General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Misandry is real, misandry is out there... [View all]Mister Ed
(6,924 posts)Now, I'm going to admit right off the bat that I was tempted to give you a wise-assed answer here. But really, I think it's better for me to reply sincerely.
Can you see, when you sit back and think about it, that when you set out to convince people that misandry is a matter of concern, and the most damning evidence you can cite is this story, then you're kind of making my point for me?
I've done you the courtesy of reading the entire thread that you linked to, from top to bottom, and frankly, it doesn't support your claims at all. There's nothing to indicate that Mr. Bonaiuto was was destitute and despondent over a divorce at the time of the 2001 airplane crash. One newspaper article does mention, in passing, that he'd been disbarred in 1997, and convicted in a $30 million fraud scheme in 1993. But no mention of the fallout of a divorce.
Far from being just "a guy who waved $200 under (Bonaiuto's) nose for a flight", the other man in the plane was one Joseph LeBlanc, who was a pilot of some three years' experience and a former flight student of Bonaiuto's. The third person on board was LeBlanc's girlfriend, with whom he was described by friends as being ecstatically in love. The scuttlebutt around the airport was that they'd made a casual decision to fly to another airport, and then get some coffee.
It wasn't determined which man was at the controls when the plane crashed shortly after takeoff, or who made the decision to fly in conditions of such low visibility. It should be noted, though, that Bonaiuto was an experienced and certified IFR (instrument-only) pilot, and well-qualified to fly in those conditions. (Certification of the plane itself for IFR had apparently lapsed, although the plane was fully equipped for IFR.) Mr. Bonaiuto's night vision would not have been a significant factor in IFR flight, in which one relies solely on dashboard instruments.
Coming as I do from a family of aviators, that discussion is interesting to me. But I'm afraid it leads us far, far away from questions of misandry and misogyny. So let's return to that discussion, and to your post.
Now, assuming that the story is just as you tell it: can you please help me find the misandry in this picture?
Who is the misandrist in the story? Not Mr. Bonaiuto, obviously. Is it that shark of a lawyer who, at least temporarily, tied up all the couple's assets and put Mr. Bonaiuto in such a bind? I don't know the lawyer's gender, or the lawyer's feelings about men, but I think it's pretty safe to say this was just what you called it: the work of a shark lawyer. And not a misandrist.
Now, of course, the prime suspect for misandry would be Mrs. Bonaiuto. If she went along with that shark attorney, and eventually took her husband to the cleaners, then she may be guilty of greed and unfairness. But is she really a misandrist - a woman who harbors a pathological hatred of men in general? I sure can't see any evidence of that. And hey, she even seemed to have some kind words for her ex at the funeral.
Maybe you feel the divorce statutes that have given such advantage to wives ever since the dawn of our republic are the work of misandrists. If so, I have to ask you to stop and think again. You're actually aware that those laws have always been drafted and passed by our male-dominated legislatures, and not by some mob of angry, man-hatin' women. Right?
By the way, if you're of a mind to work to make those divorce laws more equitable, you'll have my assent. And if you want to work to make all laws more equitable, across the board, well then, you'll have my unreserved admiration. But I'm afraid that admiration is something I'll never be able to muster for people who tilt at this windmill of "misandry" while assuring us all that it's really a deadly and dangerous dragon.