In Maine, It Doesn’t Pay to be a Man

[kiwi_2005]

In Maine, It Doesn’t Pay to be a Man
Monday, February 1, 2010
By Carey Roberts

link to story
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/02/01/...y-to-be-a-man/

Practically everyone in town knows Amy Dugas is a serial batterer. But the Maine criminal justice system keeps finding ways to keep her from facing the music.

In 2004 Amy assaulted her husband Mark in their home in Waldoboro. When the police officer came to arrest her, she kicked him in the groin. The judge released her on bail, ordering her to refrain from using weapons. Four months later she stabbed Mark with a foot-long kitchen knife, fatally severing his pulmonary artery. At the trial, she got away with the trusty I-feared-for-my-life alibi.

Two years later Dugas spent 125 days in jail following an attack on a male friend. In 2007 she was arrested again, this time for assaulting Brian Pelletier, her new husband of three weeks.

Each time, Amy Dugas was let off the hook with a chivalrous slap on the wrist, even though many were demanding she do hard time at the state pen.

No doubt about it, Maine’s domestic violence industry has friends in high places. One of them is Mary Kellett, Assistant District Attorney for the Bar Harbor area. Think of her as Michael Nifong on steroids.

Inspired by feminist Catherine Comins’ sneer, “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience,” Kellett has taken to prosecuting every allegation of sexual misconduct, often ignoring glaring inconsistencies in the woman’s account or clear evidence of consensual activity: http://www.fillerfund.com/marykellett.htm

In one case, Kellett summed up the case to the jury with this comment, “there has been no evidence presented to you as the jury that would suggest that a sexual act hadn’t occurred on those dates,” revealing a sad ignorance of the legal principle that the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff.

In another trial, Kellett did not present a shred of physical evidence, prompting the defense attorney to comment, “We were just very surprised with the only evidence the state had, that they brought these charges at all.”

Unfortunately for her prosecutorial victims, none of them play lacrosse at an exclusive university or have wealthy parents to hire high-powered attorneys. As a result, many have spent months in jail awaiting their trial.

It gets worse.

Maine now has a law enforcement policy that says in effect if a woman punches the living daylights out of her husband, somehow it must be the man’s fault. “Identifying Predominant Aggressors in Domestic Violence Cases” is a training guide put together by the Maine Criminal Justice Academy: http://www.maine.gov/dps/mcja/docs/M...0Aggressor.doc

A little background: It is well known that many domestic violence incidents are mutual in nature – she slaps him, he shoves back. One study by Centers for Disease Control researcher Daniel Whitaker reported fully half of all incidents of partner aggression are mutual. More often than not, it’s the woman who instigated the incident.

So when the police arrive on the scene, they need to decide who to stick in the Paddy Wagon. For years, police used the commonsense yardstick, Who started the fight? But feminists don’t cotton to that approach because, truth be told, too many women were getting arrested.

So they reached into their bag of tricks and – abracadabra! “Predominant aggressor” magically appeared in the law enforcement lexicon. Any guesses who the predominant aggressor might be?

Before I give away the punch line, you may want to see for yourself the Ms.-Information that the Predominant Aggressor curriculum bandies around:

1. The idea that abuse can be mutual is a “misconception” (I say so, it must be true.)

2. “DV is the leading cause of injuries to women between the ages of 15-44 in the U.S.” (It’s also a proven fact that the moon is made of Swiss cheese and the 9/11 attacks were masterminded by the CIA.)

3. Even if the violence is mutual, it’s bad to arrest both parties because the “batterer gains more power.” (Don’t ask to see the research. I’m the one with the mic and I’ll give you the boot if you start to ask questions.)

Then the curriculum goes on to enumerate the types of violence that it whimsically classifies as defensive:

1. Face scratches
2. Eye gouges
3. Bites to arm

Go ahead, ladies, scratch his face and gouge his eyes out. You can always say it was in self-defense — and now they’ll have to take you at your word.

Patrick Henry College professor Stephen Baskerville has recently issued a stunning indictment of our contemporary criminal justice system, lambasting it as a “Feminist Gulag.” Now in Maine, a man can be killed in cold blood without consequence to the perpetrator, prosecuted for rape with the flimsiest of evidence, or framed in a partner dispute on account of his sex.

And whatever happened to the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Well, I must confess I don't know what to say. It is appalling.

Demographic double standards in the U.S. are HUUUUUUUUGE, and it stems pretty much entirely from political correctness. If I may "poison the well," the only Americans likely to say it isn't so are liberals from privileged backgrounds who haven't lived in the real world (and even than, there's plenty of examples in academia (which they inhabit in droves) of this bull****, so they're probably being willfully ignorant).

[Skybird]

Don'T have it at hand, but I had a study - a serious one - showing in numbers that regarding "violance at home" numerically woman are more prominent than men, the statistics they had showed for several European countries that women cause more incidents of indirect and direct aggression and violence at home, than their husbands/partners.

the cliché that it is most often the man beating the woman, is simply that: a cliché.

And a longer while ago I also had read a research showing that there are far more cases of rape "women against man", than previously was thought.

I think that the relations and definitions of role identities of men and women in modern societies are seriously and pathologically distorted. But they are politically correct. Also, modern life, by media, print media and books, movies, music, advertising, social role modelling, is hilariously "sexualised", is loaded with and dripping with an excessive, pathologic, narcissistic focus on sex, defining relations between boys and girls, men and women, too dominantly by sex, and sex alone. I think this affects a whole range of fields, and not for the better, from education, over family integrity, legal issues after divorces, and even the Islamisation - the latter was brought to my awareness by a Turkish woman, a social scientist living in Germany, who said that the willingness to leave Islam it'S way in the West and not to oppose it, is a result both of a weakened - i would even say: critically injured - self-definition of masculinity in the wake of the women's movement, and as a result the acceptance of letting the pendulum now somewhat swing to the extreme opposite again, that way somewhat compensating or paying back for what the excessive pendulum swing towards the female side in the past decades has caused. I know, that sounds like a summary that is a bit rough and blocky, but she has had very good arguments. It's just that I do not recall all of it precisely and completely anymore, I just somewhat flew over it. If only I knew where it had it.

It's amazing - or better: it is not - that the majority of competent Muslim Islam critical academics seem to be women. We love to invite them into talk shows to see how reasonable and enlightened Muslims acadmeics are: but we do not care that we stab them from behind and leave them in the dust when tolerating all those critical features in Islam that these oh so admired, educated female Muslim academics are warning us of. they did not win their freedom becasue of Islam, but in bitter fighting with and defence against Islam. And we betray them.

I also remember a seminary from university times, where one day the talk was of the infamous erotic novel "Histoire d'O'". That was quite some time ago, and I think even before or around the time the author lifted her pseudonym and made herself known. Quite some students there did not know that the novel, known for it'S both verbally artistic and explicit descritpion of sadism, masochism and submission, was not a man, but a woman - even more so: a very skilled literature critic that wrote the novel as kind of an indirect love letter to her mentor or critic-colleague whom she had fallen in love with. This revelation was quite disturbing for some people, especially male students. It made mockery of the attitude you often had seen until then: to let down the story of O as just some sick macho's pervert sex-fantasies.

Lesson of the stories? If people think that women are all gentle and tender in mind and cannot be cruel, you better think twice. Their minds can be as cruel, if not more so, than that of men, so can be their aggressiveness. It's just that most of the time female aggression choses other paths to manifestate, than men's. Like both genders also prefer different ways to kill themselves if they want to commit suicide. Males want a final last display of explosive destruction and agression, they often prefer firearms, for example, or crash into a train. Women often prefer drugs and poison both for suicide and murder.

Only Skybird could bring "Islamisation" into a topic about a crazy woman and a nutty judge

[Seth8530]

The logic used by skybird is often stretchy at best; yet, somehow i cant help but admire his fanatical dedication for what he believes in. even tho i must occasionally question his mental sanity.
Atleast he thinks and speaks his mind

[Skybird]

What part exactly is it that you think is not "sane" in my reply? I readily admitted that my memory of that study is not complete. I really just recall the basics. On the SM novel I commented since it matched the context, not necessarily because I think it depicts healthy relations between men and women. the part on Islam I added since it is a dominant, very important and also omnipresent issue. It matched my general design of my reply, which is about some implications of gender roles and how they have changed and may be misperceived, especially the term that is spelled "freedom" (liberation of women, and women rights).