In this in-depth, psychoanalytical article, our brother T. Duffy addresses the unfairness of the law where it pertains to gender. He uncovers the social-judicial biases that plaque our society deepening not only gender, but also race relations.

I can speak only for some of my people when I say, whenever they feel they are being criticized, they do not address the matter, but often become bitter while looking for someone to lessen its truth. Maybe it is because of personal conflict and knowing some of it may be true, or they may have contributed to it in some way. But because of an irrepressible need for them to always be accepted, they have adopted many of the negatives that comes from those they seem to preference.

However, this is not to complain about who could be guilty of this, it's to show what blacks condone. I do not have to point fingers to show how certain blacks will also use the law or any other means in an unfair way, regardless if the person on the other end who is being affected is also black. Regardless if it comes from a physical, verbal or an intellectual source, the results sometimes are devastating.

I was listening to 98.7 Kiss Fm radio one afternoon, and they were talking about situations where men were actually physically abused by their mate. I'm not talking about the normal smack in the face, thrown pot, cut up clothing or keyed auto. This one guy was telling the MC how his ex-girl stabbed him repeatedly for allegedly coming home late one morning.

He said, after they broke up she refused to return his key, so she was able to get in his apartment an assault him. Although he may not have been such a good guy himself during their relationship, should this lessen what she did because of her gender? But he, not being a good guy is not the issue. Her attack upon him is. And the slant on this is, if he's smart, especially if he's black, he should be concerned the police could still arrest him, regardless of his wounds.

Using this example, I realize the severity of situations like this is usually handled in a less serious manner. Because of its alleged uncommon occurrences. But is it uncommon, or just played down?

As a black man, I have to always be cautious to make sure I say and do the right thing. Not because I chose to function in paranoid mode, but because I'm aware of my consequence, even if I wore a crown. So considering the law has proven to be different for men and women, should we believe it's fair? If so, any other situation where gender is an issue should be also.

So let us move to another example. A few years ago, I remember reading a survey that was taking in Canada about abuse. Its common knowledge some men will abuse women for any reason. But I became interested in its findings after I wrote a small article on the same subject.

The survey was not to determine what was considered abuse. It was to see if women were just as quick to hit their mate as men. Remembering I had to avoid something similar, I was not surprise when it showed women were more likely to hit first. But it also showed men did not destroy property of their mate as often as women did.

What was more crucial, women who even admitted it felt they had a right, because they were only destroying things they gave them. Although in most cases, it was other things. Oddly, in situations where some were seen or maybe caught in the act, the twist here is they would accuse him of provoking it. So I must ask, what law should protect someone committing these kinds of things against someone because they feel they were provoked?

An adult can obviously provoke children, but an adult is supposed to know how to make valid choices. If a woman spends hours enticing me to have sex with her and I suddenly agree, but she then changes her mind, do I have a right to take it because I feel she provoked me?

Of course not, besides, the law that would punish me because she has a human right to change her mind. But a better reason is that I should know better anyway. If it's believable, I can cause my wife to hurt me and she gets no reprimand for doing it, then the law is unfair because of gender.

Living in a society that is motivated by half-truths, self-serving individuals, with conflicting agendas, some often use any opportunity to act out of character, expecting no reprisals. But from this point, I would like to talk about something that happens primarily because of influence.

Would a young girl making charges against me automatically make the authorities investigate it, to see if there is some truth to it? Probably not. In a segment of "The Parker's", a black television sitcom, a girl about 12 or 13 years old, dealing with her own issues, decided to force her way into the life of a woman, [Misses Parker], who eventually became her mentor. But her determination caused her to want to remove everyone in Mrs. Parker's life.

The only way she felt it could happen was to get on her good side and try to make Mrs. Parker's biological daughter look like she was suddenly less appealing or jealous. Although Mrs. Parker was oblivious to what the girl was doing, her friends, daughter and a male educator, saw what she was trying to do.

One day he approached her, telling her he felt what she was trying to do was wrong. But her arrogance made her insist he not interfere. Because if he did, she would accuse him of stepping across the line with her. And she being a minor and he a single male, it would not look so good for him.

So in the case of this girl's threat towards him, the wrong should be obvious. Because it not only stereotypes him, it's manipulative also. But the real issue is how she may have been encouraged to do this from an adult who did the same. If she is not found to have made accusations that are false, she may continue to do this into adulthood.

But, if that were all I could find fault about in this series, I would have looked at that situation with less concern. But just as serious is Mrs. Parker's character, where she spends the entire series, harassing, stalking, intimidating, even assaulting other women about a professor she's wooing, who wants nothing to do with her. Unbeknownst to him, she also has keys made to go in and out of his apartment. Although he tries to avoid her, she continues to stalk and harass him.

If the society wants us to believe they are moral, then situations that are contrary to their alleged convictions, would not have allowed this same thing to exist even in another comedy series such as "Family Matters", though the stalker was a young boy.

Of course, they were only comedy series, but in the real world, circumstances like these are usually played down or believed to be less serious, according to who decides its severity. To show there's some truth to the situation in the Parker's, the writers wrote them in at the end of the series as getting married. It may be easy to correct this by the movement of a pen, but I repeat, in the real world, it rarely can.

So to move on and show there are other explicit kinds of irrational conduct that gets no concern, because of who is doing it, let us look at restraining orders. Many times, they are unwarranted, as few would believe its directive, sometimes to be unfair. Why? Because most are issued not based on proof, but on accusation, assumptions and often for hidden reasons intended by the petitioner.

So without any need to be bias, I can show these injunctions may cause other kinds of circumstances. In situations where there are children involved, it can create unfair restrains on the accused and their children. Especially if the order says, he has to keep his distance from the wife and has never been separated from his children.

But what have allowed this to persist are the individuals who sit in judgment. The institutions and courts that operate by their own rules often rely on these individuals, personal judgment, and convictions, which sometimes are slanted towards their own issues.

CONTINUED >>>

Submit an article
Join the Mailing List
Join a Discussion

Afromerica: Where its all Black & white and some gray areas.

[TOP]     [BACK TO COLUMN]