Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

I was totally shocked when I read in one of my weekly womans mags the following story: (basic details) A married woman had an affair with a bloke, left her husband and married her lover. A few years down the line she was totally convinced that her new husband was playing away, and although she did have some points that would have caused concern, I didn't believe she had any solid proof. Anyway, one night after they'd been to the local for a couple of drinks, they were getting undressed and the woman just when crazy -

"Arms flailing, she slapped and scratched, clawing at his skin. He tried to defend himself, but she lunged, crunched her teeth onto his left ear. Then, scrabbling down his body, she clamped her teeth round his testicles - and chomped. She was in a frenzy, all control gone."

"His injuries - 12 stitches in his scrotum, eight in his ear, his neck and thigh covered in scratches..."

"The court heard how she had 'found out the victim was seeing another woman...what happened really was a crime of passion'. The judge was lenient. He gave her a one-year conditional discharge, told to pay the victim £200 compensation."

I think her punishment was totally laughable - if he had mutilated her like this he would be spending a good few years behind bars, and I suspect she would have received much more compensation. The article goes on to say that she feels he has been taught a lesson and will think twice before cheating on someone again - but she had an affair with him behind her 1st husband's back - does this mean he has the right to attack her, afterall, it would be classed as a "crime of passion"?

So back to my first question - do us girls what equal rights but only when it suits???

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

The law as it stands is laughable. Depending on the subject, it is weighted towards one sex or the other. One of the main problems stem from doddery old judges that can only vaguely remember their own names and are incapable of listening to both sides of a story as they have their own preferences before the courts are conveaned.
Many years ago, I fought for custody of my children. A social worker said that my wife was incapable of looking after my children properly HOWEVER CHILDREN SHOULD ALWAYS BE WITH THEIR MOTHER. The judge took her advice and I lost my case!
Things are gradually changing for the better though and harsh judgements are beginning to catch the newspapers attention.
Consider the recent case of a judge that had child pornography on his pc, He said it was for "research" and got away without a jail sentence......andwas allowed to retire early on his judges pension!!!

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

“She clamped her teeth round his testicles - and chomped. She was in frenzy, all control gone."………….I should be so lucky.

There is a moral here, “it take’s to tango and those who throw stones shouldn’t live in glass houses”.

Thank you Shortstuff, I know you are making a serious point, but I needed that………………...

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Cheers Doug!
nice to know you think most of the female sex are narrow minded!

:) :)

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Not at all Cazzer, For those of you that feel affronted by the term “narrow minded attitudes of your gender” I can only offer you my apologies. I don’t mean as a personal slant against any individual personally.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Just had another instalment of the weekly's and another example of this injustice is in it. A woman stabbed her fella to death after years of physically abusing him - and she got 3 1/2 years! She'll probably be out in two. If it was a fella, he probably would have got at least double the sentence.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Shortstuff, Why does this kind of injustice interest you so, if you where to do yours in for playing around, surly you would be grateful to get off easy. Or am I just being a chauvinist.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

I do not agree with any kind of injustice - imagine if it was you, your dad, your brother or son that had been treated this way. It would make you just as angry/upset as if it happened to a female member of the family.

What upsets me more - especially the first story - is that the magazine doesn't even pick up on the injustice, and actually makes a joke of it - the headline on the front was " 'Ball Breaker' - I bite off his testicle because he pestered me for sex!" Which, was nothing like the actual story.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

To a degree it was, but I was expected to take it like a man. I lost my home, and contact we my first son. (Who is now 21) and I actually won the case......

Forgive me, I don't mean to belittle the situation or take the p***, I really believe that you should be complimented on your beliefs.

"Before anyone else gets excited I'm not attempting to Flirt with the girl" (just in case)....lol.

It's not that often that I "personally" come across people of your age that stand out purely on the standard of their values. Good on you shortstuff. Don’t forget I owe you a couple of jars on Sat.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

The term 'narrow minded attitudes of your gender' is not a personal slant Doug, but a general one. To me that term means that you think all females are narrow minded, so therefore you are not personally getting at anyone (just 50% ish of the population) :)
Don't worry though Doug, I'm not narrow minded enough to hold that comment against you. It may, however, cost you half a Strongbow on Saturday.. :D

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Whoops, I knew this was going to cost me, but not that much!.....ok lettie I accept your terms of forgiveness will Saturday night do. I’ll be there.

My comments where wrong, and I apologise for that. Has for the flirting (grooming) well I’m guilty. Guilty of wanting to have fun during written discourse with individuals who just happen to be adults. What’s this thread called……….

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Keep digging Doug. :D

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Tell me about it. B***** hell, 4 Karma points taken away for the privilege. I must try harder.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Getting back to the subject.

It never ceases to amaze me, that people who have an affair and then marry the person with whom they had the affair, never stop to think at the time, why this person would then not be unfaithful to them.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

It's called falling in love. Sometimes it's out of our control. Then again some of us are just stupid. Whatever, its part of life. The reasons are discussed elsewhere. But I do support the Shortstuff in her argument. There should be equality.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

This is disturbing stuff - a bloke would have received a hefty sentence no doubt about it. I agree that the most worrying thing is that the magazine thinks its funny and, like you said, even fabricated the "pestered for sex" reasoning. I wonder if the lady (probably) editors of said publication would hold the same point of view and found much mirth in the story if it was a woman who had to have stiches in her reproductive organ? The law has to be applied fairly across the entire spectrum of folk - men, women, old, young, rich, poor etc. otherwise the notion of justice is just that - an idea.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Well I lost some for being merely being amused.:D
Maybe I should try to be more serious in future. ;)

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

To be fair, reporting of such items is usually slanted, if not downright biassed. Unfortunately Law Reports don't sell magazines and newspapers - if you read the actual trial report/transcript, things may seem rather different.

That said, there have been women who have been jailed for long terms for finally snapping and killing a husband who has abused them/their children for years. It's only in the last few years that the authorities (largely the police) have taken domestic violence seriously, and not all of them do now. AND, sorry, but it is a fact, the vast majority of domestic violence is carried out by men on women. Perhaps some people out there think that stories like the one that started this thread are simply redressing the balance.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

I don't approve of the idea of redressing of balances. The person or persons who suffer as a result are not the people who offended in the first place so where is the justice in that? It's like appologising for things our ancestors did. It may not even have been done by our ancestors but because we currently living in the country whose inhabitants carried out certain actions in the past we are by association assumed to be responsible and therefore should apologise. Which of course is nonsense.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

I didn't say I agreed with redressing balances, just that some people might think so. We are all responsible for our own actions, not those of others, and it's only our own actions that we can apologise for.

However, with the greatest respect to all you lovely honest men out there, I can see why some wronged wives cheered Mrs Babbitt on! When you find out the man you trusted most has been cheating on you, your fingers do itch to grab the breadknife - trust me, I know! (My ex is fortunate that he still has all the relevant bits - as far as I know)

I don't think violence ever solves anything, but I can see that there are times when it might make you feel better for a little while.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

The vibe I get from these sort of things is that it is acceptable and understandable if a woman attacks a cheating man, but not the other way round.

And another thing.....if we all have equal rights then cheaper car insurance for women should be abolished - this issue really riles me as it is blatant stereotyping and discrimination.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

No, violence is never acceptable - and anyway, I didn't do it, although sorely tempted. Anyway, how many times have you heard a man say that he only hit "her" because she'd asked for it?

Equal rights don't exist. I could quote you chapter and verse on that one.

However, the reason women get cheaper car insurance is that they have fewer accidents than men. Actuarial fact, not prejudice. You could equally well say that men under 25 are discriminated against as opposed to older men, because their premiums are higher. Same reason - they have more accidents than older men. If you smoke, your life insurance costs more. Insurance companies are not very into giving money away ...

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Yeah - but why should I personally be discriminated against just because men have more accidents, I and many others are paying the price for the actions of boy racers. I know the facts but I feel it is rather unfair.

Another gripe! Clubs and pubs with promotions such as free admission and free drinks for ladies.....

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

I could be wrong ceejache, but especially insurance companies, I feel it is more often a ploy to encourage half the population (female) to go to their company for their premiums. If anyone has an hour to waste on-line, it would be interesting if two identical insurance quotes (except one male and one female)could be had from just one company to compare prices. (you need at least that time to fill in their forms)

As for free drinks for the ladies, having witnessed the amount some of you guys drank at Micks party, the clubs would go bust!;) Saying that, the ladies weren't so far behind!!

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Hehehehe...:D Grego and myself went to Benidorm when I was 21. The clubs were all doing 2 shorts for the price of 1 for the ladies. I asked the barman why it was just for the ladies and he said that if a club is full of women, it attracts men, who drink like fish and spend a fortune and that's how they make their money. So, in a nutshell, if the men weren't looking to get off with someone, they would go somewhere else where the prices were fairer. The proof of this was in the state of the club we were in, as it was packed to the rafters with equal amounts of men and women..:D

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

So what were the women doing if they were'nt looking to get off with someone? Discussing the meaning of life?

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Of course not, Tealeaf, they were getting two drinks for the price of one! Legless, not leg....

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Yep..subsidised by men as usual.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Oh my, I'm staying out of this one I think............

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Oh come on John, you must be getting used to storms by now ....

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Life insurance for women is usually either cheaper than for men of the same age or the cover is higher. That is nothing to do with attracting the custom of women it is because on the whole women live longer than men. Insurance companies work from statistics. That is why if you live in a high risk area your buildings and contents insurance is higher. You are, in the opinion of the insurance company, more likely to be burgled because more burglaries take place in those areas.

The older you are when you take out a new life insurance policy the higher your premiums will be because the company presumes they will get less money out of you before you shuffle off. They are in the business of making as much money as possible. (spoken as an ex employee of the finance industry)

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Hi Pendy,

Yep, getting used to storms, but I prefer the ones like hurricanes because they are of a more predictable nature. Hell hath no fury and all that.................

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Just as Pendy says, getting 2 drinks for the price of 1, and dancing a lot. The fact that it is subsidised by men is unfair, but hey, this is cheap booze we're talking about. All's fair in love, war and beer....:drunk:

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Lettie - I love you!

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Yes! It is cheap booze we are talking about and I want MY share! It would be great if the clubs changed the offer to "2 for the price of one but only if they are pints of bitter or mild"!

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

[QUOTE=Ceejache]The vibe I get from these sort of things is that it is acceptable and understandable if a woman attacks a cheating man, but not the other way round. QUOTE]

That's exactly my point Ceejache. No way could a bloke's mag get away with printing an article the condoned a man to mutilate his girlfriend for cheating on him. I was quite disgusted that as a reader I was supposed to think that it was comical or that she was in the right.

The way I see it is that it is just as bad if a woman abuses a man as it is the other way around. I realise that it is more common for a woman to be the victim - but does that mean that the few abused men out there are any less of a victim???

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Certainly not and equally wrong is the idea that this somehow makes up for all the times that women are the victims.