>
 |
| Boo fucking hoo. |
As many of you have no doubt noticed — what with the literally dozens of news stories and op-ed pieces on the subject that have appeared in the media in the last week or so — incoming Speaker of the House John Boenher is a bit of a weeper. While some have scoffed at his public crying jags, quite a few people, including some who don’t like his politics at all, have stepped forward to defend his right to cry.
Women have been especially quick to jump to his defense, at least when it comes to the crying thing. In the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus announced that she wanted “to celebrate the lachrymose speaker-to-be and hope that he helps make the world safe for public crying.” Rachel Maddow devoted a whole segment of her show to a defense of his shows of emotion — while pointing out that while Boehner has been moved to tears by the plight of American schoolchildren, his policies will inevitably result in massive budget cuts for education.
But the most, er, original interpretation of the whole crying thing comes from one commenter on NiceGuy’s MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] forum, who sees this female defense of Boehner’s right to cry as … an evil female plot to make him look bad. As Phloridian put it in a recent posting:
By now many of us have become aware of the crying episodes of John Boehner who is soon to become the next Speaker of the House.
Women all over the media have been insisting that it is alright, but snickering about it covertly. The piece on 60 Minutes has virtually doomed any chance of becoming President and he is beginning to become a laughing stock.
This is why women are not to be trusted. They will encourage men to cry, and expose their vulnerabilities all in an effort to weaken the man. That’s what’s being done here and it sickens me.
Women are devious creatures indeed! It makes me want to cry.
>Obviously this case isn't typical. The TRO was quickly lifted: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1144343,00.html
>@ DavidThe point is there shouldn't have been one at all. If you can slide one through on a clearly ridiculous basis how many pathetically weak ones get through and DON'T get removed? Where's the discipline for the judge who allowed this? Also, Mr. Letterman had to have his lawyers work to remove the TRO. What about the poor slob who can't afford a lawyer? Do feminists care about him? Fuck no. The fact is, despite Christine's fantasy world of wise judges patiently handing down fair TRO's based on a logical reading of the law and a reasoned assessment of risk, usually a woman who asks for a TRO will get one regardless of the TRO'S merit.And as long as it hurts men feminists will call it fair.Random Brother
>Of course there shouldn't have been a TRO in the first place. Sometimes judges do incredibly stupid things and/or make really sloppy mistakes. Hell, sometimes there are much more significant miscarriages of justice — like innocent people on death row. These are terrible, terrible things. That doesn't mean that the justice system is completely broken and/or bad.
>@bishopsinister,It's terrible that there was a TRO issued in the Letterman case. A mistake was made. Mistakes are made, as David said. Which brings to mind another judge's mistake that occurred recently. Katie Tagle begged Judge Lemkau to protect her 9 month old son, Wyatt Garcia, from her ex, Wyatt's father, Stephen Garcia. She had plenty of evidence of a threat to show the judge but Stephen Garcia lied to the judge, the judge took him at his word despite the evidence, and refused to issue protection and made her turn the boy over to his father, who took the child and immediately killed him in a murder-suicide as payback for her leaving him as he had been planning and threatening to do for some time. The judge was voted out of office for that horrific mistake. Letterman got screwed. Katie Tagle, little Wyatt, and their family got screwed even worse. There are no easy answers.
>@Christine WE:"Your post is an exaggeration and misrepresentation, or perhaps a misunderstanding, of how Protection From Abuse laws work and of why they are in place."I've lived this, and I know what I am talking about. You are completely wrong, Christine. Talk to a divorce attorney, tell him that you want to divorce your husband, and that you want to figure out a way to get him out of the house, and to get full custody of the kids for yourself. I guarantee that the first question out of his mouth will be something to the effect of, "Has he made you afraid?" Not "has he been violent," but has he merely instilled an unverifiable emotion in you. This is because the only necessary prerequisite for a woman to obtain a restraining order against her live-in partner is for her to say that she's afraid. Fear… that's it. That's all the unsubstantiated evidence it takes. Just fear. Don't believe me? Try it and see.@Christine WE:"First, officers do not grant orders, judges do."Above is the evidence that it is YOU who don't understand domestic violence laws. Police officers can issue "emergency protective orders" on the spot, and it doesn't require any paperwork; all that is required is that the police make a phone call to a judge. Emergency protective orders are restraining orders alright, but they typically last only a week before they expire. This gives a woman time to file the necessary paperwork to get a more permanent restraining order."A person has to fill out a detailed form and present it to a judge – usually a judge who is trained in risk assessment."Now you bring up training. Did you know what kind of training judges receive when it comes to issuing restraining orders? The fact is that judges receive ongoing training as a requirement of their legal profession, and this training is conducted by feminists. For example, at a New Jersey training seminar for judges, the participating judges in attendance were told the following by the speaker, Judge Richard Russell:"Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, 'See ya around.' … The woman needs this protection because the statute granted her that protection… They have declared domestic violence to be an evil in our society. So we don't have to worry about the rights. Grant every order. That is the safest thing to do."Source:"Judicial Training: 'Your Job Is to Be a Wall'"New Jersey Law JournalApril 24, 1995, p. 14Like I said, men are vulnerable because there are almost never any constraining consequences to this kind of abuse of restraining orders. It's all legal. How many times do I have to use that phrase to point out the injustice? It's all legal. Women are vulnerable to abusive men because of the physical advantage that those men have, but at least it's illegal for such an abuser to utilize his size advantages. But women are permitted to abuse men with violence by proxy — through a bogus restraining order — and it's all legal. If you really think that it's rare, then why don't you join me and support reforms to change the statutes on restraining orders so as to set forth more stringent criteria?
>@David Futrelle:"These are terrible, terrible things. That doesn't mean that the justice system is completely broken and/or bad."Translation: the justice system contains an injustice, namely the abuse of restraining orders, but until things get "completely" broken there's nothing that feminists are going to do about stopping the injustice.In 1995, the Massachusetts Department of Corrections issued a report about the restraining orders that were granted in that state. That report revealed that more than half of the restraining orders didn't contain even an allegation of violence. Therefore, they were issued merely because the requesting party sought one. There was no need to submit any evidence of violent behavior. Evidence simply isn't necessary.Source:"The tragedies of domestic violence: A qualitative analysis of civil restraining orders"Office of the Commissioner of ProbationMassachusetts Trial CourtSandra Adams; Anne PowellOctober 12, 1995http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=157881You might think that this discussion has veered off topic with this talk about the injustice of restraining orders, but it hasn't. The issue is male vulnerability. Male emotions are suppressed, female emotions are elevated. The very suggestion that a woman is feeling "fear" is all the evidence it takes for the wheels of injustice to start turning, and police-enforced coercion is the result. Could men ever get such a result on their behalf in this country? Not on your life.In our culture and in our justice system, a woman's fear carries more weight than a man's pain. This phenomenon is rightly called misandry.
>That may be how one judge in the state of New Jersey trained fellow judges in his state 15 years ago, but that is not how judges are trained today or for the last several years that I have attended criminal justice trainings. And I'm quite sure that the state of Massachusetts has gotten better at discerning whether an order is appropriate or not in the last 15 years. And to state that judges are trained by feminists is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while. There are multiple domestic violence murders, attempted murders and other serious assaults occurring every day in the U.S.. Those dealing with them, studying them, looking for solutions, training etc. are from all kinds of backgrounds and belief systems and they aren't spending their time pushing a political agenda. Not at all. They are criminal justice professionals, medical experts, threat assessment experts, and so on. People who work in the field are busy removing bodies from homes, notifying next of kin, transporting the injured to hospitals, finding orphaned children homes, working to hold the perpetrators of the crimes accountable, comforting grieving families through criminal trials, studying and comparing cases across the country to try to prevent the next murder, learning to discern real dv cases vs. false accusations, learning to assess which cases are high risk and on and on and on. Domestic violence is deadly business. It's a real crime with real dead people, real injured, real victims, real orphaned or displaced children that have to be dealt with by somebody – thousands! – and there is no place for politics in the morgue, in the ICU, in the assisted living facility, etc.. I don't do this job because of politics or ideology. Neither do most people. It has to be done by someone. Not by MRA's of course. I've never seen an MRA express any sort of empathy for these victims and their families and I don't expect to. It's all "they had it coming", "expect more murders", "it's all about the men", and "me, me, me, me". On the-spearhead I saw one MRA comment suggesting that they attempt to get cops to stop responding to DV calls altogether. I'm guessing we'd have bodies rotting in homes and streets all over the country in no time if certain MRA's were in charge. There is a much bigger picture here to be considered than the small area of it that MRA's focus on and the issues will only be solved within the whole context of the dv problem, and the dv problem is huge and very complex. I get your point as to what your issue is and it's legitimate. However, it doesn't negate the other people who are victimized in the situation. It's about you, but it ain't ALL about you. Open your eyes to the big picture.
>@John Dias,As far as a police officer being able to get an order, that is not how it works in my state or in any state that I know of. Perhaps your state does it differently. But in most states, the victim goes to the courthouse to get an emergency protection order, often called an ex parte, and if it is granted, a court hearing is set within 14 days, in which he or she has to present evidence that a more permanent order is needed. In the event that an officer has a dv emergency overnight, then the officer will generally take that person to a safe location, perhaps a shelter, and the emergency order is applied for the next business day. Then the order is provided to the sheriff's department who serves it at the first available opportunity. A judge or a magistrate may be called in the event that an arrest warrant is needed in an urgent situation, but not an emergency protection order. I actually do know the laws pretty well as I have worked in the field for several years.
>I was curious as to what states allow police to issue emergency orders so I researched all the states and I found 4 that do this. While one of these did not specify in the material I reviewed how long such an order will stand, of the remaining three, one is until 5pm the next business day, one is 24 hours, and the last is 72 hours. In addition, there were 2 additional states in which you can call police after hours who will refer you to on-call judges or magistrates. And another 2 states instruct persons that they can call police for assistance with emergency protection after hours but didn't specify exactly what they can do. I'll look more into that later when I have time. The remaining states issue protection orders during business hours. Thanks for bringing that up, John Dias. I was wrong to assume that all states operate the same way that the states I am familiar with do regarding protection order laws.
>Christine WE, Any state that does not allow emergency-protective-orders-by-phone, but does allow warrantless arrest, can effectively do the same thing by simply arresting the accused and incarcerating him long enough for the accuser to file a bogus restraining order. All the officer needs is "probable cause," which in practice is subjectively determined by the officer himself.
>Any list of masculine qualities that I might list would be attacked by you as not uniquely masculineGuilty as charged.You would be correct, but my actual point was going to be that, in my experience, the most effective leadership teams generally demonstrated as much in the way of stereotypical feminine traits as those considered traditionally masculine. (Whew, there's a mouthful…hope I'm clear.)The world has changed, John, and it has recognized that there are greater behavior ranges within the sexes…than between them. Best to go with the flow.
>@ahunt:[Quoting me:] Any list of masculine qualities that I might list would be attacked by you as not uniquely masculine.[/quote]"Guilty as charged.The logical conclusion to this line of thinking is that there is zero correlation between masculinity and males, and therefore no reason for males to value masculinity at all."The world has changed, John […] Best to go with the flow."Your agenda is textbook feminist. Feminist ideology seeks to remove all distinctiveness from masculinity, and thereby feminize men by making them less distinctively masculine (and thereby making them more like women). Why then should any man who wishes to preserve his masculinity look favorably upon feminism? If this is how "the world has changed," then know this: people like me will be active in reversing the damage that feminist dogma has inflicted upon the sexes in both law and culture. If you think that's just talk, then just watch and wait.
>Thank you so much for sharing it.Conveyancing Lawyer Manly is serving millions of customers around the world and helping people with the light of absolute knowledge to get rid of long term court issuesDivorce lawyer Manly