Donatello Restaurant Fine Italian and Mediterranean Dining in Toronto.






Print friendly | Contact Us

Opinions

Feminism run amok

by Klaus Rohrich
Thursday, March 24, 2005

The recent events in Atlanta are yet another example of how feminism and affirmative action are failing society. For those who may have forgotten, an accused rapist named Brian Nichols was brought before a judge in an Atlanta courtroom, guarded by a deputy sheriff. In the courtroom, the accused, a 200 lb former college running back, overpowered his guard, a 5-foot tall female deputy, who was also a grandmother, relieved her of her side arm and killed 4 people, including the grandmother.

Since this has transpired I have heard very little from the media about the advisability of having 100-lb. females guarding 200+ lb. alleged violent offenders. In fact, the media treated this event pretty much the same way they treat every other event by tut-tut expressing outrage that things like this could happen in our society.

Given the physics of this dynamic, it would take a complete moron to miss the obvious, namely that it doesn’t make good sense to have females as front-line law enforcement officers. Neither does it make much sense to have female firefighters. I know that if I was trapped in a burning building, my choice of rescuer would be a burly 200+ lb. man, who obviously has the strength to carry my rather large frame to safety. But preferences such as these run counter to the prevailing "wisdom" about women’s’ physical abilities. Consequently the tried and true regulations governing the physical abilities of those applying for hazardous positions, such as police officers and firefighters have been downgraded to accommodate women.

As a result, the quality of our law enforcement and public safety services is suffering hugely, as is evidenced by the recent Atlanta event that ultimately cost five lives.

But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Feminism in North America has gotten so out of hand that the laws are not applied equally to men or women. Under this new system of jurisprudence if a woman alleges assault against a man, the man is considered guilty regardless of there being an absence of evidence and he is in effect obligated to prove his innocence, while the same event occurring in reverse would be viewed with skepticism to put it mildly.

Radical feminists have also hijacked family law. In this age of "no-fault" divorce "no-fault" only applies to women. For skeptics let me refer you to a number of recent divorce settlements that are so one-sidedly in favour of the wife as to be ludicrous. These settlements have taken the concept of equitable dissolution to a whole new level, rendering high-income ex-husbands in their 40s and 50s to the level of recent college graduates.

A Toronto physician earning $200,000 per year is paying 78 percent of his gross salary to his non-working ex-wife of five years who is comfortably ensconced in the couple’s million-dollar matrimonial home with her boyfriend. Because the support is tax-free to the woman, the good doctor is in effect giving up over 100 percent of his salary to keep his wife in luxury.

In another case an ex-husband petitioned the courts to reduce the amount of spousal support after losing his $200,000 per year job. The courts incredibly insisted that the husband continue paying support because he had had an affair during the marriage, causing the wife distress that has made it unable for her to work.

And while the idea of "no-fault" divorces should apply equally to both men and women, in a similar case a man lost everything, including his livelihood, when his wife found her "soul mate" and decided she no longer wanted to be married. In the dissolution proceedings the court awarded the matrimonial home, which included a tree farm that was the sole source of the husband’s income, to the wife. In addition he was ordered to pay his ex $4,300 per month in support and one-time lump sum that amounted to over $80,000 for his wife’s pension and support for his stepson. Get it? The wife was tired of the husband, so the court punishes the husband.

While feminists have traditionally demanded equal treatment under the law and while admittedly there were gross disparities in the treatment of men and women some 30 years ago, the pendulum has swung completely in the other direction with preferential treatment going to women in almost all cases.

What feminists have managed to achieve, incredible as it may seem, is to maintain the traditional view of women as the weaker, more delicate sex, while at the same time rewriting the rules of equality.

It’s just another of those social engineering experiments that will eventually come back and bite us all in derriere.

Klaus Rohrich is senior columnist for Canada Free Press. Klaus also writes topical articles for numerous magazines. He has a regular column on retirementhomes.com and is currently working on his first book dealing with the toxicity of liberalism. His work has been featured on the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and Lucianne, among others. He lives and works in a small town outside of Toronto and is an avid student of history. Klaus can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com.

Recent articles by Klaus Rohrich















Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1998-2014 the individual authors.

Site Copyright 1998-2014 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement