Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
> "John Royer " sent in a
story about a man
> being arrested for domestic violence, even though he was not the
> instigator.
> 
> "Doug Anderson " wrote:
>> I don't think anyone was saying police never make mistakes.  The
>> article you posted might be such a mistake.  (Although it might not.)
> 
> This is not about the police making a mistake: 

Exactly!  I wonder why Doogie didn't catch that point.  Not victimist
enough towards his hewpwess wimmins ubermistresses, perhaps?

> the police followed the rules they are supposed to follow.

------>  The point.
> 
> The mistake is that the rules are stupid, with a built-in presumption of
> guilt on the man's part.  

But really, now, aren't men as a class or as individuals societally
obligated to feel guilty?  Don't you know that each time you read of an
atrocity committed by a man, especially toward a woman, then you must
prostrate yourself before a superiour being (a woman) and beg forgiveness
for your guilt-by-common-anatomy?

> (Note that "the rules" here is not merely "the
> law", but also a great bunch of social assumptions that people carry
> around with them.)

Social assumptions often become law, even when the assumptions are unjust.
Feminists will not hesitate to remind you of this, but only if the favoured
sex is the target of injustice. 
 
> Even if lawmakers see the problems with the laws as they are written,
> they will be unwilling to make changes if the result is that they are
> seen as "soft on crime".  Nobody has ever in my hearing made
a sensible
> case for the USA's totally irrational drug laws, which suggests to me
> that many elected officials see the situation for the morass that it is.
> But saying "Hey, let's legalize marijuana" is seen as a
political death
> sentence for no gain -- because the idea, whatever its merit, will not
> pass everybody else afraid of the political death sentence.  So nobody
> will support it. 
> 
> The women's groups which push for protection of women have a valid
> issue, and they have gotten well-organised and worked very hard to get
> those issues addressed.  

Indeed.  There most certain have been and still are women who deserve
protection from an abusive spouse.  Same applies to men, but hey, they're
men; let 'em suffer!

> But people who run women's shelters don't see
> many men who are victims of abuse, so that problem is invisible to them.
> The result is an imbalanced situation, because there wasn't really
> anybody organised on the other side, trying to make sure the resulting
> laws and procedures were fair.

Anyone on "the other side" of the women's shelter issue ran the real risk
of being pilloried as an (oh-my-GOD!) "misogynist".  Like other groups who
began their existance as well intentioned advocacies for a specific group
of people (i.e, the US KKK, Labour Unions, the Japanese Yakusa, Sicilian
Mafia, Cambodian Khmer Rouge, and many others), they don't know when or how
to quit.  Once their primary goals are achieved, they tend to concoct or
even provoke situations to justify their continued existance.

Feminism, especially the faction that drives women's shelters, is no
different.

> 
> My reading of this is that it's not an anti-man conspiracy on their
> part: it's a "protect the women" seige mentality.  Knowing
what you are
> dealing with is the first step to handling it correctly.
> 

Well written!  But there is NO conspiracy and to suggest so is only
dismissive.  This is favourite rhetorical trick of feminists.  

Furthermore, anti-man and "protect the woman" mentalities are not mutually
exclusive, as you demonstrate in your description of how women's shelters
have de-volved.

TR II

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/31/05 8:47:39 PM ---