Frivolity! NOT.

by Wednesday.

In today’s Straits Times, an article, ‘Magistrate’s complaints on the rise’:

Examples of frivolous complaints [emphasis mine] seen by lawyers included one filed by a parent upset with another after their teenage sons fought, and another by a woman harassed by a former boyfriend’s numerous calls.

Then, there was the case of a man harassed by his girlfriend’s suitor, who sent him obscene messages.

The court spokesman said many simply see the process as a means of settling their grievances.

Can we get this straight?

It is not frivolous to expect legal protection from harassment.

It is not frivolous because, oh, ‘they had a relationship and lovers’ tiffs are lovers’ tiffs’.

It is an egregious ignoring of real and valid societal concerns, such as protecting real, valid, actual human beings (ergo, women) from abusive behaviour.

This must be an act of supreme cognitive dissonance for the author to use the word harassed without thinking that harassment means a disturbing, discomforting, threatening act or series of acts, and instead using the adjective —

what was it?

— right. Frivolous.

Rape is about power. Abuse is about power. Harassment is a form of abuse.

Also, if one’s former partner is harassing one’s current partner, as in the second example cited, then yes, that too is not frivolous. It describes a dangerous individual who claims ownership of his ex-girlfriend, dehumanising her, and behaving violently towards her current partner.

These are Things That Are Not Frivolous, brought to you by the letter F.

Saturday Morning Rage

Trigger warning for assault/abuse.

In today’s news, the trial of a teacher accused of raping his student is sidetracked by the ‘revelation’ that they were ‘having a relationship’, because, you know, she had texted him saying so and she was a slut anyway (predatory grooming and abuse does not exist, maybe?); an article is published where molestation in nightclubs is blamed on women ‘trying to be like men’ and going drinking and getting drunk and making false reports and come on he was drunk too you can’t blame him; and Amy Chua’s article was republished without commentary.

Just another day in my SG life.

I like disablism with my morning coffee. Not.

by Weds.

The Vancouver Sun reports:

Rep. Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican, said Americans try to “solve our problems by ballots and not bullets” and any time there is “threatening debate and things of that nature, then it’s very dangerous.”

But Franks urged lawmakers not to jump to conclusions that Giffords’s shooting had any connection to the state of political debate in the country.

“We don’t want to give [the shooter] too much credit here, to somehow politically analyze this, [that] somehow he was making a grand political statement,” Franks said. “This guy was a deranged lunatic that had no respect for his fellow human beings and completely rejected any kind of constitutional foundation of this nation.”

Yes, because we can tell crazy people apart at a glance. And shear all the politics off this politically-motivated crime by blaming it on lunatics. Who have no respect for fellow human beings.

Maybe we PWDs aren’t even human beings. God, what a newsflash.

Fred Clark on Pro-Family and families

From the ever-brilliant Fred Clark at Slacktivist, this post: ‘”Pro-Family” means anti-families’.

These groups sometimes announce their “pro-family” stance by stating their allegiance to “The Family” right there in their name — Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, American Family Association, etc. But there are also dozens more such groups without that word in their names.

The problem with this idea is that it doesn’t actually mean anything. What is this “The Family” they speak of? These groups all say they want to “strengthen The Family” or “defend The Family” or celebrate, validate, honor, protect, support or advocate for “The Family.”

[…]

If those pro-The Family groups really were pro-families — if they really were in favor of strengthening, supporting and defending actual families of actual people — then you might expect them to support efforts like Oportunidades or Bolsa Familia.

But they don’t. They view such real, tangible assistance for real, tangible families as a Bad Thing. Those programs empower poor women, and empowering women, the “pro-family” groups say, weakens The Family. Those empowered poor women are more likely to use safe contraceptives, and the use of contraceptives, the “pro-family” groups say, threatens The Family. So in the name of The Family, the pro-family agenda opposes policies that help families.

There are a lot more points being made that I have not included, so I strongly recommend reading the entirety of the original post.

Just like that book by Nabokov

by Wednesday.

Trigger warning for rape/sexual assault.

Oh, lovely. I’m so glad to know that victim-blaming is well and alive in our population.

Newsflash: A twelve-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to sexual activity. A twelve-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to sexual activity with an adult. A twelve-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to sexual activity with an adult in a position of authority over them.

Cut for triggering content.