Your thesis is borne out by my personal experience and observations.
For several years, I practiced law in a mid-sized southern city, spending about 1/3 of my time defending men in domestic violence and violation of Order Of Protection cases. The domestic court for the county issued the overwhelming majority of Order of Protections in the state. The judge, an overall decent, brilliant,well-intentioned man with a Eastern-liberal education was a “true believer” in the “epidemic” of domestic violence. Being contemporaries, and southern men raised in the 60′s and early 70′s to respect and protect women, its understandable that he favored woman claiming victim-hood.
He became the darling of women’s groups and the media and received their enthusiastic support every election year. He gained additional political clout because of the huge fees generated for county coffers. It was an all around win-win situation for him: the good feeling of “being on the right side” of an issue, public adulation, and political power.
At least 95% of the time, he ruled in favor of the petitioner, who was, 95% of the time, a woman. Given those circumstances and the fact that the law allowed judges to award “temporary” possession of homes, support, child support, custody and visitation, women rushed to the court to gain advantage in divorce cases, because as a practical matter, “temporary” orders tend to become permanent. Attorneys, myself included, advised their clients to win the race to the courthouse and file and file OP petitions before their spouse/partner/paramour did. If you were male, and weren’t an attorney, it wasn’t a fun place to be, but the judge was oblivious to that fact: expressing that opinion in court wasn’t smart.
Oh well, you know what they say…….road to hell…..good intentions………
