Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James R. Barrett who wrote (44021)	7/5/1999 10:20:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 108807

Barrett, anyone who says women are stupid and women shouldn't be allowed to vote and women are only interested in men's wallets is, ipso facto, a misogynist. If you are just joking, and you think these things are funny, you're an idiot, as well as a misogynist.

To: James R. Barrett who wrote (44021)	7/5/1999 10:28:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Cobalt, I don't think you know what a misogynist really is. It's another example of the degradation of the English language. Properly, a misogynist is a person who hates women. But our culture has so weakened the word "hate" that it has become synonymous with a dislike which is merely something more than mild -- how many times have you heard a casual remark "I hate that song," "I really hate it when I mis-hit a putt like that," etc. The feminist movement (of which I was a brief part early on in New York, during the time when it had some positive and constructive goals before turning negative and destructive) has taken over the term to mean, essentially, anye male who doesn't agree with their political views. It's really their loss, because they now have no term to describe those scary people who really do hate women in the same sort of way that Nazis hate Jews, or white supremicists hate blacks. There is a need to differentiate people who disagree with you or sometimes have fun at your expense (like making jokes about feminists) from those who really do have genuine hate in their hearts and are capable of doing real harm. But by diluting the term the feminists have lost the opportunity to make that distinction. I see the same problem happening in family law with domestic violence. Nobody who works in family law, as I do, has any question at all that domestic violence is a major problem and still a seriously under addressed problem. The womens movement has done some very good work in bringing this to the forefront and getting some potentially effective laws passed (potentially effective because no law is effective until the male-dominated police and judiciary enforce the law seriously.) But in short order, domestic violence has reached cult status, and some counselors and advocates are turning virtually everything into a domestic violence situation. Tomorrow I have to go to court to oppose orders which the ex-wife clearly doesn't deserve, and I think (and hope) won't get. But some DV counselor persuaded her that she was a victim of domestic violence because of an argument she and her ex-husband had when they were exchanging the kids, when she chose to bring up old issues again and rekindling an old argument instead of just getting the kids and leaving. In twenty years of marriage he never laid a hand on her, they had bitter arguments, and got divorced. So they have another loud and bitter argument. But suddenly she wants to criminalize it. I'm going to have to fight hard to get this rejected, since the judges, sensitive to the fear of being called insensitive or miscogynists if they turn down any request for an order, however weak, tend to hand them out like water. The problem is that calling this domestic violence cheapens the real thing, real injuries and real threats. When you have 50 protection orders issued by the Courts in a community of our size (6000 people) the police take can them seriously. When you have several hundred, the police simply can't take every one seriously. They just don't have the manpower. Somebody with a protection order she got because her boyfriend got drunk and called her names and she got scared and ran toget a DV protection order calls 911 because her now ex-boyfriend drove past her house on his way to a party and violated the 500 yard limit on approaching her (happens frequently here -- it's a small island and many places there's only one road leading where you want to go.) Should the police respond and arrest the guy? Technically, he has committed a felony. But is it necessary or right to use police and judicial time, and lots of public money, to go and arrest him at the party he is now peacefully at and haul him off to jail and print and book him and charge him and try him (usually paying a public defender to defend him because he usually has no money) and if he's found guilty throw him in jail at hundreds of dollars a day because he drove past his ex-girlfriend's house on a way to a party at his new girlfriend's house? But if the police don't respond, it cheapens the value of the orders for the women who really need them, who have been hurt or seriously threatened and for whom an immediate response may be the difference between life and death. Sigh.