Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're right, that returning to a sociopath or a psycho is not a brilliant thing to do. However, here's the thing: NOBODY, and I do mean NOBODY has a right to massacre a woman, and I don't give a flip if a woman returns to a man or not, if a man massacres a woman, he needs to pay in every way the law can make him pay.
Then there's the other side of the coin, that men COME AFTER women who have dumped them and massacre them for that.
Either way, they have to pay for these crimes. Glad it's now a federal law, sharp teeth.
It always WAS a law. No man can massacre a women now, and they couldn't then. But as has been noted, this bill is about funding. And that funding is for women to get help if they are being abused.
You've implied that before this law was passed, it was NOT a law to kill a woman. Care to share your proof of that?
Thereby proving that you no absolutely NOTHING about women. Lucky you to have never been in such a situation.
The average number of times a woman tries to leave before succeeding is 7.
Among the MYRIAD of reasons are:
Lack of money (a common abuse tactic, besides beating, is to prevent the woman from touching assets -- many flee with just the clothes on their backs)
Inability to care for children in a shelter or on the street/fear that the abuser will hurt the children
Fear of the abuser hurting THEM because protective orders just can't protect, as we all know
Fear of the abuser hurting family and friends
Lack of support from the community (which is why the feds started stepping in)
Belief that he has "changed" because abusers are MASTER liars and actors (if you've never seen one in action, thank your lucky stars)
Not enough? Spend some time at your local women's shelter and have your eyes opened. People like you are why we need the feds to step in -- local people are far too easily swayed by their stupid, ignorant prejudices, as you have just amply demonstrated.
Are you a man or a woman? If you're a man, then you need to butt out of this conversation. Because while you may disagree with me, the fact is, being a woman, I certainly know about women.
As for being "lucky not being in that situation"? I've CHOSEN to never be in that situation. I've seen abusers in action. That's why I've never gotten involved with one. The situations you've described are women who have chosen to stay with an abuser, have children with an abuser, return to an abuser. And their excuse always includes "but he says he'll change...." That's why it takes 7 tries before they succeed in leaving. I certainly feel for their children, but I don't have much sympathy for them. Years ago I gave refuge to a friend of a friend, who had been beaten by her husband. She returned to him, and I washed my hands of her. She'd made her choice.
Yet, every time a bill is introduced to include men battered by women and provide punishments for false accusation the bill dies.
The Violence Against Women Act includes males. Under Nonexclusivity, the Act states that "Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this title."
are you a man or a woman? If you're a man, then you need to butt out of this conversation. Because while you may disagree with me, the fact is, being a woman, i certainly know about women.
As for being "lucky not being in that situation"? I've chosen to never be in that situation. I've seen abusers in action. That's why i've never gotten involved with one. The situations you've described are women who have chosen to stay with an abuser, have children with an abuser, return to an abuser. And their excuse always includes "but he says he'll change...." that's why it takes 7 tries before they succeed in leaving. I certainly feel for their children, but i don't have much sympathy for them. Years ago i gave refuge to a friend of a friend, who had been beaten by her husband. She returned to him, and i washed my hands of her. She'd made her choice.
Well aren't you just special? Too clever to fall for an abuser, and modest to boot! I am a woman who has been there. I am college educated and made a reasonable living, so it only took me three tries. And of course I know women who are lawyers, doctors, bankers, CEOs who fell into the same trap. You have proven with your ignorant, arrogant posts that you know nothing about what it's like. It's not about brains. It's about luck and emotional health. Like I said, you're lucky. Patting yourself on the back like that could cause tendon problems, you should be careful.
What, you think we all just woke up one morning and said, "Hey, I think I'll get into an abusive relationship today!" It's a million times more complicated than your shallow, self-satisfied description. It takes a long time to get in - abusers always wait until you're hooked somehow in terms of money, kids or health - and even longer to get out. Depending on where you live (because the states are SO wise), the courts can even institutionalize the abuse and take the abuser's side. Women go back all the time because the abuser got custody. She made it all up, you know.
Of course, it's people like you who make that happen in your local jurisdictions.
And by the way ... With a friend like you, that poor woman was almost better of with her abuser.
Your posts make you seem cold, cruel, self- righteous and judgmental. Pretty much what I've come to expect on CD, actually.
Are you a man or a woman? If you're a man, then you need to butt out of this conversation. Because while you may disagree with me, the fact is, being a woman, I certainly know about women.
As for being "lucky not being in that situation"? I've CHOSEN to never be in that situation. I've seen abusers in action. That's why I've never gotten involved with one. The situations you've described are women who have chosen to stay with an abuser, have children with an abuser, return to an abuser. And their excuse always includes "but he says he'll change...." That's why it takes 7 tries before they succeed in leaving. I certainly feel for their children, but I don't have much sympathy for them. Years ago I gave refuge to a friend of a friend, who had been beaten by her husband. She returned to him, and I washed my hands of her. She'd made her choice.
Until you have been in an abusive relationship, perhaps YOU should butt out. You sure as hell don't know anything about being abused apparently, so don't pretend to think you can speak for me. I am a woman. I was once in a VERY abusive relationship(I lost my spleen and was within minutes of losing my life). I am against this bill. My reasons are my own. Men are as welcome on this thread as you are....
Nobody should be given special treatment under any law. Violence against any human being is wrong and immoral - with the exception of self defense.
I am a woman who was a victim of domestic violence and I oppose this bill. And it is not the job of the taxpayers to take care of me because I made a bad decision to get involved with someone who turned out to be violent.
If people REALLY want to get serious about helping other people who are victims of assault, sexual or otherwise, start at the STATE level. Here are a few statutes from the STATE of WYOMING that need to be reworked....changing misdemeanors to felonies, higher fines, removing "not more than" from the language and longer probationary periods. And I say people in deference to ANYONE who has ever had the misfortune to meet the back of a hand with your face...
Quote:
ARTICLE 5 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
6-2-501.� Simple assault; battery; penalties.
(a)� A person is guilty of simple assault if, having the present ability to do so, he unlawfully attempts to cause bodily injury to another.
(b)� A person is guilty of battery if he intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another person by use of physical force.
(c)� Except as provided by subsection (e) of this section, simple assault is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00).
(d)� Except as provided by subsection (f) of this section, battery is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of probation imposed by a judge under this subsection may exceed the maximum term of imprisonment established for the offense under this subsection provided the term of probation, together with any extension thereof, shall in no case exceed one (1) year.
(e)� A household member as defined by W.S. 35-21-102 who is convicted upon a plea of guilty or no contest or found guilty of simple assault against any other household member, after having been convicted upon a plea of guilty or no contest or found guilty of a violation of W.S. 6-2-501(a), (b), (e) or (f), 6-2-502, 6-2-503, 6-2-504 or other substantially similar law of this or any other state, tribe or territory against any other household member, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), or both.
(f)� A household member as defined by W.S. 35-21-102 who commits a second or subsequent battery against any other household member shall be punished as follows:
(i)� A person convicted upon a plea of guilty or no contest or found guilty of a second offense under this subsection against any other household member, after having been convicted upon a plea of guilty or no contest or found guilty of a violation of W.S. 6-2-501(a), (b), (e) through (g), 6-2-502, 6-2-503, 6-2-504 or other substantially similar law of this or any other state, tribe or territory against any other household member within the previous five (5) years is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or both.� Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of probation imposed by a court under this paragraph may exceed the maximum term of imprisonment established for this offense under this paragraph provided the term of probation, together with any extension thereof, shall in no case exceed two (2) years;
(ii)� A person convicted upon a plea of guilty or no contest or found guilty of a third or subsequent offense under this subsection against any other household member, after having been convicted upon a plea of guilty or no contest or found guilty of a violation of W.S. 6-2-501(a), (b), (e) through (g), 6-2-502, 6-2-503, 6-2-504 or other substantially similar law of this or any other state, tribe or territory against any other household member within the previous ten (10) years is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or both.
All 22 senators that voted against the violence against women act are male, and hard to the right with notable people including Marco "water gate" Rubio, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell.
Coming off the the GOP's spanking in 2012 with their epically failed "war on women", you would think these people would have gotten the clue,...apparently not,....
why should there be a "violence against woman" act????
is not all violence illegal???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
