Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jun 14, 2013 14:00:19 GMT -5
::We don't agree, Thyme. Nobody chooses to get hurt (welll...except those S& M peeps). I agree they may make choices that lead to that end....absolutely. But no woman I know chooses to be hurt. Many, many women (and their SOs) do choose to remain in the relationship and seek counseling to end the behavior. Sometimes, it works. But the times it doesn't work, doesn't mean that woman made a choice to get hurt again.:: I find this kind of contradictory. If you take steps which you know will lead you getting hurt, you're essentially choosing to get hurt. It's not just that they take steps which lead to that end, they takes steps which they KNOW will lead to that end (speaking specifically about those who stay with abusers). It's kind of like saying I didn't choose to crash my car, I just took my hands off the wheel and stepped on the gas until it crashed like I knew it would, but I didn't CHOOSE to crash, it just happened. Or I jumped off a tall bridge, I didn't CHOOSE to die, I just walked to the bridge, stepped to the edge, and jumped off...all steps which lead to a very predictable end. If you take steps which you know, or ought to know, will lead to a specified outcome, you've essentially chosen that outcome. And therein lies the line between "don't blame the victim" and "take responsibility for your actions". Personally, I don't think you can take actions that you know will lead to a specific outcome, and then claim that you didn't choose the outcome. Of course I agree that making poor choices can lead to awful consequences, but that still doesn't make it a choice to be hurt. In my example above, the woman made a hugely bad choice to repeat the behavior that got her hurt in the first place, but she did not make the choice to be hurt. I totally agree there are a bunch of ways for a woman to protect herself, but if she doesn't take those precautions, she still is not choosing to be hurt. It's this (mostly unintentional) blame placing on anyone other than the criminal that makes it so hard to enact any real changes.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jun 14, 2013 14:09:55 GMT -5
This may be in your case but I've seen it time and again (my own mom) where they do chose it. Over and over again with different people. And if they aren't abusers they will poke and poke until the guy will either leave or hit. Some very sick people feel that abuse is passionate love and think it's normal and a way they show how much they love them. It's a mental sickness and very distorted to many of us who don't have these issues - but it still exists. My mom's therapist said he could put 100 men in a room that were all good looking with jobs and she'd pick that ONE person who would abuse her. There were 3 long term relationships in a row so it wasn't just that one. And she always had excuses why she couldn't leave. She had children, she had a dog... and my favorite "You've never had the kind of love like <<insert name>> and I have. It's a shame you don't and will never experience this kind of deep love..." Yeah, it was a shame I didn't like getting the shit beat of me and have their kind of love. Silly me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:26:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2013 14:21:34 GMT -5
MT, I don't think you lack empathy per say, but since you have never been in a DV situation it is easy to say that you would never put up with stuff like that. I do believe that you would never be in that type of situation, you are a very strong, smart woman, and I admire that. You also have the financial resources to just leave, which I think is great thing and I also think that knowing that you could just pack up and leave helps you to feel confident that you would leave.
Unfortunately, many women don't have the financial, family, friends, etc. to make a decision in a moments notice, if that makes sense. Suesinfl - actually you kinda hit on two points that I've often wondered about. 1. How many "potential" abusers are there out there who don't abuse because they know in no uncertain terms their SO will not put up with it? 2. Why do people with financial and emotional support systems stay in an abusive relationship? I love my DH dearly but there was a period in our marriage where he started to attempt to manipulate me mentally and emotionally. After the second attempt I told him in no uncertain terms that I was onto his bullshit and had no intention of putting up with it and would leave him in a cold minute if he ever attempted it again. I often wonder if that is how abusive relationships start. As far as the second item my BFF from HS stayed in a really nasty relationship even though she had a strong support structure and family and friends that refused to be separated from her. It was only after her SO started to abuse their child that she finally left. I will never understand why she stayed with him for as long as she did. 1. I think abusers can sense who would put up with what or who is easily controlled and I think they wouldn't pursue a relationship with someone with that strong of a personality. 2. I think it's a matter of reduced self esteem and worth. They may fear for their lives or really think they deserve all they are getting. There are my barely-educated guesses.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 14, 2013 14:24:32 GMT -5
Suesinfl - actually you kinda hit on two points that I've often wondered about. 1. How many "potential" abusers are there out there who don't abuse because they know in no uncertain terms their SO will not put up with it? 2. Why do people with financial and emotional support systems stay in an abusive relationship? I love my DH dearly but there was a period in our marriage where he started to attempt to manipulate me mentally and emotionally. After the second attempt I told him in no uncertain terms that I was onto his bullshit and had no intention of putting up with it and would leave him in a cold minute if he ever attempted it again. I often wonder if that is how abusive relationships start. As far as the second item my BFF from HS stayed in a really nasty relationship even though she had a strong support structure and family and friends that refused to be separated from her. It was only after her SO started to abuse their child that she finally left. I will never understand why she stayed with him for as long as she did. 1. I think abusers can sense who would put up with what or who is easily controlled and I think they wouldn't pursue a relationship with someone with that strong of a personality. 2. I think it's a matter of reduced self esteem and worth. They may fear for their lives or really think they deserve all they are getting. There are my barely-educated guesses. So I'm not arrogant when I say I wouldn't put up with it? I'm not what you would consider easily controlled
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 14, 2013 14:30:31 GMT -5
MT, I don't think you lack empathy per say, but since you have never been in a DV situation it is easy to say that you would never put up with stuff like that. I do believe that you would never be in that type of situation, you are a very strong, smart woman, and I admire that. You also have the financial resources to just leave, which I think is great thing and I also think that knowing that you could just pack up and leave helps you to feel confident that you would leave.
Unfortunately, many women don't have the financial, family, friends, etc. to make a decision in a moments notice, if that makes sense. Suesinfl - actually you kinda hit on two points that I've often wondered about. 1. How many "potential" abusers are there out there who don't abuse because they know in no uncertain terms their SO will not put up with it? 2. Why do people with financial and emotional support systems stay in an abusive relationship? I love my DH dearly but there was a period in our marriage where he started to attempt to manipulate me mentally and emotionally. After the second attempt I told him in no uncertain terms that I was onto his bullshit and had no intention of putting up with it and would leave him in a cold minute if he ever attempted it again. I often wonder if that is how abusive relationships start. As far as the second item my BFF from HS stayed in a really nasty relationship even though she had a strong support structure and family and friends that refused to be separated from her. It was only after her SO started to abuse their child that she finally left. I will never understand why she stayed with him for as long as she did. 1. Probably not many, at least not many that have been in the cycle before. Perhaps under the right circumstances anyone could be an abuser. Abusers & victims kind of pick each other. Both are sick in different ways and drawn to that type of relationship. Kind of like how POM's Mom would always pick the abuser. And in the reverse situation an abuser will always pick someone that will become a victim. I read an alcoholic forum & it is sad because those women also pick broken men over & over. Some are on their third alcholic husband & don't understand how they keep getting so "unlucky". Until you change your relationships won't change. 2. Lots of reasons. I can provide a huge list of excuses they will give. But, in the end leaving the relationship is scarier or worse than staying. And not just in those situations where the woman is scared to leave. But, because being alone is scary. Because being loved by someone that occassionally treats you like shit is better than not being loved at all. Because they know every relationship is hard & if they only hold on & work hard enough, eventually things will get better. Because they believe he will change or because they believe what he is doing isn't that bad. Because you don't want to give up on someone you really love - you want to help them. Often something is wrong with the guy & the woman is trying to fix it & believes if she just does the right thing, then everything will be better.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 14, 2013 14:39:48 GMT -5
How are you so sure an unsympathetic attitude and critical reception weren't the support you needed? ..... Your case bears this out. You can claim you'd have done the same had your family and friends hugged you and clucked their tongues, but I'm willing to bet that if we went back with a magic "What If...?" machine, we'd find that as miserable as people's criticism made your life, it played no small part in motivating you to do what needed to be done and to keep going until the job was finished. From your perspective, all you remember is wanting sympathy and not getting any. My experience is that sympathy can be (and often is) the balm that makes it possible for the victim to bear the status quo, rationalize, and regress. Why do I think it wasn't the support I needed? Because it caused permanent damage in many of my relationships. Because I think the last thing I think someone getting out of a relationship with someone who manipulates is more people attempting to manipulate them. Because it did more to push me back to him than to keep me away. I was alone, I had no other local friends. I no longer had friends or family to turn to. I had a 3 wk old & a 2 yr old. I felt like I had gotten one controlling, manipulative person out of my life only to have everyone else try to control me through manipulation & threats. How was how they were acting any different than how he use to act, aside from the anger issues? I took no further action when they stopped speaking to me. I may not have anyway, who knows. At worst, they are the reason that I did start speaking to him again when I had no one else to turn to. Or maybe I would have done that anyway too. Regardless, I don't believe it positively changed anything that happened. It did cause me to realize that part of the reason I had put up with his manipulation so long is because that was always my mom's technique for getting what she wanted too. And I discovered I put up with his anger because both my dad & brother had anger problems. They would scream & sometimes throw stuff. The way he acted basically filled every role I had been exposed to growing up. There was never any hitting though, which is probably why when he did that he crossed the line that I wouldn't tolerate. I also found it ironic that my BFF stopped being my friend because "her boyfriend made her promise she wouldn't be my friend anymore". Then I realized I don't think I was the only one in a controlling relationship. The whole thing opened my eyes to all the relationships in my life. When the one crumbled, the rest came down too & then my whole life crumbled. Maybe I did need the illusion to be broken. But, it would have been nicer if everyone could have been supportive & not started trying to dictate my next steps & manipulating me.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jun 14, 2013 14:45:39 GMT -5
Suesinfl - actually you kinda hit on two points that I've often wondered about. 1. How many "potential" abusers are there out there who don't abuse because they know in no uncertain terms their SO will not put up with it? 2. Why do people with financial and emotional support systems stay in an abusive relationship? I love my DH dearly but there was a period in our marriage where he started to attempt to manipulate me mentally and emotionally. After the second attempt I told him in no uncertain terms that I was onto his bullshit and had no intention of putting up with it and would leave him in a cold minute if he ever attempted it again. I often wonder if that is how abusive relationships start. As far as the second item my BFF from HS stayed in a really nasty relationship even though she had a strong support structure and family and friends that refused to be separated from her. It was only after her SO started to abuse their child that she finally left. I will never understand why she stayed with him for as long as she did. 1. Probably not many, at least not many that have been in the cycle before. Perhaps under the right circumstances anyone could be an abuser. Abusers & victims kind of pick each other. Both are sick in different ways and drawn to that type of relationship. Kind of like how POM's Mom would always pick the abuser. And in the reverse situation an abuser will always pick someone that will become a victim. I read an alcoholic forum & it is sad because those women also pick broken men over & over. Some are on their third alcholic husband & don't understand how they keep getting so "unlucky". Until you change your relationships won't change. 2. Lots of reasons. I can provide a huge list of excuses they will give. But, in the end leaving the relationship is scarier or worse than staying. And not just in those situations where the woman is scared to leave. But, because being alone is scary. Because being loved by someone that occassionally treats you like shit is better than not being loved at all. Because they know every relationship is hard & if they only hold on & work hard enough, eventually things will get better. Because they believe he will change or because they believe what he is doing isn't that bad. Because you don't want to give up on someone you really love - you want to help them. Often something is wrong with the guy & the woman is trying to fix it & believes if she just does the right thing, then everything will be better. V5 is not allowing me to bold so Re: 2. - Totally that! My mom picked these guys for various reasons - depending on her age. She was actually very tough and very controlling but also felt she could fix these guys. She couldn't even fix herself! First guy was gorgeous but cheated on her (my dad). She said they NEVER fought until the end but her 1/2 brother told me the relationship was very volitile and he was a drinker. Second guy much older, already a responsible father, had a great job and title but was a drunk (functioning) and abusive, Third guy was much younger with no exes (because nobody in their right mind would have him), no kids but was bi-polar, did illegal drugs and was a drunk (she had no clue about the drinking and I had to tell her that part)... it didn't matter what she picked. I just think she hated being alone and would pick the one that she felt needed her the most to give her a reason to live or that she thought she could control and they'd hit her when it got where they didn't like her controlling them or trying to? Who the hell knows. The marriage counselors and therapists fired her because they knew she'd never change. She told me that. And she never did until she died at 69 a year and a half ago. And her lifestyle caused her to be alone. The irony is so sad. What people want most in their lives they somehow push it away and what people want least in their lives they draw to them - or so it seems with many.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 14, 2013 14:59:39 GMT -5
And for all the back & forth arguing over the drama he caused at the school: news.msn.com/us/teacher-fired-because-school-fears-her-abusive-ex-husband-1There was no drama, there was no abuse, there was no incident. The lockdown was not because he was causing problems, but merely because he was there. The arrest was not because he was causing problems, but merely because he was violating a court order. The firing is really fucked up, IMO. As a victim she did everything she should have - she left him, when he started causing problems she got a restraining order, she notified the school of the restraining order so he wouldn't be allowed entry. The school did the right thing by bringing in extra security & going on lock down the moment he was spotted. The police did the right thing by arresting him & charging him with violation of the restraining order despite the fact there was no incident & he left. Everything happened as it should have & at no point were the children unsafe & he got sent to jail for being a moron. Now the woman lost her job for protecting herself & her kids as well as everyone in the school by notifying them of the situation. The school absolutely proved adept to handle the situation & it was resolved without incident. He was spotted before ever making entry & would have been unable to enter even if he had attempted. So there was no reason to fire her to protect others. But, I think it does teach a negative lesson to those in this situation also and further victimizes the victim.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 14, 2013 15:05:01 GMT -5
The school did the right thing by bringing in extra security & going on lock down the moment he was spotted
So they did the "right thing" and hired more security as several posters said they should.
I wonder if it was pressure from higher up the food chain to terminate her contract then?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 14, 2013 15:11:26 GMT -5
::Of course I agree that making poor choices can lead to awful consequences, but that still doesn't make it a choice to be hurt.::
Of course it does, if you know that a choice or series of choices will lead to being hurt, and you make that choice or series of choices, you are choosing to be hurt (in a broader sense you are choosing the outcome that you know is coming due to those choices, in this case, the outcome is that you are hurt).
::It's this (mostly unintentional) blame placing on anyone other than the criminal that makes it so hard to enact any real changes. ::
I'm intentional when I say it. Blame is not an all or nothing proposition. And if you make choices which you know are going to lead to a specified outcome, you hold some of the blame when that outcome that you knew was coming, actually happens. You can be a victim and still hold some of the blame. That's why the whole "don't blame the victim" thing is ridiculous when people try to apply it to "you can't hold the victim responsible in any way even though they knew this was coming".
If I'm walking down the street and some nutjob shoots at me from his apartment window and hits me, I'm not to blame. I probably had no idea that walking down the street was going to get me shot. If this happens every Friday for a year, and I decide I'm just going to keep doing it, I hold some blame when I continue to get shot because I'm an idiot. I think it's pretty obvious to just about everyone that I am choosing to continue being shot when I take actions which I specifically know are going to lead to me being shot. The first time, I probably had no idea my actions would lead to me being shot, probably the 2nd time either. At some point though, I know what my actions lead to, and taking those actions is me choosing to have that outcome happen to me.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 14, 2013 15:15:00 GMT -5
::It's not obvious at all. "Physically" is not the only way to detain a person.::
Of course it's not, that's why they said "physically detain" instead of just "detain". But unless someone is physically detained, they are capable of leaving. I mean unless you're talking about some weird sci-fi stuff when I can inhabit your mind and control your body, and "mentally detain" you.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 14, 2013 15:15:54 GMT -5
The school did the right thing by bringing in extra security & going on lock down the moment he was spotted
So they did the "right thing" and hired more security as several posters said they should. I wonder if it was pressure from higher up the food chain to terminate her contract then? Probably. I am guessing it wasn't so much the safety concern, but the cost concern. It should be noted that they divorced in 2011. If there were many instances of days where extra security guards were called in due to a bad weekened, then maybe this makes more sense. Nothing I have read shows that sort of pattern & if this happened once in ~2 years, then I think the school is really overreacting.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 14, 2013 15:17:34 GMT -5
It is if we're using the most fundamental definition of choice, which pertains to raw, physical capability.
I have a choice on whether I kill my family. If it was my will to kill my family, there is nothing physically preventing me from committing the act.
I do not have a choice to go to the moon. Even if my sole desire was to go to the moon, I physically lack the capability of manifesting that desire by any means.
Unless your argument is that abuse victims no longer possess free will (in essence making them static rule-based entities like computer algorithms), my statement stands. I agree with you that this fundamental definition of choice is too broad to be useful, which is why I immediately constrain it.
We're using "choice to be abused" and "choice to remain with an abusive partner despite not being physically detained" interchangeably in this thread. The only case where the two are not interchangeable is if an abuse victim maintains the persistent, irrational belief (i.e. the delusion) that a chronic abuser will eventually stop. Several posters here have pointed out that many victims are in fact deluded. As far as my analysis is concerned, delusion is subsumed by 'perception', which I talked about.
To the best of my knowledge, those who speak out spread the message that the consequences of leaving an abusive relationship are always bearable while the consequences of staying are not always bearable. If you do not hold this same view absolutely, then logically you must believe circumstances exist where i) neither outcome is bearable and a victim is a "dead (wo)man walking", or ii) only the "stay" outcome is bearable, in which case it is better for the victim to stay with the abuser.
In my 30 years, I have never seen anti-DV literature that conceded either i or ii.
Again: there is no difference between the two unless the victim is deluded, which is an issue of perception.
If by 'choice' you mean the victim would prefer not to be abused, I should think that's a given.
I don't see that the two reasons are all that different. Giving up an extremely pleasurable activity is a consequence of quitting.
When a parent says "Clean up your room, Johnny, or no X-Box for a week." and Johnny would sooner chew glass than miss the Halo Week tournament on X-Box, per our looser definition of 'choice', his parent has effectively revoked Johnny's choice on whether he wants to clean his room.
No. But if it happened a third time without similarly sweeping changes being made, one would start to question her objectivity. If it happened more than three times--which is somewhat absurd for this analogy--and Jane persisted, most people would (rightly) consider her deluded if she persisted in her behaviour.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jun 14, 2013 15:18:31 GMT -5
OK, so again, I can't read the whole thread right now - but are you freaking kidding me - this is to people who think she should have been fired. OMG, how wrong is that ?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 14, 2013 15:28:10 GMT -5
Nothing I have read shows that sort of pattern & if this happened once in ~2 years, then I think the school is really overreacting.
Maybe. It sounds like the individual school tried but this may have been all they could do before the big wigs stepped in and made a decision.
I give them credit for trying.
Working for a private school is really wonky, it's not the same as working in the secular sector. Every review I had at Creighton had a section where my boss had to evaluate if I had upheld a manner suitable towards the views held by Creighton. If I didn't they could decide to fire me. Never had that here.
It's messed up but that's a perk a private school gets over its employees.
She'd probably be better off seeking employment in a public school if available.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 14, 2013 15:29:13 GMT -5
I don't know exactly what your friends said to you or how they treated you. What I read was your comment "No one was happy about the steps I took, all I heard was about the steps I didn't take. I was supposed to change the locks, I was supposed to move, I was supposed to file for divorce immediately, I was supposed to terminate his parental rights, etc. All I heard was the things i was doing wrong."
I'm saying that sometimes the people who care the most are the ones who tell you flat out what you're doing wrong. Unless they're doing it for their own macabre pleasure, they're obviously telling you because they feel strongly about certain details and they want you to "get it right".
I don't know why your friend insisted you short-sell your house, or why your parents cut off contact with you for a month, but if they love you and care about you, I've got to think it was because they wanted the best for you. Unless you have reason to believe they had selfish motivations--which is a whole other ball of wax--what else could their insistence possibly be? A need to dominate? Anger directed at you? They must have given you a reason.
I don't expect you to expound every detail on the boards, but true friends and loving parents are the only ones on Earth who will tell us the things we don't want to hear but need to.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 14, 2013 15:30:14 GMT -5
You need to read the whole thread.
Basically the Ex has a 20 year history of abuse and does not respect the laws of the land. The lady in question felt threatened enough to warn her employer to expect trouble from him. She happens to work in a school with kids. The decision basically boiled down to a choice between letting a dangerous situation persist or attempting to limit the amount of risk to which the kids were exposed.
Not one single person answered yes when asked if they would choose to put their children in a potentially harmful situation. Not one person had a solution that did not involve turning the school into an armed fortress.
If your kid attended this school what would your proposed solution be?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:26:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2013 15:31:01 GMT -5
we all think it sucks
but in the opinion of a LOT of people, the right decision was made
and like Virgil posed earlier, give us your letter to the parents of this private school, who wanted the threat to their children gone
How would you have handled that?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 14, 2013 15:31:35 GMT -5
OK, so again, I can't read the whole thread right now - but are you freaking kidding me - this is to people who think she should have been fired. OMG, how wrong is that ? Take a ticket. Stand in line with the other 99 posters that think it's unconscionable and that there must be a better solution but have absolutely no clue what that is or how they'd sell it to concerned parents.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 14, 2013 15:37:58 GMT -5
There was a study I heard about a while back, don't have a link, but could probably find it if pushed. It was comparing states that prosecute DV offenders regardless of the wishes of the victim & states that need a victim to press charges. Or maybe they were comparing states before & after those rules were instated, don't recall. Anyway they thought they would find there would be less DV when the offender is always prosecuted - either because of fewer offenses or fewer report, but that isn't what they found.
What they actually discovered is the biggest impact of these rules is that less DV offenders were murdered by their victims. The explaination was that despite it seeming like these women have a choice, psychologically they really don't. They are too scared tor unwilling to prosecute the guy. They are too scared or unwilling to leave on their own. When they do leave often they just get sucked back into the relationship. There becomes a breaking point at which the women realize that the only way to actually ensure the relationship is totally over is if the guy is dead.
I thought it was interesting.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 14, 2013 15:40:37 GMT -5
I will point out that one (in this case me) can think it's totally unfair that she's fired, and think that's exactly what needed to happen. Sometimes what needs to happen isn't "fair" to everyone involved. If a school has to choose between doing what's "fair" and doing what's in the best interest of keeping the vast majority of their students safe, they should pick the latter.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 14, 2013 15:46:21 GMT -5
I will point out that one (in this case me) can think it's totally unfair that she's fired, and think that's exactly what needed to happen. Sometimes what needs to happen isn't "fair" to everyone involved. If a school has to choose between doing what's "fair" and doing what's in the best interest of keeping the vast majority of their students safe, they should pick the latter. That's the con side of the argument in a nutshell.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 14, 2013 15:46:38 GMT -5
::The explaination was that despite it seeming like these women have a choice, psychologically they really don't. ::
Was the explanation really that women are just so weak-willed they are able to be controlled to the point that they really don't have a choice? That doesn't seem very complimentary to women in general. When's the last time you heard of a man killing his wife because that was the only way he could escape her physical abuse?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 14, 2013 15:47:14 GMT -5
I don't know why your friend insisted you short-sell your house, or why your parents cut off contact with you for a month, but if they love you and care about you, I've got to think it was because they wanted the best for you. Unless you have reason to believe they had selfish motivations--which is a whole other ball of wax--what else could their insistence possibly be? A need to dominate? Anger directed at you? They must have given you a reason. Oh, they absolutely were doing what they THOUGHT was best for me. They wanted to protect me & thought they were helping. I would never say otherwise. The problem is that they weren't helping & weren't supportive & I ended up sorry that I told anyone what was going on. I ended up feeling worse and more alone when I thought I was reaching out for support & being strong. All I am saying is that people that don't understand try to be supportive, but often do it in the wrong way & that is why victims often are silent. Because talking ends up being worse that keeping it to yourself. It is kind of like the alcoholics wife that thinks she is helping by throwing out the liquor. Or the mom that thinks she is helping when she bails her son out of jail for the 3rd time. Or the mom I believe in your story that thinks she is helping by tracking her druggy son & giving him clothes & food. These people are all loving, caring people attempting to help the ones they love. The problem is they really aren't helping. My family & friends were trying to help, but they really weren't helping me. They made things significantly worse for me.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 14, 2013 15:51:18 GMT -5
::The explaination was that despite it seeming like these women have a choice, psychologically they really don't. ::
Was the explanation really that women are just so weak-willed they are able to be controlled to the point that they really don't have a choice? That doesn't seem very complimentary to women in general. When's the last time you heard of a man killing his wife because that was the only way he could escape her physical abuse? I was shocked to learn that domestic violence targets men nearly in the same proportion as it targets women. I knew there was some, but I'd thought it was 5/95 or 10/90. 50/50 blew my mind. The first article I found on the subject, which happens to be for Canada: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/02/22/f-vp-smol.html
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 14, 2013 15:52:47 GMT -5
::The explaination was that despite it seeming like these women have a choice, psychologically they really don't. ::
Was the explanation really that women are just so weak-willed they are able to be controlled to the point that they really don't have a choice? That doesn't seem very complimentary to women in general. When's the last time you heard of a man killing his wife because that was the only way he could escape her physical abuse? Why does it need to be complimentary? Victims are phsychologically beaten down. That isn't supposed to be complimentary to anyone.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jun 14, 2013 15:53:27 GMT -5
I don't know why your friend insisted you short-sell your house, or why your parents cut off contact with you for a month, but if they love you and care about you, I've got to think it was because they wanted the best for you. Unless you have reason to believe they had selfish motivations--which is a whole other ball of wax--what else could their insistence possibly be? A need to dominate? Anger directed at you? They must have given you a reason. Oh, they absolutely were doing what they THOUGHT was best for me. They wanted to protect me & thought they were helping. I would never say otherwise. The problem is that they weren't helping & weren't supportive & I ended up sorry that I told anyone what was going on. I ended up feeling worse and more alone when I thought I was reaching out for support & being strong. All I am saying is that people that don't understand try to be supportive, but often do it in the wrong way & that is why victims often are silent. Because talking ends up being worse that keeping it to yourself. It is kind of like the alcoholics wife that thinks she is helping by throwing out the liquor. Or the mom that thinks she is helping when she bails her son out of jail for the 3rd time. Or the mom I believe in your story that thinks she is helping by tracking her druggy son & giving him clothes & food. These people are all loving, caring people attempting to help the ones they love. The problem is they really aren't helping. My family & friends were trying to help, but they really weren't helping me. They made things significantly worse for me. Please educate us on what helping is in such circumstances. I would listen (but after so many repeat same ole same oles I had to stop as it was making me nuts) or offer "I'm sorry you are going through that" and "You can stay here until you decide what you want to do" (which I probably wouldn't do again to risk our well being if a dangerous situation) but what else can one do in any of those situations without being an enabler? I hope I'll never know anybody again who will need it but if they do - I'd like to know what is needed above what I've tried to do to help.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,488
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 14, 2013 15:56:06 GMT -5
Why would the diocese be damn fools to advertise they helped someone in a difficult situation? I would think they would want to be looked upon as showing compassion. Do you think this woman or her coworkers will be safer if the church makes it easier for the guy to find her by advertising the fact that she has a job with the church? You also have the fact that the church will have trouble recruiting talent if they advertise the fact that they make a habbit of putting their employees at risk. Is there anyone within the San Diego Catholic Church diocese who will stand up and stand with the woman? WWJD?
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 14, 2013 15:56:21 GMT -5
I don't know about physical abuse but I have seen quite a few women who are verbally abusive to their husbands. I don't know why the men stick around in that situation either
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jun 14, 2013 15:58:21 GMT -5
::The explaination was that despite it seeming like these women have a choice, psychologically they really don't. ::
Was the explanation really that women are just so weak-willed they are able to be controlled to the point that they really don't have a choice? That doesn't seem very complimentary to women in general. When's the last time you heard of a man killing his wife because that was the only way he could escape her physical abuse? I was shocked to learn that domestic violence targets men nearly in the same proportion as it targets women. I knew there was some, but I'd thought it was 5/95 or 10/90. 50/50 blew my mind. The first article I found on the subject, which happens to be for Canada: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/02/22/f-vp-smol.htmlAccording to my mom my DH is abused. Swear to God. She told my MIL that. She couldn't stand us being close so she tried to put a wedge in between us. My MIL always says to me "Honey. I have no idea how you have the smarts you do or your act together like you do with that mother of yours." LMAO!! My MIL rocks!! Oh! Maybe that's what she meant. I am very verbal but I use "moron" or "idiot" affectionately!
|
|