This morning, I read two articles.
The first is about the guy who was the team doctor for USA gymnastics for years, and who was convicted of molesting dozens of young girls. The second is about a private club in London which would gather money for distribution to charities through private social events at which 'tall, thin, pretty' women were employed to do pretty much whatever it took to keep the rich, entirely male clientele happy.
I would not have believed either one, six months ago. That something happened, yes, I would have believed that. But that dozens odsf girls were molested? That a private event right out of the 60s occurred? Surely not. Yet apparently something did happen, and happened often enough, in the first case, and egregiously enough, in the second , to result in legal proceedings. That it took this long for such proceedings to start is dismaying, even now. But it is happening, I thought. The facts are horrible, but action is being taken.
Then I read in the article about the USA doctor where the judge read part of the doctors statement aloud to the courtroom. And one phrase got me. "The phrase caused a stir in the courtroom". My goodness, what did he say? I wish I'd done more? Damn, but that was fine?
No. He said Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
That's what got people's attention? That's what the judge thought worth highlighting? In all that you could have cited -- and in the case of the judge, did -- this is what upset people?
Don't misunderstand. The guy in this case really does sound like a slimeball, as do the guys in London. But when we get to the point where quoting an old proverb ( from Wikitionary - First written as "Heav'n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn'd, Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn'd." in the 1697 play The Mourning Bride (Act III Scene 2) by William Congreve ) causes people to be startled? That seems a bit much to me. Selecting it sounds to me like reaching. This guy did wretched things, and people are upset by his literary allusions?