he starts to argue over some obscure detail.

I don't know who Annie Sprinkle is, and I couldn't care less.

No, he's just not allowing you to generalize your straw man argument.

If somebody argued that the Nazis were anti-Jewish, BRTD would find one Nazi party member who had a Jewish friend, and to him that would be "proof" that the Nazis weren't anti-Jewish.  I guess I shouldn't generalize about the Nazis though; I'm sure there were a few who supported the cause for reasons other than anti-Semitism.  It would be a straw man argument to claim that they were anti-Jewish.

[dazzleman]

Wow, another straw man argument. Of course BRTD wouldn't argue that the Nazis were anti-Jewish you straw manning fool.

Of course he wouldn't, because Nazis aren't on the approved list for liberals.  Feminists are.  You people are completely incapable of thinking for yourselves.  The principle is the same, if either of you were intelligent enough to recognize it, which you are not.

[dazzleman]

LOL. You guys can not follow points at all. He's giving you an analogy, and you're not disputing the analogy but instead saying you wouldn't be on the same side of the exceptions argument (in other words, inconsistency).

You're exactly right, Philip.  They're nitwits who can only spew hate when they are so clearly proved wrong.  The fact that they are liberals speaks volumes about the quality of liberal thought.

[dazzleman]

Wow, another straw man argument. Of course BRTD wouldn't argue that the Nazis were anti-Jewish you straw manning fool.

Of course he wouldn't, because Nazis aren't on the approved list for liberals.  Feminists are.  You people are completely incapable of thinking for yourselves.  The principle is the same, if either of you were intelligent enough to recognize it, which you are not.

Feminists support genocide?

If you got that out of my statement, then you're even more retarded than I thought you were.

[dazzleman]

This thread has proven what I have long believed about the reaction of liberals when their orthodoxy is questioned.  And the more correct the questioning is, the more nasty and hateful they become.

Clearly, feminism is a liberal icon that is not to be questioned under any circumstances.  I have seen for myself the ugliness of political correctness in this thread.

I will not contribute any further to this thread, as I think it has run its course.  It is degenerating into a nasty exchange of the type that I like to avoid, with posters that I generally like to avoid interaction with due to their inability to sustain a logical discussion.

[dazzleman]

I don't think dazzleman's typically puerile analysis is what should concern us. I'm far more interested in whether castration has any cultural significance in Liberia. Unless there is a mental defect to be considered, this is an obviously criminal act. However, I think a circumspect judge would consider the mitgating anthropological factors carefully before pronouncing a sentence.

Coming from you migrendel, I take that as high praise.  Thank you.

As far as your analysis goes, and what you find most important in the matter, that speaks for itself.