|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Perils of Lady Divorce Attorneys |
|---|
| a shooting and the usual suspects.... |
|
This is Dark Cloud on Monday, January 27, 1986. A woman’s divorce attorney was shot in Denver recently by her husband, mad with rage. The attorney was a woman. 'Obviously,' screamed one hysterical female firebrand, this was not an individual act, but part of the Grand Conspiracy of Men perpetuating violence against women. Every pseudo-feminist rushed to a newscaster's microphone to voice similar sentiments. One graciously usurped all others by announcing she was the attorney's best friend and how the barrister had feared for her life with that man as, possibly, with all others. This all ran aground when it was pointed out that the attorney had often, in the past, requested special protection from certain violent adversaries. She had not from this one, suggesting it was either not remotely expected or a desire for martyrdom. Not likely. On the other hand, the whole tender hypothesis depends upon each one of us believing the husband's anger was against women, not the opposing attorney in a vicious divorce case. In other words, had the wife chosen to be represented by a beast, a man, is the theory the shooting would not have taken place? A puzzler, surely. In the husband's eye, was his wife not a woman? Would not his blazing mysogonism have been sated by watching her bite the bullet? And how could a 19 year, off-duty policeman – having planned a murder – failed such an easy shot? Unless it was just a spur of the moment rush of anger, gender be damned. Biologists have been divided for years as to the exact placement of divorce attorneys on the Tree of Life. Some place them between vermin and pond scum, others between sea slugs and blue-green algae, but most insist upon a separate classification altogether, one that inextricably links the breed with staph infections and venereal disease. Nobody who has not watched a divorce attorney - working on percentage - try to destroy an opponent’s credibility and so get his claws into a bundle, has never truly known hate. More respect can be engendered for a murderer stalking you, because he/she does not profess the lofty social motives of these vile peacocks. There is no doubt that violence against women exists in awful quantity. There is a great deal of doubt about whether this should concern us more than violence against men, or children, or racial breakdowns of violence in general. (The most violent group seems to be unemployed, young, black, and male. Their biggest trove of victims are unemployed, young, black, and male.) Feminists have never dealt clearly with the number of violent people who emerge from being raised solely by women. What this is, of course, is the odd jockeying for position amongst the upper class women with the three names (often hyphernated to denote the melding of dynasties) and all the others for control of what is laughingly called the Woman's Movement. This tidal ripple of overpowering unimportance flounders on the fact that women, despite all the uproar, are every bit as bloodthirsty and vicious and petty as men. There is no contrary evidence. So when the feminists (or separatists) stand on the body of a young female attorney and claim all sorts of self-serving melodrama, let the public ask itself: 1. How do they know it was not an individual action? Who else was involved? 2.Can they prove that the shots would not have been fired at a male attorney? 3. How do they explain the wife's observation that if the case had not dragged on, this would not happened? Which bolsters, by the way, that the attorney’s gender was irrelevant.) 4. Who prolonged the case? An overextended and bitter husband? A greedy wife? A greedy attorney? Well, none of these excuses the action. Alas, these annoying questions must wait for trial, and though they are fraught with connotations for which no evidence has been introduced, at least they are left in the form of questions. The Ellen Jamesons of Denver, while exposing themselves as pompous twits, have set back the movement again by enlisting a political lynch mob for the proto-type crime of passion. This is not to say they won't be, in this case, proved correct. I just didn't see their faces when innocent men are killed, and that, ladies, is why your cynical humanity is so suspect, your cynical hypocrisy so plain, your greed to wield undeserved guilt so obvious. |
| Post your views and reviews on The Boulder Lout Forum. |