Comments are invited on this real life scenario ....what is your assessment ?

A recent question caused resurfacing of this experience. About a decade ago I was confidant to a work-mate/ friend in his immediate post separation difficulties. The scenario is as follows : One evening I was a dinner guest of couple (my friend and his wife with whom I was also a friend) and their male house-guest. Throughout the visit the hostess kept giving me "wind-up" and "you can go now" signals so I left early. After my departure, the evening degenerated. My friend emerged from his pre-sleeping shower to find his wife sexually engaged with the male house-guest on the lounge room arm chair. The husband immediately ordered the house-guest to leave which was, understandably, complied with. Whilst the husband was cleaning and washing the dinner dishes an angry conversation ensued. He threw a cup in frustration -- in the opposite direction from her -- and it smashed. She taunted "I suppose you'll do that to me next ? Are you going to beat ME up ? Should I call the police now ?". He replied "There's probably not much I can do to stop you is there ?" Police were summonsed and attended. Due to the smashed cup, police assumed the possibility of violence potential. The cup, being a wedding gift, was held to be part hers in ownership, thus her property was assaulted. The result of this was an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) being instituted against the husband. The terms of the AVO meant he could not approach her -- or their home -- within 50 metres. The "no approach" terms had a three-fold effect : 1) If he was visiting mutual friends at their own homes, and she arrived, he would have to immediately leave. This meant his support base was restricted. 2) He could not access his thousands of dollars worth of equipment he had stored at his family home. These tools were necessary for his employment. 3) He could not have unrestricted access to his 9 year old son whom he loved dearly. Were the preceding not cataclysmic enough, the situation -- as such often do -- got worse. As she was a legal/ accountancy consultant, over the years it was agreed that she was best capable of handling all family legal and finance concerns. Now separated, he found his bank account emptied of work wages before he could access them. He was unable to gain welfare support as he couldn't offer proof of identity. She had controlled and withheld his passport/ birth certificate/ driver's licence/ bank and credit records. For official purposes he was effectively identity neutered. Later other details emerged. -- It seems that on her many work related trips away, she was regularly engaged in motel sex with her colleagues in full view of her accompanying son. The son is alleged to have said "Dad, I thought something was wrong but didn't know how to tell you." -- Her parents, to whom she was an angel, were both scions in the legal fraternity. It appears they may have brought pressure to bear to support her case. -- During a casual drive many years previously, she had once remarked "See those lawyers there ? If ever we got divorced, I'd use them. They do good work." They were in fact the lawyers she used. -- The many years of gradual concentration of family business into her hands appears to have been orchestrated. -- She appears to have retained custody of their child as the prefered parental influence. Over time I lost contact with the husband and do not know the ultimate resolution. Curiously he saw the events as being singularly offensive (understandably) but didn't appear generally antipathic to all her gender as can often happen in such circumstances. I realise the above is lengthy, involved, turgid and barely credible. I was only peripheraly involved but still find it in barely comprehensible despite knowing it's veracity. My questions are : A) How could such legal situations occur ? Were they valid applications of law ? B) Could such legal action still occur today ? C) Could a reverse similar outcome for the male have been anticipated had he been more legal savvy ? D) Does it not appear much of the occurences were more female oriented than case specific "needs based" orientation ? E) Is this a preferred direction of Feminism objectives or does Feminism regard this as abhorrent too ?

---

1) Notice its called the CRIMINAL Justice system? That may explain everything.

2) That's a bad situation. He should've known something was up as soon as she made the comment about using lawyers in the event of a divorce. Normal people don't make those kinds of comments. It's a scary situation and shows you just how bad things can get for people. At least he didn't turn against all women. Though his attitude is the right one to take it would be a very easy thing to do and is something that happens in many situations. A. The worst thing I could see him being charged with was vandalism. I'm not sure how that works with jointly owned property. The court decisions were absolutely appalling though. I have no idea how they could explain that one away beyond the fact she apparently knew how to work the legal system very well. B. Oh yeah. People get screwed all the time in the court system, and in divorce courts in particulary. It's men much of the time but some women do get screwed. And on that note... C. Yes I could see it happening, though with many courts holding a bias towards women in divorces, especially when children are involved, it would be less likely. But yes, I could see it happening. D. That's the way it often (not always) does work. E. Many feminists will find it abhorrent. Some would go right along with it. They're unfortunately the ones who have had the most influence with the courts on things like domestic violence and a big reason things are biased the way they are. Your "typical" feminist on the street I believe would find it as wrong as you and I do, I believe.

3) A) How could such legal situations occur ? Were they valid applications of law? While I am not versed in the nuances of divorce/child custody laws and procedures, I think I know enough to say that it would be disingenuous not to recognize that, in cases like these, custody is overwhelmingly biased in favor of the mother. This would explain why she got custody of their son. As far as the thrown cup goes, when presented with the shards as evidence of aggression/violence, the police likely assumed too much (a cup was thrown + a woman called the cops = domestic violence), which is unfortunate but unsurprising. The rest seems to be largely applicable to a knowledge of, and therefore an ability to manipulate, the law (on the wife's part). This is, I think, one of those cases where the law has potential for abuse and needs to be adjusted for that. B) Could such legal action still occur today? Injustice has not been eradicated in any legal system that I know of, so it is certainly not out of the question. C) Could a reverse similar outcome for the male have been anticipated had he been more legal savvy? Perhaps not entirely reverse, as I think it would be especially difficult for him to get the courts to award him custody of their child, but if nothing else it might have been able to stymie the consequences of the legal actions of his wife. D) Does it not appear much of the occurences were more female oriented than case specific "needs based" orientation? I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, but if you're suggesting that, you know, this is just how women operate and all that, I wouldn't agree. Perhaps the methods would be more likely to be used by a woman, but trying to screw your ex over (regardless of whether you are the "bad guy" or not) knows no boundaries (least of all gender boundaries). E) Is this a preferred direction of Feminism objectives or does Feminism regard this as abhorrent too? This is absolutely not an objective of feminism. As a feminist, I want men to be treated as competent caregivers (equally competent) by society and by the law. I want assurance that domestic violence cases are investigated on the basis of evidence and that gender doesn't play a role in that at all. I'm appalled by the idea that anyone can get trapped in a situation where they might not be able to access their earnings or equipment that they need for work, but to me that's not really related to feminism so much as a broken part of the legal system.

4) This is not the preferred direction of feminism or anything in regards to it. Your friend was in a situation with someone who more than likely set out in some capacity to dissolve the relationship before it actually ended. Http://www.referralrequest.com He was in the House for crying out loud when she was having sex with another man!! Hardly discreet. AND, how long had she been fooling around before that? Which means, how long had she been secretly planning to siphon him dry and suck the value of him out of the relationship and leave the empty shell and discard it? Who knows what was going on in her mind, but there were clues and another man might have picked up on them and gotten out sooner.

5) A) How could such legal situations occur ? Were they valid applications of law ? Most countries have laws that define domestic violence very loosely, and the ramifications can be out of all proportions to the incident. See section 4 here http://www.freewebs.com/feminism-evaluated B) Could such legal action still occur today ? In many countries, yes. C) Could a reverse similar outcome for the male have been anticipated had he been more legal savvy ? Probably not, but it's a pity there aren't more lawyers like this one http://www.roydenhollander.com/ D) Does it not appear much of the occurences were more female oriented than case specific "needs based" orientation ? Definitely. Feminists have rigged the law in this direction (see the Prof Kelly paper referenced in the first link above). E) Is this a preferred direction of Feminism objectives or does Feminism regard this as abhorrent too ? Feminists have campaigned vigorously for this situation to exist, as is documented clearly in the Kelly paper. Sure some feminists will say 'gosh - that has nothing to do with feminism' but this is a worthless comment because feminists and nobody else have created this situation. Further evidence for this is documented here http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=991563#PaperDownload

6) In one sentence: Femnazi ruled the west !

7) So wait a minute - you come out the shower, you find your partner cheating on you right in front of your eyes, and you start doing the washing up??! I don't believe it, sorry :-)

8) Without reading it all - restraining or AVO or DVO orders are SUPPOSED to be civil matters, and not criminal ones. Therefore, the application of any of these ALONE is, in itself, clear evidence that NO ACT OF GENUINE VIOLENCE HAS TAKEN PLACE. If it had, a criminal charge could be laid. Now, my problem with these CIVIL matters is this : if they are supposed to be exclusively for the prevention of violence, why, then, is GENUINE VIOLENT ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, such as home invasion,restriction on his use of his own property, restriction on access to his own property, access to children, tools of trade, etc? Why, also did the court not properly take into account these issues when it issued the order? OK - are you with me so far? Now to answer your questions at the end: A) These situations occur because these civil matters do not fall in line with the proper rule of law. They were deliberately set up to break the law that requires equal treatment (all are equal etc), and to give to one side of the dispute total and uncompromising power; as well as to give to the government and its agencies the privilege (not right) of intruding into the life of an ordinary person for the purpose of disempowering him. B) These illegal laws remain in place to this day - need I say more? C) A reverse situation could not develop, because the clear aim and intent of these illegal laws is to diesmpower men. D) These laws and the courts that handle them do not even begin to consider any issue that is relevant to the woman. E) This is a stated aim of Feminism, being the disempowerment of men, which they SAY is empowering women. Rather than being abhorrent, these laws and their outcomes are exactly in line with feminist doctrine. If you have any other questions, just ring. Now the issue of why any democratic government would pursue such a path is another question.

9) typical scenerio, it happens all the time. the part about her family being 'scions of the legal fraternity' sums up the situation best. USA courts, the legal system, and especially judges in the USA are overtly corrupt and biased, and use laws like VAWA as thier own personal license to steal or engage in RICO style criminal activity. Sham cases like this can generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and federal funds. VAWA laws that allow this to happen are no different than would be a 'violence aginst whites act' that allowed corrupt biased criminal RICO courts to assume all blacks are violent criminals, and all whites are innocent victems, and to decide cases on the basis of racist hate speech, without any regard to due process or reasonable argument. Dorothy, we are not in Kansas anymore. Auntie Em can not save you from our evil courts, judges, legal system, lawyers, and hordes of quacks and other parisites of the dysfunctional court system that are completely, overtly, transparently corrupt and evil. This corruption is well illustrated by this 'scenerio' that you have shared, and millions of other simlar stories like this one are out there and happen every day.

10) Poppycock. Horseshit through and through. You make extraordinary claims, such as that a restraining order means the arrival of the wife at the home of friends means the man would have to leave. How dramatic. Most people have some control over who comes into their home, and the courtesy and common sense to avoid being forced by the big bad woman into failing to support their good innocent male friend. A man may retrieve his personal belongings from his home. He may also get a court order for the return of his identification papers, or get replacements. What helpless victims you would like us to believe men to be. He probably was outlawyered. His wife clearly did not respect him and she may well have strategized her divorce, BUT nothing in this story indicates that the man was damaged by anything more than wearing horns and being divorced. Do you really think the son should have been raised by the man who couldn't get welfare because his paperwork was in his wife's house?

Privacy Policy | Contact Us