File this under 2nd Class Citizens: women. The Times, reported this week that Queens prosecutors are charging two young women who swindled old men out of their money after pretending to romance them, with...a hate crime. Really. Elderly men who fell for the absurd idea that young women would want anything but their money. Of course, just try telling a man of a certain age that if a much younger women engages in romance with him it is because of "other" considerations, most often financial considerations in some form or another. Then fold your arms across your chest and watch...these men go bat shit crazy! Nothing more entertaining in the world, save a slinky tinky of their viagra riddled minds trying for all that they hold Holy to defend their God-Given Right to screw younger women.

Now, what is vastly amusing/sickening to me is that the Times has never once tried to sell a story on rape as a hate crime. And of course, prosecutors don't charge rapists with a hate crime unless they are raping gays.
Here is the Times telling us how the public feels about hate crimes:

In the public’s imagination, the classic hate crime is an assault born of animus against a particular ethnicity or sexual orientation,

er...no, in women's minds rape is the classic hate crime. however, women are told by LDN that rape is NOT a hate crime and thus many women subvert their feelings, deferring to what they are "taught" by correct-thinking types who run liberal dude nation.

The Times online header calls the use of hate crime to apply to women who romance and bilk elderly males, a "broader vision." What a joke. When a New York black man kidnapped and raped a white girl, cutting her breasts and genitals and removing her hair and then garroting her, there was no "broad vision" for using gender under hate crime prosecution, not when the victim was white heterosexual female and the perp was black male. It was a gimme for a hate crime prosecution based on gender, but...look at how unworthy women are in the eyes of so many.

The Times story makes the point that hate crime charges add time to sentences and act to make perps plead guilty rather than fight the charges. Why have we as a society broadly applied hate crime to rape? Give me one good reason and I'll hand out lollipops.

In the meantime: check this:

The legal thinking behind the novel method is that New York’s hate crimes statute does not require prosecutors to prove defendants “hate” the group the victim belongs to, merely that they commit the crime because of some belief, correct or not, they hold about the group.

Te hee haw. The "correct" thinking is that men can't be charged with a hate crime towards the woman they rape unless you can prove the rapist hates all women. The "correct" thinking being that rape in and of itself is not a hateful act.
I spend nights wondering why women allow this BS "correct" thinking to rule the day in our country? I guess we are not unlike women in Muslim countries where tradition is hard to shake ourselves of, even when the tradition is hate. Seeping up the hate we direct it inward and thus don't demand justice as we can't see the need or are too timid to demand justice.
I can tell you all first hand that "correct" thinking women in media routinely swat down rape as a hate crime stories out of fear of being "shrill" as one well-known editor wrote.

WHF? Thanks 3rd wave feminists for helping the "correct" thinking to prosper while women rot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/nyregion/23hate.html?scp=1&sq=taking%2...