Marx's blog

A law in Mexico now allows men to be raped?! I hope that's at least an exaggeration. That should be big news if it's true. Do you have a link to that?

Quote from Meadester

A law in Mexico now allows men to be raped?! I hope that's at least an exaggeration. That should be big news if it's true. Do you have a link to that?

Sure.
Here's a link to the AM discussion on it previously.

Quote from The Article

MEXICAN men who display extreme jealousy or avoid sex with their wives could be tried in court and punished under a new law.

Those who stop talking to their wives, avoid sex...

Men found guilty of jealousy or indifference could face up to five years in prison...

There ya go.

Quote from The Article

"Men ought not to feel discriminated against," she told Excelsior.

LoL


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...-13762,00.html

I dont have the response anymore, as it was in a PM/email on an old Yahoo account, but Professor Unt (the 2nd respondant) claimed that this law was not sexist at all and was entirely down to 'culture'.

So it seems sexis... culture is an acceptable system to blame for oppression of men, but when those same systems oppress women (real or perceived), it's all sexism and MUST be attended to.

I don't really think you're looking at sexism here - there's nothing wrong about stating the inherent qualities of a particular group, she did qualify the statement using the term "most".

Of course it total nonsense and the EXACT opposite of reality - the reason it is sexist is because it isn't based on the evidence. Men are renowned for thinking incredibly logically, it's what they do! There are of course exceptions, but such logical thinking explains why men still excel in the sciences and maths etc even despite our feminised education system today.

Women are far more illogical and emotional. Not that such qualities are necessarily negative in all circumstances, they can very very useful at times.

edit - what i meant ot say is the statements aren't inherently sexist in themselves, only because they are so very dishonest.

I do not see anything mentioning allowing to rape men in Mexico within the articulation, but I do see some sexism in the law itself. Please help me try to find out where this thought came from.

This commentary seems a little shady to me: In Mexico, about 75 per cent of all murdered women are killed by their husbands, Ms Perez Duarte said.

Just because Ms Perez Duarte SAID something does not make it perfectly true. I'd like to see reports of deaths and their causes, in a table, from a Mexican state authority, not from some woman that interviews others or performs her own personal surveys. Why such a well-rounded number? Numbers between 70 and 75 when talking about percentages supplied with a murder must be looked at in question. I haven't heard of this problem in Mexico until ONE person spoke about it.

"If we do not stop this from the beginning, it turns into beatings, and the beatings turn into more beatings and rape, until it gets out of hand, and whoops, she died," she told the paper.

This is again an unfounded claim. There must be case reports first presented before she's even allowed to yap about such a thing freely.

The article further states her words: Ms Perez Duarte said indifference, jealousy or lack of love were crimes against women just as much as physical violence.

These things are also crimes against men from the part of women.

And I save the best for last:MEXICAN men who display extreme jealousy or avoid sex with their wives could be tried in court and punished under a new law.

Then the law should also state that women who avoid sex with their husbands should also be tried in court. Why do women's sexual needs get listened to so much when women tend to avoid sex more frequently after marrying a man than men do in any case?

The article further states her words: Ms Perez Duarte said indifference, jealousy or lack of love were crimes against women just as much as physical violence.

Well if that is a crime, how about looking at what an oft-repeated feminist has to say about women and lack of love.
Extracted from my blog:

... Yet feminists would not only have men destroyed but they would also cause damage to all women, taking away basic humanity. Just one example is an infamous text by Mina Loy, repeated and reprinted by feminists and which includes the words "Woman must destroy in herself the desire to be loved."

Feminism doesn't allow the loving of men. It doesn't even allow a woman to want to be loved.

Quote from miguel_gomez

I do not see anything mentioning allowing to rape men in Mexico within the articulation, but I do see some sexism in the law itself. Please help me try to find out where this thought came from.

The definition of rape is sex without consent. Men in Mexico cannot withhold sex from a woman anymore, thus, he can be 'legally raped' (he allows sex only because if he did not then he would be had up in court for abuse of his spouse which could see him imprisoned).

If this law applied to women at men's advantage, then feminists would be using the same language to explain that the law was forcing women to be raped.