Consider: At least a couple more restraining orders will have been issued in the time it takes you to read this post.
I pointed out recently that after 30 years and the issuance of millions or tens of millions of restraining orders, feminists and others continue to report that the incidence rate of domestic violence, which is the go-to rationale for restraining orders, is unchanged.
They report, in fact, that it’s “epidemic.”
Plainly restraining orders have put no dent in the problem. What’s more, it’s possible they’ve made it worse.
How this may be possible is simple. By authorizing gross and large-scale (epidemic) civil rights abuses for decades, the system has jaded the sentiment of a significant sector of the public. The punitive nature of both biased legal policies and the feminist rhetoric that has inspired them does nothing to change minds. It inspires resentment, outrage, and distrust, if not contempt.
Male victims of false restraining orders, in particular, who may well be a majority of recipients and number in the millions, can hardly be expected to sympathize with the feminist agenda. Worse yet, a goodly proportion of them may be far from sensitive to the interests of women generally, because feminism has associated itself with those interests inextricably.
Feminism doesn’t appeal to or cultivate sympathy; it largely strives to chastise and dominate, which can only foster misogyny.
Resentment toward feminist-influenced legal processes conduces to resentment toward feminists and consequently resentment toward women. Feminism works against its own mission statement and the interests of its nominated beneficiaries.
It’s certain that restraining orders have provided peace of mind to some petitioners. It’s certain, also, that they’ve compromised or devastated the lives of a significantly greater number of falsely accused defendants, who receive no compassion from feminist quarters.
On balance, the curative value of restraining orders is null if not negative. Per capita, that is, they do more harm than good. And the impact of each instance of abuse of power is chain-reactive, because every victim has relatives and friends who may be jarred by the reverberations.
Although it doesn’t occur to feminists, because they’re the darlings of the government and the media, their zeal to blame and punish is alienating instead of unifying.
The feminist m.o. is to win not win over…and nobody doesn’t hate a bully.
Thanks to kangaroo legal processes that are effectively products of their authorship, feminists’ potential supporters may number several fewer now than when you started reading this post.
Copyright © 2014 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
Plainly restraining orders have put no dent in the problem. What’s more, it’s possible they’ve made it worse.
Feminism doesn’t appeal to or cultivate sympathy; it largely strives to chastise and dominate, which can only foster misogyny.
On balance, the curative value of restraining orders is null if not negative. Per capita, that is, they do more harm than good. And the impact of each instance of abuse of power is chain-reactive, because every victim has relatives and friends who may be jarred by its reverberations.
Those who profit politically and monetarily by the misery inflicted through court processes that are easily abused by the “morally unencumbered” love all this conflict and misdirected rage, which only ensure that these corrupt processes continue to thrive.
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 