Judge sentences abuser to ‘date night’ with his victim following DV arrest

A Florida judge recently thought it was in the interest of justice, in the best interest of the victim, and consistent with public policy to “sentence” a violent offender to take his wife out for Red Lobster and bowling, and then sending the couple to “marriage counseling” after the man had brutalized her in her home, reports The Florida Sun Sentinel.

From the article:

“It was a minor incident, in the court’s opinion,” he said. “The court would not normally do that if the court felt there was some violence but this is very, very minor and the court felt that that was a better resolution than other alternatives.”

Reading from an arrest affidavit, Hurley said Bray pushed his wife onto their couch and put his hand on her neck. He held up his fist to hit her, but never struck her, Hurley said.

A woman who identified herself as Bray’s wife attended the hearing and explained that the couple’s argument started on Monday after her husband didn’t acknowledge her birthday.

Hurley asked her is she was hurt or in any fear of her husband. After she said she wasn’t, and Hurley confirmed that Bray had no prior arrests, the judge continued his questioning with a lighter tone.

“Do you have something you like to go to?” he asked. “Is there a restaurant you like to go to?”

The woman answered that she enjoyed bowling and eating at Red Lobster. And so the judge made his decision accordingly.

“Flowers, birthday card, Red Lobster, bowling,” Hurley said. He also ordered that the couple begin seeing a marriage counselor within a week.

It’s interesting how the facts can always, always be spun to support male-supremacy, isn’t it?  Specifically, in this case, to support the narrative that men’s domestic violence against women doesn’t hurt women or make them afraid, it’s not really that bad, and even if it does hurt women and even if it is that bad, who cares?

In this version of it, the abuser “put his hand on her neck.”  In another version, he is said to have “grabbed her by the neck.”  So which one is it?  And just for clarity’s sake, are we talking about the back of the neck, or the front?  You know, where the throat is?  I’m thinking it was the front, but hey, what do I know about attempting to disable someone during a violent altercation, or even about a colloquialism like “going for the throat,” I’m just a laydee.

In the Sun Sentinel’s version, we are expected to put on blinders the size of toboggans and believe that a man in the midst of a violent attack on his wife, in between pushing her and lifting his fist to strike her, placed his hand upon her neck (not her throat!) gently as a silk scarf, without intending to harm her, and indeed without harming her at all.   Look, she said so herself!  The judge asked her whether she was hurt or afraid as a result of being violently attacked by her husband in their shared home, a very vague question and without defining his terms, in an intimidating environment, giving her the opportunity to make her husband even madder than he already was hate her more than he already did, and making herself look like a drama queen and a complete bitch at the same time, and she declined.

But why wasn’t it just assumed that the wife was both hurt and afraid in this instance?  I mean, wouldn’t you be?  Why would anyone even have to ask?  Oh yeah, because asking the question under these circumstances results in more positive outcomes (for men) than we would otherwise get, if we used common sense, and regarded female victims of male violence as human beings with predictable human responses to being terrorized and attacked.

Red Lobster it is, then!

And in HLNtv.com’s version, where the man “grabbed her by the neck” we are all not only told but shown too how a violent man who engages in an act that is reasonably likely to result in serious bodily harm or death, which grabbing by the neck (or throat) most certainly is, can do so with impunity, where the victim was a woman and/or his wife.  In case anyone wasn’t sure about that, they have even more evidence than they did before, so we can all adjust our behaviors accordingly.  Abusers and potential abusers can adjust their behaviors accordingly, and victims and potential victims can adjust their behaviors accordingly.  This is male-supremacy, y’all, let’s get with the program mkay?  Great.

And the part about marriage counseling was a nice touch: involve yet another male-supremacist institution in domestic violence cases (in this case, psychiatry/psychology) so they can all work together in tandem to help this woman “get over her issues” of mistakenly thinking that she’s a human being, and calling the cops when men attack her.

The Sun Sentinel reporter, Danielle Alvarez, can be reached here:

daalvarez@tribune.com or 965-356-4543.

The Judge, John “Jay” Hurley can be reached here:

HURLEY, JOHN
Judicial Asst. Marjorie McClain
(954) 831-7615

Advertisements
Ron Paul's misogynist dog whistle

Ron Paul blows the misogynist dog whistle, liberal doodbro responds

According to A.J. Dellinger, writing at Salon, “Ron Paul’s popularity has doubled in the past four years for one simple reason.” Wait for it.

It’s because Dellinger and his liberal doodbro cohort are “the screwed generation.” They’re mad as hell, they’re stamping the feet for attention, and they’re not going to take it anymore! Dellinger tells us how badly used and abused his “generation” has been:

“We are the generation that continues to pay into Social Security with every paycheck but suspects we may never see the benefits of it.”

It’s completely lost on Dellinger and all the doods like him that he belongs to the class of people that has reaped the vast majority of the economic goodies for a long, long time. But, oh no, that might have come to an end!

Meanwhile, women have been paying into Social Security for as long as it has existed, yet continue to make only 77 cents to every dollar that men are paid. Women don’t just suspect that the work they do won’t be fairly compensated, it never has been, and no woman alive today really believes that she ever will be. While Dellinger is wringing his hands over the terrible treatment of his “generation” (that’s his code for “all the guys like me”), he seems to have forgotten that half of it is made up of women who get doubly shafted economically.

Does this concern men like Dellinger? Probably not; he’s too busy worrying about himself and his future.

“In short, we are the screwed generation. The decisions of those before us has left us with an uncertain future and little opportunity to fix things through traditional means.”

When it happens to men, it’s a tragedy. How dare things not fall into line for Dellinger and his “generation” (remember, that’s code). But the people making decisions “before” and now have been overwhelmingly male. In the U.S., women currently make up less than 17% of Congress overall, a woman has never been President, and all the while white men like Dellinger have made up over 95% of the membership of the U.S. Congress over the history of its existence. His gender and their concerns have been wildly overrepresented in the U.S. government, but that doesn’t stop Dellinger from making it sound like suddenly there’s a problem.

And every single person in his “generation” feels just as he does! He’s sure of it.

“The ever-present skepticism of youth is even greater within the collective consciousness of Generation Y. With our first real chance to make a splash in the world, we got behind Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers.”

Do you think he really cares what everyone in his entire generation thinks? Don’t bet on it. The young, liberal doodbros voted for Obama and what did they get, dammit?!!

When Hillary Clinton ran against Dellinger’s hero Obama, she was treated to the worst misogyny imaginable, and lost to someone with far less experience and far less knowledge because Dellinger and liberal doodbros fought tooth and nail against her. Do you think Dellinger remembers that? Probably not, but you have to be incredibly self-centered to not have noticed that women have had the vote for nearly 100 years and continue to be second-class citizens when it comes to politics, political representation, and public policy — especially when living with the results of those.

But let that happen to men? All hell will break loose and they’ll “begin to serve their own” interests. Selfish? Who, liberal doodbros? Dellinger throws down the gauntlet:

“So when the traditional liberal means of protecting ourselves — uniting behind the government to promote action that benefits the common good — no longer serves our best interest, we begin to serve our own.”

Gee, we thought that’s what they were doing when they threw a far more knowledgeable and capable politician under the bus to vote for a inexperienced man instead. Notice also how Dellinger self-consciously (the rare instance) throws in that part about benefitting the “common good” — in between selfishness Ayn Rand would applaud. Hell, she couldn’t have said it better herself:

“We have a new set of morals that have been established because the old ones were no longer cutting it. […] Many of the universal views of our generation come down to holding a permissive attitude toward the behaviors of individuals.”

In other words, “we” (him and everyone just like him) should be able to do anything “we” damn well please. You know, as long as those “individuals” are of the male variety. Because all of this outpouring of emotion has been in the service of the completely and unapologetically anti-choice, anti-woman candidate, Ron Paul.

You didn’t think this was really about the “common” common good, did you? Nope. Who do you think Dellinger is seeing in his mind’s eye when he says things like this (hint: it isn’t women):

“This is why libertarianism — and the Ron Paul candidacy — has been so appealing to young voters. […] It’s no fluke that the old guy preaching liberty and personal freedom is getting the attention of the youngest demographic, either. Because Paul supports sending social issues down to the states, he’s no longer having those discussions; he’d rather talk economics.”

Sure, except for when Ron Paul has repeatedly said that he is against abortion and will actively work to overturn Roe v. Wade. Or when he said that “those who experience sexual harassment in the work force should just quit.” Too bad if “those who experience sexual harassment” are overwhelmingly females who probably need the jobs they have and in any case, should probably be able to work without being harassed, don’t you think, Mr. Dellinger? Or were you only concerned with some people in your generation?

According to Dellinger, there’s a fight for liberty and personal freedom that must be won and people are joining that battle!

“It’s no fluke that the old guy preaching liberty and personal freedom is getting the attention of the youngest demographic, either. […] “This is what makes the Ron Paul movement truly important. His audience is overwhelmingly made up of college-age kids. […] And Paul has “continually dominated the youth vote in nearly every primary.”

Funny how that “demographic” slants majority male — by a large margin. It’s abundantly clear if one is paying attention why Dellinger and others like him think the Ron Paul movement is truly important: Ron Paul’s audiences are overwhelmingly young men just like them. The code words and fake community spirit cannot hide what the camera tells us.

But maybe Dellinger is just accidentally delusional.

“Because Paul supports sending social issues down to the states, he’s no longer having those discussions; he’d rather talk economics.”

Maybe while gazing at his own very important navel, Dellinger missed the news that Ron Paul is rabidly opposed to women’s right to choose what to do with their own bodies and has said so repeatedly. Maybe Dellinger missed the interview where Paul said that there is a difference between “honest rape” and other kinds of rape (like when women pretend to have been raped so they can get an abortion — those crafty bitchez).

Clearly, Ron Paul and Dellinger are the true freedom fighters. You just have to know what side they’re fighting for.

But wait, Dellinger said this earlier in the article:

“The fact that there are still discussions between contending candidates about whether women should have the right to have an abortion is shameful in the eyes of the youth vote. We’re done with those debates.”

Well, I guess that makes a kind of sick sense. Paul certainly is done with these debates and he has decided what’s best for all women, all the time. And Dellinger has decided that he will support Paul and claims his whole generation does too.

“There may not be a total consensus, but it’s pretty clear where the majority of our generation stands.”

Yes, I’m sure it’s all very clear if you can only see and hear what the men in your generation have to say. And women can just shut the fuck up while men like Dellinger spin the facts of the situation.

“By jettisoning social issues, Paul is able to have a conversation about fiscal policy with a bunch of kids who are growing up in a new economy.”

Excuse us, but if those “kids” expect anyone to listen to their political ideas, let alone believe that they are ready for adult conversations, they should be able to prove that they’re actually capable of understanding what Paul’s intentions are and how those would affect the women in Dellinger’s generation.

But when Dellinger (and other liberal doodbros) say things like this: “This is an example of our generation trying to take care of our own as much as it is trying to create change,” we’re going to understand that they are just like their forefathers — Ron Paul among them — who have been (and are) only too happy to keep women from having full human rights, while men continue to be the default representatives for all human experience and arbiters thereof.

Debate over fetal ‘viability’ reignited as technology advances

An American law professor and former federal prosecutor writes in an Op/Ed for CNN that advances in technology, specifically the increasing ability of modern medicine to keep pre-term fetuses alive outside the womb, should spur corresponding changes in abortion law that would criminalize abortions earlier and earlier, based on the technology available at the time.  While he doesn’t suggest how far he is willing to take his argument, specifically, whether women are just expected to sit back and watch as abortion rights shrink more and more as men’s technology and the male medical machine advance, he does make sure to mention that he’s “pro-choice” and a “progressive” about a dozen times.

From the article:

We are also haunted by the ragged remains of the Supreme Court opinion in Roe v. Wade. Despite being disavowed by subsequent opinions and some of the individual justices, one part of that precedent lives on in the statutes of some states and the practices of several doctors: The assertion in Roe’s majority opinion that “viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks).”

The scientific claim that viability (the ability of a fetus to live outside the womb) “usually” occurs at 28 weeks has been undermined by medical advances over the past 38 years.

Children who would have died if born late in the second trimester in 1973 would more than likely live if they were born now. A Swedish study in 2009 found that preterm babies born late in the second trimester who are given intensive care survive at surprising rates: 53% of those born at 23 weeks live, 67% at 24 weeks, and by 25 weeks, 82% of the babies survive. (Sweden’s health care system makes it possible to reliably track survival rates, but the type of care provided there is similar to that available in the United States).

In the same way that the law had to change to accommodate advances in DNA evidence that can exonerate those on death row, state laws must change to accommodate that with modern medical care, a child born at 27 weeks is very likely not only going to live, but live a fairly normal life.

Yes that’s right: abortion, a women’s rights issue and a reproductive health issue, involving multiple overlapping male-centric institutions and systems of patriarchal oppression — specifically medicine, religion and law — specifically designed to subjugate women on the basis of our sex, is exactly like men wrongly convicted of violent crimes and must be treated as such.  And I guess in his analogy, the fetus is the criminal wrongly imprisoned, and male technology must be allowed to save him.  And clearly, the woman is the state, from which our fetus, uh, male protagonist must be saved.

There are obvious problems, of course, with framing the abortion problem in male-centric terms, and the problem is that it’s absurd, reductionist, misogynistic, and doesn’t really capture the essence of the problem (from women’s perspective) and utterly fails to get at the heart of the matter, again and again.

And the essence of the problem is that women are being subjected to PIV and impregnated, whether they want to be or not, and men have set up their institutions to attach to women’s lives and bodies at the moment of conception, in ways that these institutions never attach to male bodies and men’s lives.  And pregnancy can be a dangerous medical event that’s expensive, time consuming, and interferes with a woman’s ability to work and fulfill pre-existing obligations, such as caring for existing children or aging parents, or herself.

And in the case of technology and viability specifically, men control the technology that’s going to make pre-term fetuses increasingly “viable” with no foreseeable endpoint, and they will stop advancing that technology when they want to.  Men control the relevant technology, not women, so if abortion rights are tied to technological advances redefining “viability” then women’s abortion rights are subjected to men’s whims and are on a steady decline with no end in sight.  This is unacceptable.  And as men largely control fertility and reproduction too, being that they are the ones impregnating women through mandatory PIV and rape, it seems even more clear that the issue of women’s “choice” really isn’t; the issue of abortion and reproductive rights is an issue of men’s choice.  This is clearly the truth of the matter, and again, it is unacceptable.

This business with “viability” and the ways men’s legal and medical systems overlap makes it all too clear that it’s men’s intention to control women through patriarchal institutions and overlapping systems of male power, via women’s ability to become impregnated and to reproduce, no matter what.  This is just more of the same, and it’s not a valid reason, from women’s perspective, or even from an egalitarian perspective, to further restrict our access to abortion.