|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that this article appeared in a newspaper is a sign of mixed blessings.
On the one hand, it's encouraging that the cops in Salt Lake, or at least these cops, are smart and have resisted the attempts to feminize them. In this case they were given a relatively straightforward example of DV against a man and they applied the law as it was written. Have no doubt: these are brave police. They will catch hell from feminists, shelter workers, and the entire army of the DV industry, who don't care about this kind of DV. It's also a coup that newspapers are willing to write about these stories and change the mind of the public.
On the other hand, it's sad that arresting a woman under DV laws is seen as so shocking and oddball that a newspaper feels compelled to write about it. Would they have written such a long piece about the first man arrested under this new law? I doubt it. The sad thing is that this law, even though it caught one female offender as its first application, will victimize a lot of men. Notice that at the outset she tried to have him arrested for DV. What if he had had no scratches? What if she had been able to contain her temper? He would probably be in jail now.
Even though this law happened to catch a woman, even though these particular cops had good sense and ample evidence, it could easily have gone the other way, and most often will. I decry these kinds of "zero tolerance" laws: they are acts of totalitarian stupidity. They are nothing less than flirting with fascism. Whether these "zero tolerance" laws catch women or not, I think that they need to go in the trash bin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not only do I find it sad that, as BusterB put it, "arresting a woman under DV laws is seen as so shocking and oddball that a newspaper feels compelled to write about it", I also find it sad that this event will probably be interpreted by feminists, women's groups, and other illogical thinkers as reflecting well on women - wow, here's a tough woman who isn't afraid to fight! Said feminists will probably label the abused husband as a wimp, once they get through having fits over the fact that the phrase "sweet young woman" made it into the article's headline.
Although I cannot list an example here, I have read in the past discussions of how any violence on the woman's part in a relationship is excusable, if not praiseworthy, because heterosexuality is "abnormal" and women must learn to battle the "patriarchy". Translated: Because there is a husband out there somewhere who thinks it's okay to physically abuse his wife, it's okay for you to abuse your husband in return. Of course, these crackpot theories, never stable to begin with, break down even further when tough researchers such as Christina Hoff Sommers point out the estimated rate of domestic violence within lesbian relationships (hint: the rate isn't zero).
It's also sad to think that the people who pushed for zero tolerance laws apparently lacked the foresight to imagine the laws being used in this way. Brutality within a relationship is a terrible thing, but "zero tolerance" laws make it clear that many people involved in the domestic violence debate have willingly signed away any chance the police and participants may have had to display careful observation, careful judgment, and common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
