A woman writes: “I got a TRO, and he got a lawyer.” (TRO abbreviates “temporary restraining order.”)

What’s the first thing that strikes you about this search engine query? The first thing that strikes me is that this woman seems surprised. You can almost hear the exclamation point that was left off the Google search.

Her incredulity at having her restraining order challenged seems to suggest that its defendant shouldn’t regard it as a big deal, which would suggest that she doesn’t regard it as one.

Which would suggest that she’s either careless of the consequences of her action or very self-preoccupied—or both.

Over the past three decades, feminist advocates have succeeded in making restraining orders more and more punitive and more and more public. The current push is to have restraining order recipients recorded in public registries like sex offenders. Some such registries already exist.

It shouldn’t be any wonder that men are loath to be criminalized by the “civil” restraining order process.

The query that led this woman to this blog underscores a schizophrenic rift that obtains in the way women regard restraining orders. On the one hand, they expect women’s plaints to be considered grave and urgent and restraining order allegations to be taken very seriously; on the other hand, they expect defendants to take their licks and forge ahead in spite of those publicly recorded allegations’ permanently compromising their futures. Maybe women want to have their cake and eat it, too—or maybe they don’t really think about the consequences to defendants at all.

Civil equality—the insistence upon which was the original motive for the legislative enactment of restraining orders—means uniform regard for the rights, value, and well-being of all citizens, irrespective of gender. With the social ascendancy of women in recent decades has come instead an unexamined assumption that what’s important to them should be what’s important to everyone.

Restraining orders aren’t a game, a fact that’s contradicted by the ease with which they’re sought, the carelessness with which they’re issued, and the apparent expectation from plaintiffs that they should be upheld based on their word alone. All restraining order plaintiffs should have to face cross-examination in court. Social conscience should demand it.

Either restraining orders should be taken seriously, or they should be taken off the books.

Copyright © 2012 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com