We must be masochists – we go back to the well every morning.
In this case, it means waking up, doing the necessaries, switching on and checking the gmail, looking at the Telegraph for the “day’s news”, meaning the highly selective bites they choose to put up as “news”, going to the blog to see what’s what, flicking around other blogs to see any interesting headlines, going to the Mail, then The Age [I'd go to the Herald but they have a subscriber thing] all over a coffee.
And sure enough, there’ll be some new idiocy someone’s said to make the day start unpleasantly:
So many responses rush through the brain in a torrent before even getting to the article:
1. Yeah, let’s do it because, despite the picture of the poor woman devastated by the male’s “emotional blackmail” in the pic, everyone knows it is Woman’s primary weapon, Man’s being not listening/caring and/or physical intimidation. So let’s do it and see how many women are happy about that piece of legislation.
2. It’s totally unprovable, unless of course you have a biased constabulary, judiciary and legislature. Oops, oh dear, we do have precisely that, do we not?
3. My feeling is the vast majority – correct me if I’m wrong – of both men and women would not want anything like this. Also, taking the basically laissez-faire libertarian stance of many people, irrespective of gender, they’d see this is yet another assault on the already delicate relations between men and women. Enshrining a governmental big stick within a marriage is a surefire way of destroying the institution.
Then I went past the headline and actually read the piece and what’s this? It was not introduced by a raving feminist at all, it was introduced by male MPs. Now look, fellas, the solution is not tit-for-tat on the women like this, the solution is to strike off ALL the intrusive legislation, male or female, which has been introduced so far to ruin marriages and relationships in general.
Then came some other thoughts:
4. Did you see the subject-less “make” in the headline? Very clever, yes? Who will “make”? Have you noticed the number of pollies and even commenters in threads who use this device – “make” these people, “ban” that?
5. Seems to me that the way we’re interfered with in our lives goes through this process:
a. Some “campaigner”, “activist”, idiot, wants something brought in – say Thomas the Tank Engine rewritten to include women – and they seem to spend their days, these people, sitting back and idly dreaming up new ways to pursue their cause.
That is not harmful as yet but then:
b. Media takes it up and trumpets it.
And then, sure enough:
c. Some minister or other sees it over his/her breakfast and thinks yes, let’s do that. So it’s taken to the PM and becomes enshrined idiocy.
Now, at what point in this vicious nexus can the idiocy be stymied? How on earth can it be stopped in its progress through the embryo, larva, pupa to the imago? By the time it gets to the governmental level, it’s already in full flow and can’t be stopped – just look at the gay “marriage” law Cameron bludgeoned through.
Equally, no one is ever going to stop idiocy coming out of the mouths of some people. Sure you can legislate to stop people speaking and that’s ongoing but if it’s officially sanctioned, favoured idiocy, no law will stop the first stage.
Now I read the comments, which I should have read in the first place and straight away:
Oh righty, here we go. Here’s saintly Harry Fletcher- neutrally described in the article as a “campaigner” but actually “assistant general secretary of Napo, the Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff” gloating about the backroom dealing that got the previous law passed.
“The two organisations first met at an Association of Chief Police Officers meeting… A decision was taken to raise awareness in Westminster.
An early day motion was tabled, calling for stalking law reform and for the first ever National Stalking Awareness Week…
The campaign then set up an independent parliamentary inquiry and invited Elfyn Llwyd MP, chair of the justice unions’ parliamentary group, to chair it…
We approached MPs and peers across parties to sit on the inquiry, and victims – including mothers whose daughters had been killed by stalkers – academics, lawyers and frontline police and probation officers to give evidence…
The prime minister announced support… but the government published its own amendments to the bill, which limited the definition of stalking to “a fear of violence”. There was no mention of psychological harm.
There followed 72 hours of negotiation and lobbying, after which the government agreed to include a clause on fear and anxiety and psychological harm…
This is how our political system works. Any belief that this is some form of “democracy” is woefully naive. The Establishment and special interests horse trade with one another, set up phony inquiries with prejudged outcomes and carefully selected “evidence”.
Ah, so that does significantly modify the idiocy-media-govt nexus and makes it a lobbyist-govt opportunism-media nexus. And further:
The Fletcher guy is part of the stalking industry, a sub part of the multi-billion dollar sexual harassment industry (being asked out by someone not fancied or questioning feminism), all politically man hating driven.
While originally brought in to correct real wrongs the laws have gone way too far already. In the UK making more than one unwanted telephone call to a cheating ex, absent threat, without regard to contect, moitive or intent, is already a criminal offence that can lead up to 5 years in prison – some third world countries would be proud of such draconian laws.
Is it not about time these dishonest campaigners stopped stalking the general pubic with their lies and politically driven propaganda and were questioned by the media who far too often just reproduce their dishonest press releases as fact?
For those interested in the corruption of the laws there is a good book, written by a feminist named Daphne Patai and called: Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. It is old now and probably a lot worse as now impacts all areas of private lives not only in universities or the workplace, but see extract from online retailer summary below:
….Patai argues that the proliferation of sexual harassment lawsuits, particularly in academia, is bad for feminism. She blames feminist ideologues for creating a repressive and sexually repressed atmosphere in universities, and she forcefully documents cases in which faculty members (both men and women, though mostly men) have had their reputations and careers ruined by false allegations, frivolous complaints and opportunistic charges.
Patai, a professor of women’s studies and comparative literature at U. Mass-Amherst, calls herself a “still-avowed feminist” who rejects the presupposition of a rigidly patriarchal world in which men are innately predatory while women are inherently virtuous and potential victims. She criticizes the “sexual harassment industry” comprised of campus administrators, radical feminists and “post-trauma” therapists who continue to expand the definition of sexual harassment and habitually disregard due process.
Not surprisingly, she singles out Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin and Mary Daly as “notorious heterophobes,” slamming their “pathological aversion to men…and antipathy to heterosexuality.” While her basic arguments that women are not protected but infantilized by such zeal and that we neither can nor should try to expunge sexuality from the fabric of everyday life?have been articulated by others, Patai brings common sense and muscular reason to the task.
Though focused on academia, her outspoken study should be required reading for the workplace…
And of course, on the subject of emotional blackmail itself:
Per Wikipedia: “in popular psychology emotional blackmail has been misused as a defence against any form of fellow-feeling: “The English talk of emotional blackmail, the mere idea that you should have to contemplate the feelings of others, becomes a threat to personal freedom. So generosity, kindness, consideration are all transformed into the curse of emotional blackmail”.
David Cameron can’t possibly back such fascism. I mean he is already being slaughtered over false marriage, so his cards are already marked and he knows it.
I’m not so sure that’s the way it actually works.