It isn’t just the men disparaged as “MRAs” (men’s rights activists) who denounce the injustice of feminist-inspired “women’s law.” Women also lose their homes, their families, their dignity, and their lives to misapplications of restraining order and domestic violence statutes. Unlike the men whose lot they share, these women aren’t distinguished with a label.
I propose the acronym “BRA,” which could stand for any of the following:
- Beleaguered rights activist;
- Baffled, boggled, buffaloed, or bewildered rights activist; or
- Buggered rights activist.
The latter of these, especially, would evoke the same mockery shown the men’s rights activist to whom “MRA” is applied like a markdown sticker.
Make no mistake: Women who complain of procedural abuses are no less ignored than the men who do. They’re not saying anything anyone wants to hear—not the ACLU nor the Southern Poverty Law Center nor battered women’s advocates nor feminists in general. They’re misfits, and they’re accordingly denied status. No one dares contradict them, because that might sound misogynist. So they’re just disregarded.
Here are some different proposals for what BRA might represent: bypassed rights activist, betrayed rights activist…or balanced rights activist.
You want the straight dope about false accusation and the need for procedural reform? Ask the ex-wife who’s had her child taken from her, ask the disabled girl who’s been accused of domestic violence and cries herself to sleep every night, ask the mom who can’t attend her child’s school functions or keep a job, ask the ex-girlfriend who was nearly parked on the curb, or ask the professional woman who’s been denied protection against a brute and then framed.
But only ask if you can tolerate an inconvenient truth.
Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
*A woman is the best rights activist, and more women’s voices should be heard in coordinated public protest.
Moderator
July 13, 2015
I reviewed some of our correspondence, Martha, and I’m afraid you’re probably going to have to own anything you’ve said using your full name. It’s not unsympathetic, but it reveals more than you probably intended. If you’re being surveilled, you must exercise caution. I haven’t checked email in a few days, but to the best of my knowledge, I haven’t been contacted by M. or a representative.
I know I haven’t used anyone’s last name in my own comments, but if you’ve used someone’s last name who’s a private citizen (i.e., your ex-husband or your ex-friend), let me know where, and I’ll redact that.
I’m immune from liability for what you say, but you aren’t. If the judge you mentioned yesterday by name doesn’t have a record of alcohol abuse (i.e., convictions), you may want to rethink the characterization “drunk.” I don’t want someone coming after you for that—and this kind of thing is within the realm of possibility. I can admire your spitfire nature; a judge may not.
This is a public medium, don’t forget.
As I’ve said in the notes in the margin of the blog, commenters should be cautious about public disclosures in association with their names, which can make anyone they talk about identifiable to people who know both of you. If you just call yourself “Martha” and you just use first names or generic stand-ins like “my ex” or “my friend,” you’re fine. But you must take care what you say about people who are identifiable. Free speech covers fact/truth and opinion, but expressions of opinion can require a qualification like “I think,” “I believe,” etc. In court, the phrase is “upon information and belief.” Making categorical statements that exceed the parameters of opinion can be dicey.
Anyway, I can purge any comments you want, but you’ll have to do the legwork and provide me with dates or first lines, okay? This isn’t a paying gig for me. I know there’s an epidemic problem, and I know people are in pain, and I’ve tried to ease distress where I can and offer some arguments for reform. My time is limited, though, and all of the time I’ve applied to this project is actually a diversion from what I meant to be doing (my life was hijacked by some fraudsters).
Also, obviously, don’t express anything you’re not comfortable having quoted in court.
Something I could do relatively easily is simply delete all of the comments under your name. It would take me hours, though, to reread everything you’ve submitted again and redact it using my judgment and the scant information I have. If you’ve disclosed something a judge would find objectionable and it’s removed, you can honestly report to the court that you thought better of the remark and retracted it.
What you don’t want to do is prosecute a winning defense and then end up with more legal hassle based on a slip of the lip.
Let me know how to proceed, and I’ll try to oblige by this evening or tomorrow. I’m going to postpone my own responses until I know what if anything you want to preserve.
SEND ME A COMMENT WITH THE CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE. DON’T USE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS. DO NOT USE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS. PUT “NOT FOR PUBLICATION…FROM MARTHA” AT THE TOP OF THE COMMENT. I’LL MAKE THE CHANGES AND DELETE THE COMMENT.
Finally, Martha, regarding your presentation to the court, it might behoove you to prepare a transcript of the court procedure in which you say you were denied the chance to speak (or at least excerpts). In other words, you should probably endeavor to get a copy of the proceeding for your reference and the court’s. A judge only knows what he’s provided.
Finally finally, my own opinion is you should try to ease tensions rather than exacerbate them. Reports, filings, protective orders, and such are as stressful to the next guy as they are to you. I’d really like to see you get past this. Instituting more actions will only keep the strife going. Maybe if your financial straits are relaxed, you’ll be released from some of the agitation you’re experiencing.
Act with deliberation and care is my thought.
LikeLike
Dean
July 12, 2015
I didn’t know what MRA referred too in the last blog with that acronym . Thanks for clearing that up.
Anyone concerned about true justice should be concerned with these family courts (who actually seem to ruin more families than they help) and how they operate.
LikeLike
Moderator
July 12, 2015
Yeah, this is just one of a jillion acronyms used by this bizarre feminist subset. It’s got its own jargon.
Look at this site:
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/
I mean, it should come with a glossary.
LikeLike
Moderator
July 12, 2015
I don’t even know how people find the time to track all of this nonsense. A recent post is about the little icon heads on Facebook.
All drama, all the time.
LikeLike
Martha
July 12, 2015
I cried when I read this Todd. I had my two baby girls taken away from me by a Judge Van Susteren back in 1980 not as the result of ROA but because as a young disabled woman who could not work and as there were no marital rights laws back then in which i could have claimed half of my abusive husband’s inheritance as my own, I was denied access to custodial rights until I was able to find a “job”. Remember that back then there was no such thing as disability rights. Oh, you could maybe get social security disability but you were denied the right to have handicapped access or changes made to your job so that you could actually do the job. In my case, I couldn’t walk so I was unable to walk or work until I finally got my knees replaced in my fifties having lost twenty years at a profession and a decent work history. To add insult to injury, Van Susteren, yep Greta Van Susteren’s Dad from the show she anchor’s nightly now, was a classmate of mine but her dad was a falling down type of drunk judge who sat the bench in Outagamie County Superior Court in Appleton where we both hail from. I say this not to disparage Ms.Van Susteren but to say that even back then there were abuses of the system. Women who were unable to work were not granted much if anything to live on and my ex and his lawyer think that my son and i can afford to live on a total of $1500 a month…the ROA against us BRA’s is a backlash or perhaps a continuation of the kind of treatment most of us women who were unable to work as we were disabled received back then that led to the feminist movement. The truth is, neither sex should be abused simply because of their gender and as a former social worker and mental health advocate, I saw its about time some thing were changed in this country. The mentally ill should not be allowed to run the “asylum” which is what I facetiously call the so called Judicial system, by filing false RO or IAH’s and they should received instead the treatment they so badly need even if that means they are involuntarily committed..once they are deemed competent to take charge of their lives without abusing the lives of others, then they can have their rights back if they can prove that they are able to…we are so far away from ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST that the inmates have taken over the judicial system to the detrimant of the rights of the rest of us whether men or women…I am for EQUAL RIGHTS not the rights of men over women or the rights of women over men or the disabled over the able bodied or v.s. We are ALL and were ALL created EQUAL but after over 240 years we still haven’t grasped that concept…I will get off my soapbox now FOR THE TIME BEING….
LikeLike
Moderator
July 12, 2015
Martha, I don’t think you should obsess about small points. People lie about rape in these procedures; the judge isn’t going pronounce “Off with her head!” because you omitted a fact or misstated it with no actual intent to deceive.
What I really think you should concentrate on is THE BIG PICTURE.
Here’s what the judge is there to determine: Was the lower court’s decision to finalize the protective order reasonable, based on the evidence? That’s it. Everything else is beside the point.
Please don’t lose sight of this.
LikeLike
Moderator
July 12, 2015
If you need to me to censor any of your disclosures, Martha, let me know. There’s nothing I recall you to have said that isn’t protected by the First Amendment, but an issue could be made, I suppose, about your psychiatric conclusions. If a diagnosis has been made by a therapist, and you’re just quoting someone else’s conclusion, that’s probably protected speech. Also you can just say you’re expressing an opinion (as a former psychiatric caretaker).
Blog stats show a spike in visits to the page “What Is Perjury,” which was probably motivated by our exchanges. This could indicate monitoring by your accuser or his counsel. FYI.
LikeLike