An Anonymous friend wrote the following criticism of my Beloved
Media Radar.org.
I have requested that our Anonymous friend tell me who he is, but so far, my mystery reader has declined to give me some sort of identification.
A pity, although I have my suspicions of who this could be.
Mr. Guess, did you write this???
In any event, I will go through the piece and add my humble comments. I will also email this post to Media Radar, and hopefully they will respond as well.
It should be noted that a little criticism never hurts. It keeps us honest, and it makes sure that our arguments remain pure.
Feminists lie all the time; there is no reason for MRAs to resort to distortion in our arguments.
Feminists themselves give us plenty of ammunition every time they open their mouths!
Let's look at the comment shall we??
Anonymous said...
Citing Media Radar's "reports" as good evidence is not the best idea. Here is a fun exercise with only one "report" they have.
The report in question,
Without Restraint... does have some technical flaws.
There are some misquotes, and some rounding errors.
Happily, our friend is making a mountain out of a mole-hill.
This report, that my friend has brilliantly fact-checked, holds up under scrutiny. The main questions, in my mind are:
Are restraining orders being issued in an unbalanced manner?
Is there enough evidence presented so that a reasonable Joe Blow off the street could read it and know that there's something amiss here?
Does Radar show convincingly that restraining orders are a most unwelcome addition to American law and custom?
I maintain that it does on all counts. Even if the inquiring mind were to go through every citation, the evidence in its totality does show that there is an inherent bias in the distribution of restraining orders.
You should know that, as a
Classical Liberal, I am opposed to such instruments because they violate the
Due Process and
Equal Protection clauses of our Constitution, as well as the basic principle of
Probable Cause, in most cases.
At all times, the Constitution of the United States is the benchmark to which I hold law and statute.
At times like this, I feel the need to quote the
following:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. — Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The reason why I am against so called "Domestic Violence" laws is that they undermine the right of a Man to be the "
King of his castle". They undermine the ability of the average American to say honestly, "
It's a free country."
(C'mon... when's the last time you heard someone say that expression and actually mean it??)Laws like these, as Media Radar has successfully pointed out again and again, undermine our entire system of American Jurisprudence.
In addition, these rules give
enormous power to the vindictive and the petty, and are ripe for being misused and abused.
Interestingly enough, our current "family law" regime isn't even American at all. It is a Soviet Cultural Marxist import.
Check it:
FAMILY LAW, CHILD SUPPORT, AND WELFARE FROM MARXISM?Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current “family law” system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and America’s “welfare state,” was born in the Soviet Union. Still more shocking would be the revelation that when the Soviet Union discovered its system was a disastrous failure, it instituted serious reforms in the early 1940’s to try to restore the family and the country. The Soviets made these changes when fatherlessness (which included children from divorced fathers) reached around 7 million children and their social welfare structure (day cares, kindergartens, state children’s facilities, etc.) was overburdened. Yet in America, some studies suggest that we are approaching 11 or 12 million such children. All the while, the social and financial costs of welfare and fatherlessness are just now gaining more widespread attention. America’s fatherlessness crisis is primarily by judicial making with the cooperation of the legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who profit from family destruction which rips America apart.
Unfortunately, the Soviet reforms came too late and never brought about the extent of social reconstruction that would have allowed recovery from its self-inflicted social destruction. It was unable to stave off its widely celebrated collapse when the Berlin wall came down. Even though the Soviets tried in vain to restore the social values they had worked so hard to eradicate, America only pays “lip service” to much-needed massive social reform. Serious social reform has been largely absent from political debate. On the other hand, the systematic deconstruction of all of the social values that had made our nation great is being pursued passionately as one of our nation's primary socio-political goals.
“Family law” is one of the key tools of the “counter-hegemony” which is used to advance the social welfare state through the promotion of the social structural collapse of America. The early Soviet system focused on personal happiness and self-centered fulfillment with its roots in class warfare. When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940’s. Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America.[vii] America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components...
While there are errors in the report in question, Media Radar overall does a fine job of challenging biases and unjust laws on a level that no other organization has managed to do thus far.
So when you attack this fine group, and attempt to plant seeds of doubt about their veracity, and attempt to drive a wedge between them and MRA ground troops such as myself, that's like asking a Samurai to go into battle without his sword, or requesting the desert solider to fight insurgents without his body armor.
Not gonna happen.Kumogakure School is
NOT in the business of limiting ourselves in our guerrilla campaign against feminism. I will use Media Radar, and any other source for that matter, to achieve the goal, which is the complete and total annihilation of feminism,
period.
So sorry, but I wrote the book on psychological warfare! You won't sow dissension so easily my dear friend.
Our guest wrote:
In "The Use and Abuse of Restraining Orders"
Citation 2 refers to the claim of "about 85%" while the source notes
"At present, 15 to 20 percent of restraining orders are issued against
women." Not too far off but not accurate either.
Agreed. A range of 80-85% would have been better.
However, the fact remains that Men are far and away the targets of restraining order madness. This speaks volumes about the eagerness of women to request such orders.
It is also striking when we consider that women
beat, batter, and abuse on equal levels with men.
It would be sensible, in an equitable environment, for the spread between male/female R.O. issuance rates to be closer together, say, 60% to 40%.
In reality, if we use the rates of 85% to 15%, then we find that (.85/.15= 5.66) women are requesting (
or obtaining) orders almost
six times more than men are.
Restraining orders ARE being used to target men at disproportional levels, and this fact is indisputable.
Citation 3 refers to " In three-quarters of those cases, the woman had
also summoned the police." In fact the source notes "69.7%¶ of women
who received police assistance for IPV also obtained a restraining
order against an IP." I understand rounding the 33.8% figure to 34%
but to change 69.7% to 3/4 is not correct, nor is it prefaced with
"about" as in the first case. "About" should only appear when the
true figure is not known or there is marginal rounding.
Agreed here. 69.7% should be 69.7%.
Citation 5 refers to "in Oregon, merely claiming a "fear" of violence
is considered grounds for issuance of the order." In fact this is not
what even the source says, it states, "put you in fear of serious
bodily injury." Fear of violence, rather than serious bodily injury,
is a much lower bar to achieve and there is no way this was not taken
out of context intentionally.
With all due respect, how do you
know that there is a lower bar to achieve? It is undeniable that at all levels of the criminal justice system, a woman that claims abuse gains a considerable measure of credibility.
My Tyranny of Tolerance posts detailed how the
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, the Highest Court in the land, stripped men of their God given, Blessed be He, rights to their family and their children, because women were being "abused."
A woman was
recently convicted of Manslaughter, instead of Murder, because of her testimony that she was "abused."
The
citation that you speak of also says:
You can get a restraining order if your attacker has physically abused you or attempted to physically abuse you; put you in fear of serious bodily injury; or made you have sexual relations against your wishes by using force or threats of force.
How can the woman
prove that she has received
threats? How can a government body safeguard a man's civil rights against a
claim that he has attempted to physically abuse someone?
The way this Oregon law is written, and how it works in practice... I am quite sure that these are indeed two different things.
You should ask yourself some key questions friend.
What provision, in this law, protects an innocent party from another person seeking vengeance?
Will this law enable the innocent to be protected?
Better that a hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent person be imprisoned (or have his reputation and/or sovereignty violated) in my book.
Statutes like these are weapons of the unscrupulous. Which is why
THEY MUST BE REPEALED.
On this point, your argument is hollow.
Citation 7 refers to "A New Jersey woman repeatedly voiced her
disapproval of her estranged husband's new-found romantic interest,
which resulted in the imposition of a restraining order on her.
When she later called the new girlfriend a "slut,"
that was ruled to be a violation of the restraining order. She was
sentenced to 6 months probation and community service."
In fact your own footnote shows that the "unfortunate" case of this woman's victimization was "reversed." Burying obviously relevant information in a footnote is universally held to be dishonest.
I agree with you here. I would have written something of the effect... "
which was later reversed," or something along those lines.
However, once again, we have to use common sense here.
Firstly, why did the defendant have to go all the way to the
New Jersey Court Appellant Division in order to have such a senseless ruling reversed?
According to
DivorceNet:
Alternatively, there is legal authority holding that reconciliation does not void a restraining order. Illustrative is the case of State v. L.C., 283 N.J. Super. 441 (App. Div. 1995). Here, the parties reconciled without formally dismissing the temporary restraining order. The plaintiff was forbidden from having any contact with the plaintiff.
The couple was not living together and the temporary restraining order was issued after the defendant had words with the plaintiff’s mother. After the issuance of the temporary restraining order, the plaintiff and the defendant moved back in with each other, had multiple acts of sexual intercourse, and even went to Jamaica together.
Despite the parties’ reconciliation, the restraining order was still formally in place. The court ultimately held that the reconciliation between the parties did not void the restraining order so as to serve as a defense to a charge of contempt for violating same.
Why, good sir, does a person
need to spend thousands of dollars, not to mention waste their precious time, in order to have a conviction reversed for violating a restraining order in this instance?
Something that was issued for, frankly speaking, a retarded reason to begin with?
Why is it that Cultural Marxists and Feminists have chosen to institute a regime that serves not only to violate the civil rights of men, but also destroys trust between men and women?
Pissed at your husband? Get a restraining order.
Girlfriend is mad? Gotta make sure I put a restraining order on her, before she gets one on me!!
Oh Shoot!! Mary's got a restraining order! Run!!!!I'll say something else friend.
My Japanese brother told me once that:
"
A woman's mind changes like the autumn sky."
Women are, for the most part,
impressionable,
emotional creatures. Such is the way that God, Blessed be He, made them.
So why is it that our law system is so inflexible, and does not take into consideration the fact that people argue? And that people (especially women) tend to fly of the handle and do stupid stuff that they really don't mean to do?
That not every quarrel or disagreement ends up in serious, injurious domestic violence?
Why does it encourage such frivolous action, and then totally disavow all attempts at normal human reconciliation?
When lovers fight, everyone wants to be taken back. To be forgiven, within the boundaries of decency and common sense. However, our current restraining order regime, as Radar eloquently demonstrates, makes such an undertaking damn near impossible.
I hold that seriously injuring or causing traumatically emotional pain and suffering is all the way
wrong. And those guilty of serious offenses such as Battery, Assault, Murder and the like should be punished accordingly.
However, our current system is
inflexible, grasping, and cruel, in my view. There is no compassion, and there is no forgiveness.
Only conflict, misery, and pain.
In summary, while I would have handled the wording on this section a bit differently, the fact remains that restraining orders
ARE being abused, and are
ripe for abuse, by the private parties,
and the government.
Media Radar is 1000% correct on this point.
Citation 8 refers to "goes on to exclude any "act of self-defense"
from its definition. Thus, if one party made a remark that caused any
sort of mental harm, the second party could presumably retaliate with
legal immunity." The definition does exclude "acts of self-defense"
but in no way does this provide "immunity" to the other party. Even
disregarding that no immunity is implied here, the obvious alternative
would create a legal barrier for people defending themselves,
something the author ignores.
While this point would best be answered by an attorney practicing law in Michigan, I would respectfully disagree with your analysis.
Any law that denies the ancient right of
Self Defense, is already suspect in my view.
If we read the
Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Our Constitution recognizes the fact that we, as a people, are entitled to keep and bear arms for defense of self and nation.
And that means individuals, per
Parker v. District of Columbia.
We should also consider that, according to
Ifeminists.com:
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.
By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.
The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it has missed an obvious point. If the government won't protect you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. The court's ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself...
... What were the arguments that won and lost in the Supreme Court?
Winners: local officials fell back upon a rich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."
Later court decisions have concurred.
So it would appear that, in this country, Self Defense is not only a basic right, but indeed, a
duty. Therefore, any law or statute that does not recognize this basic right, should be repealed on its face.
Allow me, for a moment, to express the reality of laws such as these, from a male point of view. For dramatic effect, I will be speaking in the language of
Ebonics:
If my bitch was talkin shit, and I told her to shut the fuck up, then she would smack me upside the head, or throw some heavy shit at me, and there ain't shit I can do about it. If I do bodyslam her on my freakin' couch or somethin for actin' crazy, that bitch will call the Boys (the police) and my punk azz is going to jail off top!Anon, I don't know what planet you live on, but around my way, a woman is indeed allowed to visit violence upon a man with a certain measure of impunity. "Disrespectin'" her can get you in a world of hurt. And women are quick to exercise this "privilege".
Please visit the Excellent
MensActivism.org site for an extensive list of articles that show women behaving badly, and being lightly punished by the criminal justice system for their offenses.
I believe that a man has the right to defend himself from
anyone capable of doing him
serious bodily harm. That means, man, or woman. Having a pair of
Tigol' Bitties will not save you from a righteous ass kicking when you are clearly in the wrong. Force should be met with
equal force.I grew up in a rough neighborhood, where females carried razor blades, knives, and in some cases, pistols. I know
chicks that can deliver a right hook better than any prizefighter.
I know that women
run in gangs and are quick
to fuck someone up for "G.P." (for the hell of it). My policy has always been that anyone, male or female, who wanted to fight me
like a man, and could "
fuck up my anatomy with assault and battery", gets
beat down like a man.
Don't get mad... just keeping it real!
The right to reasonable, proportional Self Defense is no respecter of persons.With all that being said, I would be hesitant to use the word "
legal immunity." But I do understand what Radar is trying to get across here; that laws such as these that do not recognize the fundamental right of Self Defense create a dangerous situation for the
innocent party by leaving them helpless in the face of a determined and violent aggressor, and are
ripe for abuse.
All in all, this section of the report is consistent with the theme that there are huge problems with domestic violence laws in general, and restraining orders in particular.
Ok!
For the sake of readability, I will stop here.
But fear not, we will continue on with tha comments.
I must say that while there are valid issues that are brought up here, the errors in no way diminish, invalidate, nor debunk the points that Radar highlights in this report.
To all of my opponents:
You should know that I am a Guerrilla fighter. To paraphrase, a fool and his weapons are soon parted...
... and Kumogakure
ain't no fool.More to come.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Exchange Rate from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/exrate/24hr-jpy-small.gif)
