Quick (depressing) hit: California man sells daughter
Police have arrested a Greenfield man for allegedly arranging to sell his 14-year-old daughter into marriage in exchange for $16,000, 100 cases of beer and several cases of meat.Police said they only learned of the deal after the 36-year-old man went to them to get his daughter back because payment wasn't made as promised. The man was arrested Sunday on suspicion of human trafficking.
What was that again about feminism being unnecessary? Yeah, that's what I thought.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick (depressing) hit: California man sells daughter.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11383
I've seen this blogged around, but upon finally reading the article I discover that the last line is the most interesting:
What the hell? That seems like it might be worth some deeper investigation, doesn't it?
Not knowing anything other than what's posted here, is there any chance the man is mentally ill? I mean, selling a kid for meat and beer? Going to the cops after doing so because the payment wasn't delivered? These aren't even the actions of someone who hates women, it's just weird.
Usually, it's the adult females, selling themselves, so yes, feminism is still very much needed. I read somewhere recently, it costs the average Saudi groom $27,000 to get married. 'No wife, no life' the muslim saying goes, and can Western women claim to be much better? Even in Scandinavia, women still aren't committing themselves to the concept of self sufficiency in any great numbers, choosing instead to work flexi part-time for the state while their husbands work full-time, mothers still jealously gatekeeping child rearing from men. In The Woman Racket (2008), Steve Moxon shows the same low levels of serious career women today as was 150 years ago (there are however, more part-time female workers now).
It's women who set the prices, so let's have a feminist call for an amnesty on whoring, in exchange for social provision to retrain for careers that do not involve charging men for sex. Then women will have no price on their heads, and we'll all be happy - all accept the whores.
Thomas has gone on woman hating rants on so many other threads. Can we get this MRA out of here please? Please?
I was so confused until I realized that there is a thomas and a Thomas. Thomas often has some very interesting things to say and seems to come from a feminist perspective. thomas, on the other hand...
It's too bad you can register such similar names.
Sorry about that folks, username AND IP address banned.
Hey, can you not go slamming sex workers? Thanks.
Yeah, I sure feel bad for those Saudi grooms. The oppression of men in Saudi Arabia, it's enough to bring tears to you eyes!
Are you sure they blocked you, or it is just that you are having troubles loging in?
Might want to check your login account.
My bad
Sorry, about that, I hadn't thought Thomas might actually have been blocked.
Still I wish you wouldn't block someone, unless they actually said something hateful (that was meant to be hateful and not satirical)
Calling women whores on a feminist website isn't ban-worthy in your opinion? I'd certainly ban for a LOT less if it were my site.
I think sex would stop selling if men stopped buying.
This is a cultural practice of the Triqui indigenous community from Oaxaca, Mexico. There is a sizable community of migrants in Greenfield, CA.
That's the kind of important context that even a short article should bother to mention. Thanks.
This. I read this story somewhere a couple of days ago and it specifically mentioned that the man had cited this as his background and as the context of the action, that the money and goods were a sort of dowry given for an arranged marriage (the beer and food is for the wedding party), and that although the girl is appallingly young (14), the "man" he "sold" her to is 18. None of this is to say that this kind of stuff is at all okay, but I think it is way different when it occurs in that sort of cultural context.
Basic human rights take precedence over cultural conventions every time. That his community commonly practices this should have been mentioned in the article, but it doesn't make a damned bit of difference in the outcome. You can't sell your daughter.
I state again, comprehensively, basic human rights take precedence over cultural conventions. Period.
Yes, and I never said that I condoned this sort of behavior at all, just that we should interpret it differently given different cultural context. See my response to Ayla below for more, I guess.
That's cool. I think the cultural context is important because it will inform how service providers conduct outreach into this community to let women know that they are the sole owners of their own bodies, and can't be sold. I get very touchy because the culture thing does get used to justify atrocities in other contexts.
"Basic human rights take precedence over cultural conventions every time." ???
This makes no sense. Human rights are culturally defined--and re-defined. Britain has no Freedom of Speech amendment, yet the US defines it as a basic human right. The US gives everyone the 'basic human right' to own a gun, but not so in the UK. There is no argument for human rights that are based outside of cultural conventions...either yours, mine, or theirs.
It appears from reading the story, as opposed to just reacting to it, that this was meant as a dowry, and that further, in fact, the 14 yo girl had already run off with her 18yo boyfriend, and the father was just hoping the 18yo would marry his daughter, as opposed to knock her up & then just walk away.
Also, dowries are practiced in much of the world, and while no woman should be forced to marry someone not of her choosing, dowries in & of themeselves should not be illegal. Dowries are not human trafficking. Moreover, the police chief now says he was wrong to categorize this as human trafficking.
The United Nations an international declaration of human rights that has been signed by almost every country. It defines a bare standard for human rights that includes gender equity, and I have no trouble saying that it or something like it should be established so everyone on this tiny planet is on the same page as to what can or cannot be done to another human being, regardless of individual culture. I majored in Anthro too, but your stance has limited utility when trying to address the systematic torture and enslavement of women. Fuck dowry and bride price. Understanding it is only useful insofar as someone is going to have to explain to the women of that community that it isn't allowed in California.
Anywhere on Earth that it happened would be in the context of one culture or another. In what way does it happening within this specific culture make it "way different" than it happening in, say, a Japanese culture? Or French? It's still a human being being sold for goods and money. I agree that having as much information as possible is a good thing in terms of understanding the full scope of things, but I don't see how this is "way different." Way different from what, exactly?
Why are we noticing this one, out of all the many girls who were undoubtedly sold even on that very day? Because it happened in California, that's why -- because the fact that it happened in the wider cultural context of "California" is more shocking than it happening in Oaxaca, since it's more of a cultural departure. If "California" were actually all there were to the contextual story, we'd be inclined to think of the guy who did it as perhaps even sociopathic, whereas doing it in Oaxaca isn't that extreme, since (sadly) it is in line with the cultural norms this man internalized as he was growing up. I still think that, on balance, it is wrong and a terrible practice wherever it is performed, but I think it's myopic to pretend that we should treat a guy who legitimately thinks he's doing something at least marginally socially acceptable (and is justified in doing so because of his background) the same as someone who doesn't.
I read this article yesterday and I think it's important to note that the man didn't intend to "sell" his daughter in the way we might think of--the beer, meet, etc were gifts for the wedding that was supposed to take place (a dowry, if you will). The "transaction" was intended to be an arranged marriage and was a cultural thing, though illegal here. Now, I don't agree with arranged marriages or dowries on principle anyway, but I just wanted to point out that he isn't mentally ill, and he thought (I'm assuming) that his daughter was going to be married and would lead a culturally (to his culture) accepted lifestyle. Do you see what I mean?
I agree. Though I don't agree with dowry and bride price because it implies ownership of a person, if you talk to the parents who practice this kind of thing it isn't seen as "selling" of a daughter. One can reasonably assume average well-adjusted parents love their daughters. (I have no idea if this is true in this specific case, but I am trying to speak of the practice of Dowry and Bride Wealth generally)
Dowry is often seen as a way for the groom to show respect to their new in-laws and show that he values the person they raised and loved and put allot of effort in to help make into a valuable person. Though I didn't give any formalized gift to my in-laws, I am profoundly grateful that they raised such an awesome person who became my husband so I can understand this sentiment.
A bride wealth or bride price is given to the new couple (formally given to the grooms parents but since couples often live with the groom's parents for some years in cultures who practice bride wealth it makes sense) to set them up similar to wedding gifts in US weddings.
Anyway, I think it is misleading to say someone is sold just because a gift (even if mandatory) is given along with the wedding. Yes, she was really young in this case so even if she was willing, it wasn't appropriate, but that doesn't mean she was sold or that her parents don't care about her. They probably thought they were setting her up in life by arranging an appropriate spouse for her.
The CNN coverage was better: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/13/daughter.for.sale/index.html?iref=newssearch
Oops, a little bit more. Here is link to some information about the Triqui community. http://www.triquicopala.com/videos.htm
By the way, although I am a pro feminist man where possible, my posts have been blocked under the name Tom, so it seems Jessica does not want any dissenting voices in the choir. I would have thought a few of you would object to this degree of censorship. I think the feministing readership is intelligent and open-minded enough to make up it's own minds, without banning my somewhat learned, non ad hominem arguments. If you don't like my arguments, then actually explain why, and improve on them, like grown ups.
Seriously, I have had very little active and useful criticism on the few times I've posted, with instead, personal attacks, and blanket rejection on the principle that I'm an outsider, and not on point of argument.
"If you don't like my arguments, then actually explain why, and improve on them, like grown ups."
Or completely ignore them and move on, finding more useful ways to spend your time. Like real grown ups.
If you would like useful criticism, thomas, I would like to suggest that you not respond to a post about a underage child being sold for beer under the values system of indigenous culture from Mexico with the suggestion that the problem could've been solved by Western feminists calling an "amnesty on whoring" because "women set the prices" because that's what I'm getting from your post. It's off topic and the language you're using, especially in relation to this post, is offensive.
The subject matter you deal with in your post would fit better in the community posting section and be significantly less abrasive there.
If not, please relate for me exactly how adult women not selling sex would help prevent the existence of dowries and underage marriage in developing nations, taking into account that in certain countries and populations (including and, in fact especially, Saudi Arabia) the gender power structure makes it significantly more difficult, and sometimes impossible, for women to simply choose options like always marrying for love and for free. I already agree that to some degree the elimination or *restructuring* of the sex trade would change the perception of women internationally, however I can't relate it to the issue of under age girls being sold into marriage.
I wouldn't mind keeping male prostitutes. How much do you charge Thomas?
If you've been blocked under another name, then I would suggest not re-registering a NEW name until and unless given permission to do so by the owner(s) of this blog.
I guess we just assumed someone so stupid couldn't be for reals.
Using this as an example for why feminism is necessary makes no sense to me.
ZacRfron, feminism is necessary in this regarding because when women and girls are valued as equal human beings with fundamental rights, 14-year-old girls are not forced into arranged marriages with adults in exchange for meat and beer.
I can't speak for ZacRfron, but maybe what s/he is trying to get at is you don't have to be a feminist to be against slavery or forced/arranged marriages.
Also the linked article made no mention of feminism, so the comment seemed a little out of the blue. Maybe it Jessica said something like "this is why we still need feminism" or "this renews my feminism" it would have made more sense to ZacRfron.
of course you don't have to be a feminist to be against forced marriages or slavery, but these things are exactly what feminists are typically seeking to abolish. it's really not that much of a mental leap to post an article that references (without actually saying so, as was noted) a culture where trading one's daughter for property is perfectly acceptable and connect this to feminism, which you know, if we had more of, would kind of eliminate any system where women are treated as chattels. i'm not trying to be snarky, but it seems pretty obvious to me why jessica said what she did.
I don't know what he personally was thinking, i.e. whether or not he intended to sell his daughter in the way we might think of, but it's clear that either he himself or the tradition is concerned with either straightforward barter or, alternatively, it's a way to show off one's social status with an expensive wedding. But it's clear the groceries were the key element in this whole story since he went to the police as a result of not getting them. I fail to see a morally relevant distinction between what he did and any other form of sex trafficking, other than the fact that in his culture sex trafficking is an "honorable" thing to do
Dowries are not payment for sex, or payment for women. They were as often given to the father's of the bride as they were given to the father of the groom. There's just no way to compare dowries to sex trafficking. This is nothing more than the age old custom that the father pays for the wedding. This is not criminal behavior for which someone should be imprisoned.
Yeah, I don't have to be a feminist to be against arranged marriages (ew) and/or girls and women being SOLD and/or TRADED for fucking BEER (UGH!)... but I am a feminist, and this kind of horrible shit is one of the many, many reasons why I am one. Women are NOT PROPERTY. Get it? Thankx.
"What was that again about feminism being unnecessary?"
My roommate walked into our room just yesterday and announced "I don't think we should end sexism, because I don't want to share a bathroom with boys. And also, feminism sucks because I don't think it's fair to men. And also, I think I would make a very cute poor person." *facepalm*
A dowry isn't selling a girl/woman or boy/man no more than a woman insisting on a ring is trading sex for a diamond. its how some cultures value, in a material way, to nuptial
Interesting point. As I understand it, both the ring and the dowry evolved from the same concept, the transfer of the ownership of the woman (or girl) from father to husband. In mainstream U.S. society, the engagement/wedding ring has been extricated from this context while to our eyes, a dowry remains very much connected to this disgusting convention.
Examples of this kind of sexist treatment women are still present in the U.S. What about the rising popularity of purity balls and promise rings (specifically, the notion of a girl entrusting her virginity to her father until she is married at which time it devolves to her husband)? I see a common theme....
"...because payment wasn't made as promised."
They probably gave him 100 cases of Milwaukee's Beast instead of the Pabst they had previously agreed to.
I'm thoroughly tickled that "freedom of speech" has chosen Saudi Arabia, one of the most restrictive countries in the world in terms of what a woman can and can't do legally (women can't even work without permission from their assigned male) as one of his examples of how women aren't pulling their own weight financially. Sometimes they just make it sooo easy.
But, but... aren't we feminists just lazy bitches who just want to sit on our asses all day and victimize teh poor menz? We won't even have sex with them whenever they want! Not that they would, because we're all really fat, since we live off our husband's salaries and sit at home all day eating bon-bons and letting the housework do itself and children raise themselves and all that.
I snicker everytime someone like "freedom of speech" thoroughly fails to understand that freedom of speech a) doesn't mean that you have the force to make anyone listen b) doesn't apply in private situations, like blogs, and c) doesn't shield your dumbass arguments from criticism.
"But, but... aren't we feminists just lazy bitches who just want to sit on our asses all day and victimize teh poor menz?"
Only when we aren't nasty feminazis unfairly stealing their jobs.
Exactly. For instance, every time there's a full moon, I transform from an unshowered junkfood eating couch potato into a high level executive in a pinstripe suit and kick some poor hardworking guy out of his job. However, I understand some other ladies might use magic potions, witchcraft, or even Transmogrification Devices (for the more scientifically inclined).
I bet they have to ask women out for the first date, too!
Thanks for all the evidence showing that the patriarchy has negative effects on men, as well.
Thanks for all the evidence showing that the patriarchy has negative effects on men, as well.
Yeah, good thing we had a man (I presume) come and tell us about that! Otherwise we would have never known! I'm going to go lie on my fainting couch now, as freedom of speech's massive show of evidence has now overwhelmed my lady-brain with new and interesting thoughts.
If eye-rolls could kill, my cats would be dead.
PS. All the vitriol in this post is directed at freedom of speech. Ivy just provided a nice jumping off point.
I have no interest in defending "freedom of speech," but I have to respond to the sarcastic tone of "Thanks for all the evidence showing that the patriarchy has negative effects on men, as well."
Clearly, "freedom of speech" is out of line and their comments are completely ridiculous. I very nearly vomited when I read the term "housewhore." However, personally, I feel that to take myself seriously as a feminist, I have to acknowledge that despite structures of power and the social and economic benefits that men receive by virtue of their gender, patriarchy and sexism are detrimental to men as well. Men deal with gender-specific social expectations that are often as restrictive and enforced constantly, just as women do. Yes, men are not sold into sexual slavery, forced to bear children, or any other number of effects of patriarchy that are specific to women, but acting as though we're the only ones who are burdened by patriarchy. I think there are moments when we could all be more considerate of the idea that we are not in this struggle alone, and not only for our gender's freedom, but to eliminate the pre-assigned roles that are forced down our throats and the structures that enforce them.
To echo what Ayla already said to you: If you've been blocked under another name, then I would suggest not re-registering a NEW NEW name until and unless given permission to do so by the owner(s) of this blog. Jeez.
Some of the commentary in this thread makes me a bit ashamed to be a feminist. Is it really that difficult to see beyond the false dichotomy of male oppressor and female victim? The article that prompted this post is little more than genderaly (I take issue with the lack of the adverbial form of this word) and culturally biased propaganda masquerading as journalism. The fact that so few of the posts even make a distinction between dowry and trafficking is a testament to the copious liberal privilege. However, that not one post even suggests that an arranged marriage entails both a woman and *gasp* a man being potentially coerced by their parents into an undesirable marriage is pathetic.
@ idiolect, I appreciate the recognition that the man in question is a mere 18 years of age, within the legal age difference in many states, though not California. The woman, though only 14, consented to the marriage. She was in no way being forced or sold. Our values may label her a child, but in her culture from the onset of menses, she is granted status as an adult. The fact that "arranged marriages involving underage girls have become a problem in this small Central Coast farming community" is indicative of a cultural misunderstanding. In fact, many of the migrants speak only Trique. The ever-enlightened Chief of Police in Greenfield, rather than rounding everyone up and charging them with human trafficking, is actually reaching out to the community to create an understanding of the conflict between cultural practice and state law.
As for freedom of speech, though I do not necessarily agree with some of his opinions, nor trust his use of certain sources, I see no reason why he should be excluded from the intellectual discourse. His commentary explores interesting questions of gender inequality. And all snarkiness aside, from some of the other threads on this site, a reminder of the ways in which patriarchal structures negatively impact men might actually be a reality check.
Yes, actually, if by "fascist regime" you mean "private website that she works terribly hard to provide." This is not the public square, this is a dinner party, and if the host thinks you're being rude, she has every right to ask you to leave (and, I guess, call the cops when you refuse to bow out gracefully and start hurling her dinnerware against the wall, which is pretty much the path it appears you're starting down).
this? this is why you were "banned". because you refused to acknowledge reality and then blamed the victims.
lets stay with your original anaolgy. Saudi Arabia. in Saudi a woman is QUIT LITERALLY owned by her father or other male relative until she is married, when her husband owns her. most females in Saudi are DENIED ANY EDUCATION, and they MAY NOT have a job WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE FATHER/HUSBAND/OTHER MALE RELATIVE. period. they aren't ALLOWED to work.
this is a very similar situation to the you are describing in the transplanted Mexican peoples - it's entirely possible that, like in Saudi, these women ARE NOT ALLOWED ACCESS TO EDUCATION. they are taught by their fathers/uncles/brothers/cousins/husbands that ALL they can do is be housewives. at what "loss" to the patriarchy is this? it has been proven over and over in studies that a man with a wife at home to take care of domestic issues succeeds much more in the work place.
also, fuck you on that "lazy housewhore" bullshit. when i was little, i saw this Flinstones cartoon, where there was a bet between Wilma and Fred about work, so they switched for a day. Fred was run RAGGED trying to do everything WIlma did every day - Wilma got home and was still FRESH! her normal job of housewife was MUCH harder than his! seriously, JUST being housewife (not adding in "mother" or ANY other job) has a value of OVER $50,000 a year. if women were paid for ALL the work that we do, WE would be the rich class! but, if it's house work or caregiver work or something like that, it's WOMEN'S work, they have to DO ALL OF IT, and then even though they generally work twice as hard as their guy JUST DOING THE WOMEN'S WORK that they DO NOT EVER GET PAID FOR, they are told they are lazy and worthless. because MEN took away all their OTHER options, they did the only thing they could - become overworked and totally non-paid housewives - and now you are seriously attempting to tell me that this is a blow to MEN? the ONLY FUCKING REASON they have to "take care of" their wives is because they flat out fucking PROHIBIT the wives taking care of themelves. and trust, most housewives SHOULD be earnin more than their guy.
fuck that. fuck you. you have NO clue has to what NORMALLY happens. maybe YOU married a lazy golddigger. but MOST women are NOT like that, and they tend to work ten times as hard as men. get over it, and REALLY look at how women are treated, all over the world. hint: easiest to start at home, so maybe you should google "the second shift" and read about career women who get married and have kids, who work full time outside the home as does the husband, but then come home and are expected to put in another LITERAL ful day of work being housewife - ALL the housework and childcare, even though she has already worked a full day. the husband COULD help, but tends to not as the work is "beneath" him.
and if you say one fucking thing about how she SHOULD be home being a housewife and mother, i will scream.
at that point i will KNOW you are a troll
And there goes the first of the china against the wall. This is embarrassing to watch, honestly.
Now I'm wondering if you're actually, like, insane, because your quote about women doing the same number of hours of work as men sort of flies in the face of things you were saying above about women not pulling their weight in society...
As an aside, I tried to track down "housewhores" as a term people are starting to use (in order to find its usual context, perhaps an MRA website for example) but of course all I could come up with through google was porn. So what the hell is up with this term? It doesn't even make sense to me... one minute we're lazy and the next we're stealing jobs that aren't rightfully ours, one minute we're the gatekeepers of sex and the next everyone's entitled to it regardless of what we want, one minute housewives are lazy sexless bitches and the next they're "whores." Seriously, I want the transmogrification device all these women are apparently using, it sounds like a thrillingly incoherent ride :P
Let me rephrase what I was trying to say in a somewhat more civil manner earlier: you are not even remotely entitled to have anyone here actually give two shits about what you're saying, especially given that 1) we've seen it all before and it never goes anywhere but down, and 2) we've even seen it from people who don't throw hateful epithets at us right out of the gate. I'd suggest that you learn to debate in an actually mutually respectful and productive way, but I think you've used up more chances here than anyone should've given you. If you do want to be an even remotely worthwhile participant in a "debate," go find someone else to teach you -- it's not worth my time.
"Men are genetically predisposed to defer to women's will (chivaly), which is why for decades, all the studies consistently find within male/female pairings, women are the commander in chief, whether they have to pretend to be oppressed or not"
All of what studies? And "chivalry" comes at a heavy price---the denial of basic human rights for women.
Furthermore, the problem with that statement is that it is vague and there are many examples where the reverse is true. "Women's will" can often be traced back to the her so-called duty in society, child rearing or religious doctrine which can in turn be traced back to the will of the man---vicious circle. Yet, it is not by accident that more cultures have at some point had traditions where the woman is to be subservient to the male head of household (her father or husband sometimes a brother or son) in exchange for protection (presumably from other males) and/or resources to help with or prepare her for child rearing.
"when in reality, oh tickled one, males do not dominate women, but only other men, in a male only dominance hierarchy"
You're right about men dominating over other men, but they also dominate over women. Why? To attempt to control paternity (Ridley, Baker, any basic textbook on mating of animals with high male parental investment)
"What would happen if a Saudi man asked his wife for permission not to work?"
Probably the same thing that would happen if a woman asked her husband for permission not to have babies?
Thus wouldn't it be more productive to discuss dismantling the whole system by challenging how society views male status and rigid parenting roles?
traditions where the woman is to be subservient to the male head of household (her father or husband sometimes a brother or son) in exchange for protection (presumably from other males)
It might be worth noting how much this sounds like extortion.
The fact that you think I care about your illogical arguments tickles me even more! Next, can you tell me the sky is red? Cause that would make just as much sense.
when i was 9, my mother graduated from nursing school and started working 60 hour weeks. my step dad was a welder working 20 hour weeks. who did the housework and cooking and chidcare? the guy only worked 20hours a week and made a quarter of what my mother made? don't be absurd! my mother did ALL the housework, the cooking the laundry the childcare... she had worked the ENTIRE time she was in school, my stepdad did not contribute one DIME to her education or one MOMENT to housework.
but my mom was a lazy "housewhore"
you have proven your trollhood. you want to believe that women are the perpetrators of the discrimination against them. i'm sorry if you married a woman who only wanted you for your money, that bites, but MOST WOMEN have to work WAY more than most men just to be considered EQUAL. not that we ARE considered equal - whose job is it to clean the house? the woman's, even if she is the one working more and/or for more money. check stats on child care - if the kid gets sick, who stays home from work? almost always the mother, even if she has the better job.
go to hell. don't tell me what my reality is. ut because you live in a fantasy world doesn't mean that i do.
Some facts:
1) The girl wanted to marry the teenage groom.
2) The beer and food was intended for the wedding feast.
3) The father called the police when the teenagers went away, had sex, but did not get married.
If you are wondering about the money, the money is used for the wedding feast and to support any children if the bridegroom leaves.
If you want another perspective on this please go here: http://elenemigocomun.net/1997
"Selling" is really a mischaracterization of what took place.
Furthermore the chief of police has said he misused the word "sell": http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20090115/NEWS01/90115001/-1/NEWSFRONT2
As an immigrant woman, I think it is important to clarify these facts.
It actually makes me very sad to see feminists get the crap flamed out of them online but demonstrate 0 insight as to *why* they get flamed, choosing instead to blame it on "patriarchy" and "sexism".
I mean, no wonder so many people use "feminism" as a bad word: Someone shows up and points out the Other Point of View, the Other Perspective, the Male Perspective and the Shit Men Go Through, and points out some facts about how society is and used to be structured, and how nothing has changed for men while feminism has run about liberated and empowering women but leaving men in the dark ages, and that person just gets flamed.
I wish feminists would just get their heads out of their asses so we could actually work on issues like "equality" and figuring out why boys are fucking up in school and falling behind.
Oh well. The comments always make for an interesting read.
Wow. I sure had to wade through a lot of shit to get to this point. Why are you even allowing this on the site?
Anyway, I think it was pretty stupid for the father to go to police because he didn't get paid. Even if this wasn't human trafficking - and if it smells like it and talks like it, well - the withholding of groceries is definitely not a criminal matter. Dumb guy.
Is it stupid? Because where he comes from marriage is still a valid binding legal and economic contract? Because where he comes from the behavior of the teens would constitute fraud? Because he comes from a society that still has some morals and values? Shame on him, that evil evil patriarchal man trying to ensure that his daughter was well provided for by her husband. Shame.
But doesn't the Bible say it's okay?
/sarcasm