Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Why should either of them get it? Sell it and put the proceeds in trust for the children. This will defray the costs of foster care or adoption. Many loving families will adopt if they can afford to do so. All this crap over who gets the house, when if these people were decent in the first place they wouldn't be subjecting their children to this crap.
However, I don't necessarily think brawling couples are more common than the truly battered.
Note to Agent Smith: the world still revolves around the Sun, not around Agent Smith's concocted reality.
So you met a coke freak jackass. And the relevance is....?
Its all about her ya know
If you feel the need to hit a woman, you are pretty much a worthless pile. You should be able to walk away. Even if she hits you first.
The ethical dilemma comes up when the woman does something to even the physical advantage held by men. What if she is threatening with a weapon, what if she knows fighting techniques, what if she won't let the man walk away, etc?
Those women are taking advantage of a rigged social dynamic. Men cannot defend themselves in this situation without being seen as the aggressor. And they stand to lose everything: children, house, status, job, etc.
So defend yourself or hope she doesn't kill you with that bat? Dunno. It's a catch-22.
According to the criteria that the study gave I was abused. Three incidents illustrate this point.
Earlier in my marriage, my spouse came home drunk one evening. He begged me to please get him up in the morning in order to get to work on time no matter what I had to do. I told him I was setting the alarm clock for him (he was too blind drunk to set it) and that I would do my best to see he got up. Morning came. The alarm went off but he simply turned it off and stayed in bed. "Get up," I said and shook him. He pushed my hands off his shoulders and mumbled. I tried again. More mumbling. However, I knew he was very ticklish on his feet, so I pulled back the covers and began to tickle his feet. That is when he sent the alarm clock whizzing past my head. It it had hit me, it would have killed me.
Then he got out of bed and threw up. While he was shaving, I gave him this lecture: "I grew up in a violent home. You grew up in a drunken home. You can get as drunk as you like but I am not becoming your codependant. Get your own ass out of bed from now on. If you become a drunk, I will leave you. If you ever throw anything dangerous at me again or physically hurt me, then just remember this, I come from a violent home. I will not put up with abuse. Abuse me at your own risk."
At that time and with the way that I thought, if he had ever been truly abusive after that, I might have retaliated. He knew that he had better not.
Actually, I don't recommend this much. I should have left him. My life would have been improved it I had.
Now, I would like all the guys who are talking about equality in this thread -- just to satisfy my curiosity -- to tell me what they would have done if they were the one charged with waking the drunk and the drunk was their SO.
(The second incident involves exuberantly punching my arm when the Cowboys made and touch down and the third pushing me once. With the second, I just stopped watching football with him, and with the pushing, which was deliberate and angry, I asked him if he knew why a gun is called a equalizer.)
There is a third option. If someone is habitually abusive, document the abuse via a hidden camera and then go see an attorney. What judges need is evidence.
It is just plain stupid to stay with someone who is habitually and dangerous abusive. I know I offend DV victims when I say this but really the only sane option is to leave. If you don't leave you are either so battered that you cannot make decisions or you are just plain stupid. Do what women do and take the kids and go.
People who value the property more than their children's well-being are not responsible parents. So you take a financial hit? Your kids will forgive you for that. They won't forgive you for bringing them up in a violent home. If you are one contributing to the violence, they won't forgive you for that either.
Well I don't see anyone defending drunks OR abuse in here, in any way shape or form. I think your strawman is hiding a bottle of chianti.
So tell ya what, edit what you wrote, tone it down so that it can pass them smell test this time, and we'll tell you what you should have done.
I take it back, there have been people in here minimizing women on man abuse.
"empowered" women, knowing that there are no apparent consequences, often feel entitled, even obligated, not to let "him" "get away with it".
Is hidden camera what you would recommend for a woman whose spouse was coming at her with a bat? Take it that first time then get on tape next time? Or maybe try to establish a pattern by taping the first 10-15 incidents where he hits her with a bat?
Yeah right.
I think you are right about the real option. Stop it before it reaches that point. A man is well within his rights to leave an abusive relationship.
But you should acknowledge that doing so means giving up his children, his home, and a large portion of his income, and his social standing. That's simply the social reality. You can't video tape your way out of it.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
