Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
To keep our law licenses, Minnesota lawyers must take mandatory training in Eliminating Gender Bias in the Legal Profession, generally “taught” by women lawyers and judges. My most recent session was a disappointment. When a man pays good money to be insulted and humiliated by a powerful woman, she should be wearing fishnet.
Joe Doakes
Como Park
When I got divorced, law required people to take a “co-parenting” class – which amounted to a couple of very angry women telling the guys in the room they’d better not skip out on their kids. The cherry on the sundae? My particular session was held at a “women’s center” in Minneapolis, where the guys all got glowered at by large women in Doc Martens as we walked to the bathroom.
I only had to do that once, though. Every couple of years? That’d get old.
It’s just an “elimination of bias” requirement. Doesn’t have to necessarily be about gender. It can be about any perpetually aggrevied group other than Irish-Italian Packer fans from Milwaukee living in Minnesota (the most insular of minorities here).
This is similiar to the DFLs “bullying” legislation. All schools, including all private schools, are required to allow leftwing liberal groups (such as pro-gay rights groups) access to their schools to give seminars on promoting their causes.
The left is very good at things like this.
It would be interesting to know how many of the presenters in Mr. Berg’s post- divorce class were (conventionally) married, if so, happily married or divorced, or never married. Like the priest who conducted my pre-marital instructions, I suspect those who teach the post-marital version do so from a theoretical perspective. Except with a vengeance.
I am very concerned about the new “bullying” movement. I see it being used in the workplace, in relationships, and whenever someone receives an unpleasant comment in just about any context.
Remember the overweight (but attractive as far as I was concerned) TV news woman who the media said was “bullied” by a viewer for her size? She was insulted. She received an unpleasant comment. She was the victim of an “inappropriate” remark. The commenter was rude, a boor, and out of line for saying such a thing (even if she did fit his general description). But “bullied”?
I think that we will see this being used more and more, not unlike racism and various “-phobes”, when something unpleasant occurs or rings of some truth and cannot be debated. This could replace the milked-dry sexual harrassment cash cow if it keeps going (particularly since Dave Lillehaug has just made the MN Supreme Court).
Learned Foot is correct, of course: I am not required to pay good money to spend two hours being insulted and humiliated by powerful women. I could choose to pay good money to spend two hours being insulted and humiliated by gays, Muslims, Blacks, Native Americans, cripples, problem gamblers or Jewish Lawyer Pioneers in Law (that one is coming up in April, mark your calendars).
My point remains: when I choose to pay to be insulted and humiliated by a woman in a position of power, a decent respect for tradition (and what is law, but respect for precedent and tradition?) demands that she wear fishnet. And possibly leather. That is all.