"I dont think its fair that the female gets to hide when she throws these types of allegations at someone. Actually i think that both parties identities should be kept out of the media until guilt is determined.

just my opinion. "

No, not just your opinion. I agree 100%.

Well, HOPEFULLY THIS is coming down too. This is the second time I have heard about this garbage in as many days...

Some rules were made because they figured all women were weak in EVERY way(UNTRUE), and men were ALL evil animals with only ONE thing on their minds.(UNTRUE) FURTHER, they figured the wife ALWAYS had kids, and couldn't work. AGAIN, UNTRUE. And that she may be subject to abuse, UNTRUE.

The courts are SUPPOSED to judge things based on the circumstances and FACTs in the case! In cases like this, they usually judge it ALL to the woman.

Ever see Liar/Liar? The woman LIED, basically involved the husband in a FELONY, broke TWO contracts(though the lie claimed she could have NEITHER). If I were the judge, I would have voted AGAINST her stating that if one contract was not valid, the other shouldn't be, and she should likewise not be able to slide on a technicality. She purjured herself, and had a frivolous lawsuit. So what did THEY decide?

1. The prenuptual was thrown out because she was a minor.
2. They IGNORED that she was a minor, committed purjury, etc....
3. She got half of HIS income because, although she was NOT married because she was a minor, they had a common law marriage because they were together.

So SHE gets all the benefits after breaking all the laws, and HE is subject to a situation he never agreed to.

Granted, that was a comedy, but that kind of thing DOES happen. As a realestate instructor once told me. "There is equality under the law. Some are just treated more equally." That was after having discussed how home ownership can be setup, and how each spouse gets a cut.

Steve

I agree with all of the above 200%. Men always get the shaft -

(this is not to say I have not been involved with rat *******s who are deserving of whatever wrath they get) - this kind are legion.

it's not fair though many times, and if women want to be 'equal' they need to share the blame and responsibility, expense, etc.

...and it always perpetuates the theory that women are weaker, incompetent, etc., that they get the special 'yellow bus' treatment.

Not to mention the 'backlash' of the persecution of men and especially for 'Women's Lib'.

Don't know about where you live but since we have so many weirdos here, we have women who even resent it if you hold the door for them since that means we can't do it ourselves.

For me I will hold the door for a guy if it seems natural, and I am sick of having the door slam in my face because they assume every woman is a feminazi.

... it's getting better in that regard - i must be deserving of some mercy now that i am getting older and am less of a threat...

Patrician,
I will hold the door for any and every one, man ,woman or child. I was brought up that it was just common courtesy.
I will tell you, I am always more impressed with a man that shakes my hand and say nice to meet you sir, when they date one of my daughters than a young punk that walks in with their underwear showing and their pants hanging to their knees and a backwards baseball cap on their head and they nod at me and go "'sup".

Yeah, I try to be polite, and dress in what has come to be known as business casual. I DO often hold the door open for others, sometimes to my detriment. I WILL admit that I may notice a beautiful woman, but I'm not very obvious about it. OH, and did I mention I AM shy?

Still, outside of that, hopefully ONE DAY people can get past the sex, race, religion thing. WHO KNOWS? If they do, maybe they can get past politics ALSO! AND, if that happened, maybe we COULD all live in peace.

NAW, what am I saying. They call it utopia(direct translation is NO PLACE) for a reason. 8-(

Steve

hey steve

- believe it or not, in person i am more than shy - i am stand-offish and unapproachable when among strangers.

shy is ok for a guy - now if you glare, i will want to kill you -

glare means you are presumptuous = i am a woman so you can undress me with your eyes

- not even close, you need special permission to do that -

i really mean it, there is nothing that makes me feel more violent than a guy that glares.

they used to think i was nuts when i described this - paranoid, feminazi, etc.

now it is written right in some employment code of major corporations, re: glaring = discrimination/harassment -

shy is good (although difficult to meet people, hello)
to glare is to die.

<makes note to self> never glare at Patrician.

I suppose innocent until proven guilty doesn't have a place in the news. When someone is a "person of interest" or accused, the public automatically thinks that they are guilty.

And here's another thing, why is it that the male teachers that mess with the female students get destroyed in court, but the female teachers get a smack on the wrist?

There is a highschool teacher down here right now that just got sentenced to 9 years in prison for having sex with a student.

There have been 3 female teachers that were convicted of the same thing, and every one of them got probation

True.
I think while mom and dads dont want to hear it, its completely possible that their little girl was the agressor in some of these situations. teenaged girls arent what they were in the 70's or 80's. Nowadays, at 16-17 years old, you've got girls sending nude pics on cell phones, in email, it seems like at 17 most girls have their own porn site up so that the minute they turn 18 they can start selling pics and movies or something. But apparently the only way that a 16-17 year old girl would ever be interested in the new young gym teacher who is 10-15 years older than her is if he somehow casted a mysterious spell over her that made her pants fall down 4-5 times in the course of a month or she was molested when she was younger.

Its quite possible that she's just a horny teenager that wants to jump her science teacher or T.A.

I also hold the door for both men and woman (actually, people).

About false accusations...I think the penalty should be the same as if the crime were real. If guys face 5-10 years in prison for rape, then a women giving a deliberately false accusation should face the same penalty.

There's double-standards for men and women for just about all crimes. In California, it's known as the "female discount". Women don't do the same time as men for robbery, murder, etc.

I think only one woman convicted of murder has ever had the death penalty, in modern times. Wasn't it in FLA?

But there's other double standards...The one that gets me is the difference between having crack and having cocaine. Crack is just coke mixed with a little baking soda, water and brought to a boil. This is one that may be racially motivated. Coke is seen as a rich person's habit, while crack is a "black" drug.

Are you thinking Aileen Wuornos?
Ther was a movie made about her.
But here is something I found that gives a lot of information about women and the death penalty.
Women and the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center