Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Feminists responsible for boom in unnecessary temporary restraining orders
By Phyllis Schlafly
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Are you struggling to keep up with rising gas prices?


It brought to mind the title of the George Gershwin song "They All Laughed" when a Santa Fe, N.M., family court judge granted a temporary restraining order against "Late Show" host David Letterman to protect a woman he had never met, never heard of, and lived 2,000 miles away from.

Colleen Nestler claimed that Letterman had caused her "mental cruelty" and "sleep deprivation" for over a decade by using code words and gestures during his network television broadcasts.

That ridiculous temporary restraining orders was dismissed in December, but according to a report released this week by Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting, or RADAR, the case was not a judicial anomaly but "the logical culmination of years of ever-expanding definitions of domestic violence." RADAR is a Maryland-based think tank that specializes in exposing the excesses of the domestic violence bureaucracy.

The New Mexico statute defines domestic violence as causing "severe emotional distress." That definition was met when Nestler claimed she suffered from exhaustion and had gone bankrupt because of Letterman's actions.

The New Mexico statute appears to limit domestic violence to "any incident by a household member," and Letterman, who lives in Connecticut and works in New York, had never been in Nestler's household. But New Mexico law defines household member to include "a person with whom the petitioner has had a continuing personal relationship," and Nestler's charge that Letterman's broadcast of television messages for 11 years qualified as a "continuing" relationship and thereby turned him into a household member.

The family court judge who issued the order, Daniel Sanchez, might have been predisposed to believe any allegation presented to him by a complaining woman even though she had no evidence. His own biography lists him as chairman of the Northern New Mexico Domestic Violence Task Force.

RADAR reports that only five states define domestic violence in terms of overt actions that can be objectively proven or refuted in a court of law. The rest of the states have broadened their definition to include fear, emotional distress, and psychological feelings.

The use of the word "harassment" in domestic violence definitions is borrowed from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's definition, which is based on the "effect" of an action rather than the action itself. In Oklahoma, a man can be charged with harassment if he seriously "annoys" a woman. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Phyllis Schlafly‘s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Subject: Today a man needs a woman...
... like a bike needs a fish.

With a husband risking loss of liberty, his kids, 18 years of his income, and assets, among other things, it's wiser for a man to say "I don't" to a woman.

Men lose more in divorce over a long period of time with little or no help from others than compared to a woman.

It's not the woman's fault as women have not changed much in the past 6,000 years, but blame the last forty years of divorce court and western culture.

If you do not believe us, then go to your county's family court Monday through Wednesday between 9 and 11 AM to witness yourself. It's free and an invitation is not required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike

Civil discourse about divorce
Unfortunately, thanks to the feminist driven VAWA, it is *not* at all ridiculous today to say that an unscrupulous wife can arbitrarily have the husband removed from home and children. Perhaps you missed or forgot the pertinent sections of Phyllis Schlafly's well written column. Let me repeat it here for your convenience. :)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Family court judges issue 2 million temporary restraining orders every year, half of which are routinely extended, 85 percent are against men, and half do not include any allegation of violence but rely on vague complaints made without evidence."

"Follow the money, both at the supply and the demand ends of the economic trail. The supply of 1,500 new domestic violence laws enacted by states from 1997 to 2005 is largely the handiwork of targeted lobbying by feminists funded by the multimillion-dollar federal boondoggle called the Violence Against Women Act. The act is blatantly gender discriminatory; as its title proclaims, it is designed to address only complaints by women. The Violence Against Women Act provides taxpayer funding to feminists to teach legislators, judges and prosecutors the stereotypes that men are batterers and women are victims."

"The demand end of the economic chain is the fact that women know (and their lawyers advise them) that making allegations of domestic violence (even without proof or evidence) is the fastest and cheapest way to win child custody plus generous financial support. The financial incentives to lie or exaggerate are powerful."

"Due process violations in the issuing of temporary restraining orders include lack of notice, no presumption of innocence, denial of poor defendants to free counsel while women are given taxpayer-funded support, denial of the right to take depositions, lack of evidentiary hearings, improper standard of proof, no need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, denial of the right to confront accusers, and denial of trial by jury."

"Assault and battery are already crimes in every state without any need of the Violence Against Women Act. Temporary restraining orders empower activist family court judges to criminalize a vast range of otherwise legal behavior (usually a father's contact with his own children and entry into his own home), which are crimes only for the recipient of the order, who can then be arrested and jailed without trial for doing what no statute prohibits and what anyone else may lawfully do."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If only a small handful of men were victimized by this feminist driven miscarriage of justice, then I would shrug my shoulders along with you and just say, "Oh, well, sometimes $h!t just happens", but we are talking about millions of mostly frivolous orders, mostly against men, each year (or have you bought into the the feminists' woman-as-perpetual-domestic-violence-victim big lie?).

Real men, their children (and ultimately their wives, too) are being hurt every day because of the evils of feminism. Lots and lots of them. And its your fault and my fault, too, for letting it happen. Open your eyes and think well, Lisa. Notice who the judges are who issue these socially destructive frivolous restraining orders and vote them out. Same for the feminist lapdog legislators who pass anti-family laws, such as VAWA.

Occasionally, family courts order men in this situation to pay (based on the imputed highest earning potential standard) more than they actually are able to realistically earn. This may be because of subsequent job layoffs, being called to active military duty, or other causes beyond their reasonable control. Such a man can then be held in contempt of court, jailed without trial, loose his driver's license, place of residence (can't afford rent), etc. so that he becomes nearly unemployable, and working to his imputed income becomes completely impossible. It becomes a vicious circle. Debtor's prison is supposed to be illegal in this country. That this can happen at all, even to one man (let alone lots of them), should make you very alarmed (I know it does me).

Guys like this feel unjustly victimized (rightly so, too), hurt and trapped with no way out. Some spiral into depression and either kill themselves or their children or their ex-wives (or very rarely the judge who wrecked them in the first place - hard to feel sorry for that one). Of course this is never a justification for murder, but remember that restraining orders mean nothing to someone who has nothing left to lose.

I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I can't help but believe that the lives of many of these women (and their men and children) would be saved just by treating the men in this difficult situation fairly. Divorced or no, most fathers still want to be with their children and to work to be able to look out for the well being of their children. Why are we letting the government interfere with this perfectly natural, wholesome impulse?

Divorce causes living standards to go down all around, for men and women both (maintaining multiple households is simply more costly). Also, no woman (or man) engaging in elective, frivolous divorce should ever have the right to expect to be maintained in the "standard to which she has become accustomed." One-sided divorce without serious grounds (especially when children are involved) should always place onerous penalizing consequences onto the initiator.

Oh, and a Post Script to whom it may concern:

Ad hominem attacks convince no one of anything (other than someone without manners is losing an argument). I generally see no point to them and avoid them.

Be advised that this is a public opinion forum where participants are encouraged to argue their points with both logic and passion. Please do your intellectual reputation here a favor and do not fall into the trap of confusing strong, but civil arguments on this forum between willing opponents with uninvited, uncivil rage directed at a hapless victim in private life. I'm certain most all of the men who have posted here have no trouble differentiating between the two.

Think well, see clearly. :)
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone: