Theoretically, we have equal protection under law. Man or Woman, Black or White, whatever our particular ethnicity, sex, or outlook, we are supposed to be judged by our actions, the law, and the facts to hand. In practice, this is not what happens, and judges admit it. In the case of the abusive temporary restraining orders granted to women when they complain of some level of 'abuse' however minor, Judge Richard Russel said the following in 1995 while training civil judges:
If I had one message to give you today, it is that your job is not to weigh the parties' rights as you might be inclined to do as having been private practitioners, Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, 'See ya' around.' (from the NJ Law Journal, quoted at ANCPR)
Was this a fluke? Are men's rights just ignored for politics? Nancy Kessler, chief of juvenile and family services for the AOC, also responsible for the training of judges, is quoted in the same source as saying in a training session for judges:
...people [judges] are told to interpret this law broadly in order to maximize protection for the victim. So if anybody ever came back at you and said, 'Gee, that's a real reach in terms of probable cause,' you have a legislatively mandated response which is, 'I erred on the side of caution for the victim'
And the civil court does a very similar thing in its other everyday decisions - they intentionally err on the side of the victim (read 'the woman'), and figure that if they ever get overturned in review, they have done the politically expedient and defensible thing. The facts just don't matter that much. Does this sound harsh? No, it is what NJ Civil judges are taught, as evidenced by this exchange quoted from the same training session where Judge Russel was teaching above:
Unidentified Municipal Judge: "You seem to be saying to grant every order."
Russell (quickly): "Yeah, that's what I seem to be saying."
But it's not just New Jersey, many states have similar issues, Judge Robert S. Smith of New York State's Court of Appeals is cited in the New York Law Journal as indicating that our legal system defines divorce in terms of a 'moneyed' and 'non-moneyed' spouse, but if we make the 'moneyed' spouse the woman, the law either doesn't make sense, or is enforced in a different way:
I have a strong suspicion . . . that things get very different when the husband is the non-moneyed spouse, I read a case where the wife was a dental hygienist and the husband said, 'That's marital property.' The court said, 'You're right, it is marital property. You are getting 7 percent. (via silentmajority.info)
Similarly, Justice Sondra Miller of the NY appealate division is quoted in the same source as saying that she regularly hears that: "As far as custody is concerned, you are disadvantaged if you are male. You are not going to get a fair shake from the court system. As far as child support, it is draconian"
She's not saying anything that those of us in the system didn't know already.
-M
Update: Click here to see comments on Nancy Kessler's quote above in a later post entitled "I is for Invisible Elephant".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A clever trick that feminists in the US like to play – deliberately distort facts or outright lie.
Some years ago, all of the national news TV shows and many of the newspapers reported that something like 85% of all females at US universities are victims of sexual assault sometime during their college career.
WOW – that is a horrifying statistic – something must be done – the country is going to hell – sympathy for all young women – venom for all young men.
Sometime later I was reading an article by Christina Sommers, a well-respected woman who writes about woman’s issues and much of the issues deal with how feminists are doing a disservice to women (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=glance&s=books ).
Christina got hold of the report and questionnaire used by the feminist organization to get the national media into frenzy. It turns out the questions used to determine if a college girl had been a victim of sexual assault went something like this:
1) Have you ever been physically overpowered into having sexual intercourse against your will?
2) Has a man ever threatened you with physical harm because you did not want to have sex?
3) Have you ever felt pressured to have sex when you did not want to?
4) Have you ever had sex and later came to regret it?
If any of the questions were answered with a yes, then that was counted as a sexual assault.
Obviously questions 1 & 2 should be considered as an instance of sexual assault.
Questions 3 & 4 however are not even close to being sexual assault. Heck, question 3 includes a man begging for sex, giving gifts for sex... peer pressure could fall under question 3. Actually, I would have thought that 100% of college girls would have answered yes to number 3 – maybe the 15% who did not answer yes were really ugly and no guy wanted to have sex with them.
Question number 4 is a real gem. Half the drunken sorority girls who willingly have sex because they are horny and the alcohol temporarily lowered their inhibitions, later regret being an easy lay. Heck, I have slept with a homely chick, or two, and then regretted it after my sexual appetite was satisfied. Was I the victim of sexual assault?
The really sad part – feminists publish their distortions/lies and shop them to the news media. The news people do not question the technique/methodology used in the study, or the source of the statistics, or the definitions and assumptions. The news people just repeat the conclusions on the 6 o’clock news over and over again.
In conclusion – feminists have no qualms about distorting facts to the point of being a lie, and the media will take what feminists report at face value, regardless of how outrageous the claim seem to be. Whenever you hear something reported that claims harm to women, be skeptical and ask for more information.
Post a Comment