Even a dog can tell the difference between gentle treatment and abuse. Ugh. And whenever I hear crap like this, I always ask the question, “if anybody could ask those women who lived in that time period and culture, would the women say that their doods “loved” them? Sadly, the response is probably a resounding “YES!!” Which is why I don’t trust their bullshit response to the same question now.

People prefer to pretend that absolutely soul-destroyingly horrific abuse never happened, because there is literally no way to look at even a tiny fraction of it without wondering what the fuck is wrong with men.

I don’t know if you’re a guy or girl. I’d wager you’re a teenager (or at least I hope you are) because you under the weird belief that humanism is incompatible with feminism. Until we’re equal, feminism is necessary, and anything less is just building on the status quo.

The basic reality is that BOTH genders are acting abominably towards themselves and each other. The things I see young famales do makes me just as sick as what I see young males do.

True “men” are as rare as true “ladies” and its about time we did something about it.

Now the challenge. My name is gender NEUTRAL. what are you going to do about this post?

Look up a little farther in the comments, Daran. You will see that I did indeed note the issue that you are raising here already.

Further wilful dyslexia on the part of MRAs will result in blanket banning. For more info, see blog post:

http://punkassblog.com/2008/10/24/the-derailing-train-stops-here-folks-or-how-to-get-banned-from-commenting-on-lisas-blog-posts/

The Laws of the Kings says, in pertinent part:

4. Romulus compelled the citizens … to rear every male child and the first-born of the females, and be forbade them to put to death any child under three years of are, unless it was a cripple or a monster from birth. He did not prevent the parents from exposing such children, provided that they had displayed them first to their five nearest neighbors and had secured their approval. For those who disobeyed the law he prescribed the confiscation of half of their property as well as other penalties.

Note the elipsis. Part of the original Latin text was illegible and the sentence may not mean what we think it does. Even if the passage does mean what it appears to, Romulus was a mythical figure. It doesn’t follow that his purported pronouncements were ever actually practiced.

A Latin Scholar might be able to throw more light on these matters.

(Lisa’s backup citation: “The laws attributed to the kings of Rome and the Twelve Tables, which follow, have been reconstructed by modern editors from these later citations.

Laws attributed to Romulus, the founder; traditional dates, 753-716 B.C.

4. Romulus compelled the citizens to rear every male child and the first-born of the females, “)

“–Yeah, so, I’m lying, so what? Blah, blah, passive-aggression, I’m an MRA, arf arf!”

The first link you give is describing The laws of the kings, specifically the ones attributed to Romulus, dating from 753-716 B.C. – this link:

http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/wlgr-romanlegal108.shtml

is from the same website and describes excerpts of The Twelve Tables dating from 450 B.C.

So your link doesn’t support your citation. The corrected link doesn’t confirm that the citation is wrong, as it is like the wikipedia article, just excerpts.
If you check the second link I gave, which does not indicate that it is incomplete:
http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps01_1.htm
There’s no mention of a law duplicating that Law of Kings law.

Your second link is interesting, obviously the knowledge of the Law of the Twelve Tables is incomplete, perhaps there is a lost law that is a duplicate of that earlier one.
To have any reason to believe that though, we need at least one reasonable piece of evidence that it was included, and that same webpage has no reference to it in the ‘family law’ section. (Or others)
http://www.umass.edu/wsp/comparative/law/rome/twelve/table04.html

So that’s three links that don’t agree with the cite so far. And one link that attributes that law elsewhere. It’s not comprehensive, but I’m not on a mission to refute it. It looks pretty unlikely to me.

I agree with you about doing your own research, and trusting no facts that you read (at least not more than 80%, if they’re just asserted). But it’s really the responsibility of the person posting the information to be careful about what they post (nobody’s perfect)
As you imply, people don’t trust facts they don’t like, and then they do the research. If they like or don’t feel strongly about a fact they mostly just go along with it. Trust it as much as they trust the blogger.
I was bored, I’ve been thinking about how the internet is going to start limiting the use of incorrect information, as people can check at the click of a button, and that sparked my momentary interest here. You can’t rely on everyone who doesn’t dislike the facts to do that all the time.

And yes, I did parse the sarcasm, I’m ignoring it. Nothing useful will come out of me being sarcastic back.

http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/wlgr-romanlegal107.shtml

For more info about why there might be some disagreement about what exactly the Twelve Tables say:

“The Twelve Tables (XII Tabulae), or Law of the Twelve Tables (Lex XII Tabularum), is the earliest known law code of Rome. It is lost except as reconstructed from references by later Roman writers. For them it was obsolete, being written in an earlier form of the language (conventionally called Old Latin), and thus at times unintelligible. Festus (late 2c, epitomizing Verrius Flaccus, the tutor of Augustus’s grandsons) notes several archaic usages in Roman writers which were based on the wording of the Twelve Tables.”

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/comparative/law/rome/twelve/index.html

I am a big recommender of doing your own research! By all means, trust no facts you read that you don’t like and cherry-pick evidence that, rather than refuting it, simply fails to mention whether or not that was a law–that’s really impressive.

The law of the twelve tables doesn’t say anything about having to raise all your son’s but only one daughter.

For a more comprehensive review of the law :

http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps01_1.htm

If you read it through you will find no mention of what your first source mentions.
If that’s inaccurate how can we trust any of the other ‘facts’ mentioned in your excerpts without researching each and every one of them first?