In light of my new, much lower view of human nature, I would like to dispute that nobody condones domestic violence. If, for example, you are a man who feels you should be in control in any relationship with a woman but are unwilling to beat your wife, the persistence of actual wife beaters helps you not only by lowering the bar for what is acceptable, but also by making women more vulnerable to threats of violence because it's very clear assault is a real possibility.
1: Agreed. A couple of additional points: If you include "violence against children" under domestic violence - which you really should, shouldn't you? - then it probably has majority or close-to-majority support.
And even if you don't, there's a significant number of people out there who actually beat their spouses, which surely implies they condone domestic violence.
Mass lockups would sure cut down on the amount of child support lots of victims would be able to receive, I bet. Luckily the strong safety net can take care of that.
This is one of the things that makes me wonder if the upsides of a well-regulated panopticon are large enough for it to be worth a try.
The Emerson solution. To avoid violent relationships, destroy relationships. Instead of structuring everything in society from the legal system to the tax code to the entertainment industry to encourage people to stay together, structure it to encourage them to split up.
1,2: Although people are masterful about not considering their own abusive behavior to be the real kind. All the rapists are anti-rape.
Children to be brought up in large state-funded collective nurseries and boarding schools.
In two straight lines. And the smallest will be Madeline or Madison or Sophia or Kayleigh.
Although people are masterful about not considering their own abusive behavior to be the real kind. All the rapists are anti-rape.
They're anti the word but pro the action. I suspect you'd find a lot of people thinking the same way about domestic violence. "When I found my husband was cheating on me with a co-worker, I slapped him so hard he couldn't shave for a week" - you think that statement would get universal condemnation? Not a single murmur of support?
When I found my husband was cheating on me with a co-worker, I slapped him so hard he couldn't shave for a week
I don't want to derail the conversation, but it's worth pointing out that there's a difference between violence between very occasional intimate partner violence and a regime of battering and constant threat against a weaker and/or smaller partner that creates that partner to live in perpetual fear. Both are termed "domestic violence" and both are bad, but they're different not only in degree, but in kind, cause and (I think) appropriate response.
Remove children from the custody of people who are inculcating them with violent behavior, in order to curtail the next generation of abuse.
As for men who fracture infants' skulls, I'll think of something.
11 is right. It's the difference between mostly living in terror and mostly not living in terror.
The critically important thing is that we spend the entire thread discussing edge cases.
I don't suppose we can throw their names into a hat and decimate the lot.
12: yes. Also: make it easier to leave.
t they're different not only in degree, but in kind, cause and (I think) appropriate response.
The appropriate response in both cases is arrest, trial, conviction and punishment. (The scale of the punishment imposed will differ.)
Domostic violence rates have been on a drastically declinine since 1990 https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fuserscontent2.emaze.com%2Fimages%2F3e48a402-05d7-405e-9436-3c602dabd987%2F172d63e39b067f008276822d50bc6d44.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.emaze.com%2F%40AQOWQTOO%2Fdomestic-violence&docid=HYpjhDDG726gpM&tbnid=TxuI83YcOtiKLM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwj_wdKk66zXAhVLPiYKHSV5BrUQMwh5KAYwBg..i&w=523&h=329&hl=en-us&client=safari&bih=559&biw=375&q=domestic%20violence%20rates.us&ved=0ahUKEwj_wdKk66zXAhVLPiYKHSV5BrUQMwh5KAYwBg&iact=mrc&uact=8 -this is going to result in the population of domestic abusers being worse on the average - more crime prone - less contentious - more sociopathic
How about build healthy-relationship education into the mandatory curriculum, alongside sex-ed.
Which it looks like England just did, so kudos.
18 Another point in favor of the lead -> violence hypothesis?
How about build healthy-relationship education into the mandatory curriculum, alongside sex-ed.
Isn't it sad-funny how partisan this would be? How the determined persecution-complex-hatred would kick in and see this as trying to make men into pussies?
21: very possibly. Domestic violence, in this case, simply declining along with all other sorts of violent crime. Though it's puzzling why male-victim DV doesn't seem to have declined by the same percentage - maybe it has and you just can't see it because of the scale of the graph?
I would like to dispute that nobody condones domestic violence
E.g., the Russian decriminalization of domestic violence.
Which, paradoxically, gives me hope. If societal attitudes towards towards dv can vary across cultures, they're not immutable expressions of human nature. If they can regress, they can progress.
How do you define a healthy relationship (aside from the minimum of nobody is beating anybody)? Asking for a friend.
22: True, but Texas has something like this for people getting married (encouraged via a reduced marriage license fee), so I have a little hope it could be non-partisan.
Except, counterpoint, all my exes live in Texas.
Strait but not narrow-minded?
The entire state apparatus has domestic violence by men as a top priority. I have no idea what you could do in addition that doesn't involve a police state primarily targeting men of color to an even greater extent than it already does.
The last time I was in a hospital with my wife, I noticed that approximately every 4 feet there is an anti-DV poster. In every bathroom, a different anti-DV poster. At *every* meeting with a doctor, I was asked to leave at some point, at which point whichever doctor would ask my wife if she was experiencing DV.
At some point you need to place the onus on what is supposed to be a fully functional human being to pick up the damn phone, at which point a literal platoon of men will descend to solve her problem for her.
I have no idea what you could do in addition that doesn't involve a police state primarily targeting men of color to an even greater extent than it already does.
That's probably true.
At some point you need to place the onus on what is supposed to be a fully functional human being to pick up the damn phone, at which point a literal platoon of men will descend to solve her problem for her.
That seems less true. There are certainly plenty of people hurt and killed by somebody they have a restraining order against.
"When I found my husband was cheating on me with a co-worker, I slapped him so hard he couldn't shave for a week" - you think that statement would get universal condemnation? Not a single murmur of support?
1. Too many tv shows normalize/cheer people who assault (punch, shove, slap) someone who "really deserves it."
2. Too many people think kids these days need a good ass-whooping.
I have no idea what you could do in addition that doesn't involve a police state primarily targeting men of color to an even greater extent than it already does.
Yes.
The entire state apparatus has domestic violence by men as a top priority.
Huh?
Is everybody else reading "dependent variable" all the time?
23: I would assume that's about getting reporting to levels that are more accurate rather than reflecting an increase in actual violence.
The hospital I take the girls to asks every time if they've experienced violence/abuse/neglect ("not lately and the state is aware of it all") and if I'm a relationship if I feel safe. If I ever do start dating I'll probably start lying, because that's the first way the kids would find out. (Current answer is "I'm not in a relationship, but safety is definitely a priority.")
If I ever don't feel safe, I just have to say "eclipse".
In Virginia, a protective order is a the fastest, and, essentially, the main way to "kick" your spouse/bf/gf out of the house. As a result, after being advised that by a lawyer, shockingly, sometimes it is used mostly to get the house and a head start on getting the kids.
Plus, in many areas around me, protective order petitioners get free lawyers via a pro bono project, and the domestic violence coordinators guide them as well.
The respondent does not get a free lawyer.
Also, the first hearing is ex parte so only the petitioner's side gets heard. And what judge wants to deny a protective order, and then have their name in the paper as the judge who denied a protective order.
Is everybody else reading "dependent variable" all the time?
No, I'm alternating between "Developed Vetting" or "Diarrhoea and Vomiting".
40:
Does the chart show a decline in Mini DV?
FIVE HUNDRED AND FIVE
One of the Crenshaw intersectionality papers, from 1991, is on domestic abuse and it is very good - http://multipleidentitieslgbtq.wiki.westga.edu/file/view/crenshaw1991.pdf
Anyway, I thought the questions about domestic violence get asked at hospitals because it's one of the few places where someone who is a victim might find enough privacy and trust to say something.
I'm no expert, but I heard once from someone who does these kinds of cases in the City Attorney's office that (a) while civil TROs and restraining orders are common, maybe too common, largely for tactical family-law reasons Will identified in 37, (b) actual convictions for criminal DV is very, very difficult, primarily because an overwhelmingly high portion of victims (like, more than 50%) recant their testimony so as to avoid punishing the spouse-offender.
From that I draw that whatever actual improvements are possible (and there's obviously lots of room to improve) is not, primarily, going to come from the legal system.
25: canonically it's "you fuck more often than you quarrel," with the obvious caveat about enthusiastic consent. That would leave out the cases where both parties dgaf about quarreling but are slightly less checked-out in bed, and it's also silly. Does your friend have particular concerns?
Nobody every waited until I was enthusiastic to quarrel with me.
45: Hence the onus. I really cannot see a policy lever that bypasses the "victim" insisting no crime occurred, that doesn't essentially make women the property of the state.
E.g., the Russian decriminalization of domestic violence.
Do you have sources on this? I had missed it in the "bad news from Russia" stream. Is it at all a well-meaning attempt to get more reporting and intervention to happen, without the reporter fearing that s/he will destroy his/her partner's life completely?
A friend of mine had things blow up with her boyfriend recently, punctuated with him striking her; she broke it off and filed a police report just in case. Although it's a relatively clean break as they go, the location of the bar he and his friends
spend a lot of time in greatly restricts the range of places she feels safe. I am just in a help-by-listening role and doubt I even have any useful advice, but the situation sucks.
No system is perfect, but, very generally, the preliminary protective order tends to get granted fairly freely as long as the petitioner doesn't say "I just want custody of the kids and possession of the house." So the guy gets booted from the house for 15 days.
Judges tend to view the permanent protective order much more suspiciously about whether an advantage is being sought in a custody/divorce case.
I am mostly ok with the system as I would rather on the side of safety. Although I would like judges to view the poorly brought cases a little more harshly when you get to the custody case.
At the end of the day, a protective order isn't stopping someone who wants to kill you. And, in some cases, the much better strategy is to just get away and not file the protective order.
Even not getting a conviction is making a problem that's often invisible more visible, which can help someone learn there are alternatives. Non-convictions can still be part of a process that leads eventually to someone leaving.
51: here you go: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/world/europe/russia-domestic-violence.html
Is it at all a well-meaning attempt to get more reporting and intervention to happen, without the reporter fearing that s/he will destroy his/her partner's life completely?
Hahahahaha no. It was the Duma bowing to pressure from conservative groups, including the Church, who were infuriated about domestic violence being criminalised last year for the first time ever (though their concern seems to be more about parents being allowed to assault their children than spouses being allowed to assault each other).
Or do you just try to legalize pot and get them to mellow the fuck out a bit?
Fun bit of drug history trivia: in the 19th century, doctors would prescribe morphine to alcoholics, largely on the grounds that junkies were less of a social nuisance than drunks. Less likely to get into brawls, but also less likely to beat their wives/kids.
Obviously economic resources to leave partners are critical. One interesting avenue I've read suggested for getting something more like a UBI, but in a more incremental way, is to expand EITC eligibility to specific common non-employment activities, including going to school, raising children, and taking care of relatives.
As a rule, if anyone in the Russian government says or does something that can be interpreted multiple ways, and one possible interpretation is that they're being nice or liberal or concerned about the weak and helpless, they meant the other one.
47: We could if you really wanted us to! You are a valued member of our community, honestly probably the most valued.
Let's all list who is the.... Wait. That sounds like a horrible idea.
55: Thanks. I was going to say something bitter (and, you know, false) about how violence by women against men is effectively decriminalized in this country, but that would opportunistically derail yet another discussion of how to stop men from killing women without doing anyone any good whatsoever. That's one where the Halford Rule definitely applies. Still... goddamn it, it's such an utter clusterfuck and all my thoughts are grim. I'm going to recuse myself henceforth. I can give satirical counsel on healthy relationships, though.
If I send in a picture, can you tell me I'm 100% right about how I load the dishwasher?
62: Which of you is on team "fill dishwasher to capacity" and which of you is on team "make every dish spotless/don't chip, crack, or break anything"?
They've never actually cracked and you can always just rewash the couple of things that didn't get clean.
I carefully trained myself to stop caring about the microwave clock. The microwave clock now reads " :13" 95% of the time and nothing the rest of the time. It doesn't matter in the slightest.
So I think "you can always rewash..." is a reasonable concession to ask for. What would you concede in return?
Ours have gotten chipped a few time. Some care is warranted, but not much. But I think on net, dishwasher time is less valuable than the dishes.
Hence the onus. I really cannot see a policy lever that bypasses the "victim" insisting no crime occurred, that doesn't essentially make women the property of the state.
This is, I think, a wrong way of thinking about crimes. In our system of criminal law, crimes are prosecuted by the state because they are offenses against society, not defined by whether the victim feels aggrieved.
To take it out of the domestic violence context, if one gang member shoots another in front of witnesses, it doesn't matter whether or not the shooting victim says no crime occurred. If the facts of the offense can be established without the victim's testimony, then the shooting is criminal regardless because society doesn't people to be able to establish zones of lawlessness by mutual agreement not to involve the criminal justice system.
This doesn't get me very far in the DV context -- you do usually need testimony from a victim to establish the facts. But prosecuting DV regardless of the wishes of the victim where the facts can be established, whether or not it's the right thing to do in any specific instance, would be an ordinary use of prosecutorial discretion, and has nothing to do with making women the property of the state.
I think not having to reload the dishwasher before running it is its own reward.
||
Also, when I followed ajay's NYT link, at the bottom of the page "Recommended for [me]" was the headline "I'm Rich, And That Makes Me Anxious." I've decided this means people are directly one-upping each other with anxiety rather than busyness/sleep loss now. "I'd like to do yoga, but I'm just too freaked out by this impending merger even to consider it! Maybe when I retire! Time for my cocktail/massage break! It's nice; too bad it doesn't make me any less fucking panicked 24/7! C'est la vie..."
|>
But prosecuting DV regardless of the wishes of the victim where the facts can be established, whether or not it's the right thing to do in any specific instance, would be an ordinary use of prosecutorial discretion, and has nothing to do with making women the property of the state.
In principle, yes. But in practice, as bad as the current system is, I'd be afraid that encouraging police and prosecutors to pursue cases without regard to the victim's wishes would make things worse. "Property of the state" is too melodramatic, but there's a further loss of autonomy that's problematic.
Obviously economic resources to leave partners are critical. One interesting avenue I've read suggested for getting something more like a UBI, but in a more incremental way, is to expand EITC eligibility to specific common non-employment activities, including going to school, raising children, and taking care of relatives.
"Family values" Republicans are often trying to find ways to make divorce more difficult under the misguided theory that people get divorce bc it is so darn easy. However, there is prob some merit to the idea that a better social safety net would lead to more divorces.
"Can you afford to live apart?" is a central part of a divorce lawyer consultation. So many people do not grasp the concept that their barely-barely-making-it-financially marriage might mean a gotta-live-with-your-parents/sister divorce. Two households cost more than one.
Job skills (and affordable health care and child care) are so important. (And diagnosing those with personality disorders so people can run.)
I agree with 72. We're talking about this now, though, because we see that an un-rehabilitated (or even inadequately punished) DV perp is a danger to more than just his partner.
The military's failure to put its DV convictions into the federal database is inexcusable. I'm not usually a heads must roll kind of guy, but this is worth finding out exactly what happened, and making sure every single person involved knows it can never happen again.
I was at a CLE a month ago, and the first panel was about criminal stuff in our federal district. A significant thing our recently departed US Attorney was having his guys do was charge people with state DV convictions who illegally possess firearms. Yeah, it's an ugly surprise for some guy who pled and got a short suspended sentence.
It would seem that the AI we're thinking will take over the world could pretty easily match up the database of DV felony convictions with the hunting license database.
With a margin of error maybe not unlike that experienced by the software used to strike voters with names like Washington and Ramirez in southern states.
Why do I bet those errors would be easier to clear up?
I wouldn't be surprised if the Air Force intentionally decided not to enter DV convictions- they're investigating whether it was just him or many people not entered into the system. They're the wingnuttiest of the armed service branches, I'm sure there are some people who think, "Why should his right to a semi-automatic be taken away just because his wife was asking for it?"
One year for fracturing a baby's skull also seems a little on the light side. Let's see how that compares to what Rand Paul's neighbor gets.
78: It's more fucked up that. He had made death threats against superiors.
11: It was so infuriating when the press was calling that incident when Hope Solo got in a fight with a 17-year old nephew at a family gathering "domestic violence" like it was the same kind of thing that football players do. They don't even live together!
I was going to say 78. The Air Force is the worst, I wouldn't be surprised in the least.
Fortunately, it's not like they have nuclear weapons or anything.
80: Wow. If I read the linked story correctly, he didn't just make death threats against his superiors, he was caught in the act of trying to carry them out. I thought the military was a bit more draconian about that sort of thing.
Or had he already been drummed out by the time that happened?
My guess is that parents with $800,000 tracts of land are going to come up somehow.
84: He apparently got a Bad Conduct Discharge, which is not as bad as a DD.
If they issue bad conduct discharges, draft resistors should get them.
Leaving questions of autonomy aside, would continuing to prosecute DV accusations even after a victim recants their statement lead to fewer victims coming forward in the first place, knowing that such a move would be irreversible? I don't know how to weigh that factor against more effective prosecution for the cases where someone does come forward.
88:
Or the person gets charged with filing a false police report.
I think Ajay is right about the right to beat children being the thing that Christian conservatives are most concerned to protect. And it is a position that makes sense: if you want an authoritarian society, you need to accustom its members to brutal, humiliating violence against inferiors from an early age. But since they don't like to put it like that, they get into glibertarian tangles about the state interfering in the family.
AIMHMHB I once did a radio interview with a lawyer who works for the tireless, if tiny Religious Right group Chri\stian Conc\ern here and he claimed that the crackdown on DV was the state destroying the family, the basis of society, although, of course, he didn't hold with serious wife-battering. But when I asked him just how hard it was permissible and Godly to beat your wife, he got all shifty and evasive.
It probably depends on how drunk you are.
73: Personality disorder plus unwillingness to see how expensive two households can be is what made my child support negotiations so ridiculous.
75: I know someone in prison who was a big hunter. Bows and Arrows are still allowed as an option.
Thanks for the tip! That may come in handy some day.
Is there really any statistical evidence to support the notion that hunting is strongly correlated with DV? I don't see Weinstein as a big hunter. I've never gone hunting myself, but it seems glib to go on this tack san evidence.
I think the point was that hunting correlates with gun ownership.
96: I don't think anyone was suggesting that. The suggestion was that looking for individuals with DV convictions in the hunting license database would be a viable way of identifying (some) people who were illegally possessing firearms (there being no firearms ownership database in many/most states).
Though it was based on a misreading, 96 raises an interesting question. There probably is some correlation (though I'd be doubtful about a causal link), given that hunting is, I'm guessing here, mainly a rural pastime, and DV is far more common in rural areas than in cities.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3216064/
Conan Doyle fans would recognise this as the Copper Beeches effect:
Holmes shook his head gravely.
"Do you know, Watson," said he, "that it is one of the curses of a mind with a turn like mine that I must look at everything with reference to my own special subject. You look at these scattered houses, and you are impressed by their beauty. I look at them, and the only thought which comes to me is a feeling of their isolation and of the impunity with which crime may be committed there."
"Good heavens!" I cried. "Who would associate crime with these dear old homesteads?"
"They always fill me with a certain horror. It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside."
"You horrify me!"
"But the reason is very obvious. The pressure of public opinion can do in the town what the law cannot accomplish. There is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured child, or the thud of a drunkard's blow, does not beget sympathy and indignation among the neighbours, and then the whole machinery of justice is ever so close that a word of complaint can set it going, and there is but a step between the crime and the dock. But look at these lonely houses, each in its own fields, filled for the most part with poor ignorant folk who know little of the law. Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser..."
The mention of Weinstein, meanwhile, is perhaps the result of mental confusion. Weinstein didn't abuse his spouse or children as far as I know.
91. With a stick no thicker than your thumb.
91. With a stick no thicker than your thumb.
No idea why that posted twice. Only hit Post once.
105 to 101. ChrisY's browser is clearly a lost cause.
97, 98: fair enough.
101: is there such a thing as NON-mental confusion?
I don't remember why the nipples were confused.
109: They didn't know what they were doing on a man?
108: I contend that nipple confusion doesn't exist without mentality, because the baby is mentally confused when he or she applies the technique that works for a bottle but doesn't get the expected result. This confusion often leads to frustration.
I don't remember why the nipples were confused.
calm ur tit
I thought it meant that the nipple was confused because where did this baby come from and do I even know him.
