• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Aus. Expert says men should have mandatory mental assessment after divorces

Sideroxylon said:
Misogynistic jokes on page one of a thread about a woman who was burnt to death with her young kids by her husband.
Click to expand...

Not to be pedantic, but that isn't actually the topic of the thread. It's this proposal for "mandatory mental health checks on all newly divorced or separated men".
 
Puppycow said:
Not to be pedantic, but that isn't actually the topic of the thread. It's this proposal for "mandatory mental health checks on all newly divorced or separated men".
Click to expand...

The fact that Hannah Clarke was horrifically burnt to death along with children Aaliyah, six, Laianah, four, and Trey, three kind of looms large in this story.
 
Sideroxylon said:
The fact that Hannah Clarke was horrifically burnt to death along with children Aaliyah, six, Laianah, four, and Trey, three kind of looms large in this story.
Click to expand...

I concede that you have a point. In post #6 I tried to take the issue seriously and give a thoughtful response. Others chose to make jokes about it.

The problem as I see it is that this was a murder-suicide, and those seem particularly difficult to prevent. A mere restraining order cannot deter a man willing to take his own life in order to get revenge. In cases where the man cares about his own future, and is thinking rationally, it could be an effective deterrent. I just don't think it would have made a difference in this case. The problem is that the justice system didn't respond effectively to earlier crimes by the offender. He kidnapped one of the children late last year.
'He kidnapped (one of the kids) on Boxing Day and took her interstate for four days until the police got her back,' Mrs Clarke said.
Click to expand...

So why didn't the police arrest him at that point? If he was arrested, why was he released? This could have been prevented in other ways if the police and the justice system hadn't released him after earlier. They gave him a restraining order which said he can't come within 20 meters of her, but that obviously didn't prevent him from murdering her and the children.

I agree that more should have been done, just not this idea that treats all men as needing an intervention.
 
Do Domestic Violence Restraining Orders Ever Really Work? (Psychology Today)

Problem One: Restraining orders work really well for good rule followers in general, and for those who fear the consequences of violating the order in particular. Sadly, most dv suspects have already proven they are not good rule followers and don’t always fear the police, arrest, jail, prison, or even death by their own hands or via the police. Someone who says, “If I can’t have you, no one else will,” and means it, is not often deterred by papers, even when they are handed to them through the screen of a patrol car or betwixt the bars at jail.
Click to expand...

So they do work in some cases, but usually only for men who behave at least rationally, and who fear the consequences if they are caught violating the order. It won't work for the man so consumed with rage that he is willing to murder his own children and take his own life so that he can get revenge on his ex-wife. I think the solution needs to be focused on identifying those men before they act, or at an earlier stage of stalking behavior.
 
theprestige said:
Surely you understand that the proposed remedy is misanthropic, and demands a misogynistic reductio ad absurdum for a rebuttal. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose, right?
Click to expand...

If women murdered their ex's at a similar rate to men then you might have a point, however until that point, showing how silly the idea is doesn't need to result in misogyny.
 
Puppycow said:
Do Domestic Violence Restraining Orders Ever Really Work? (Psychology Today)



So they do work in some cases, but usually only for men who behave at least rationally, and who fear the consequences if they are caught violating the order. It won't work for the man so consumed with rage that he is willing to murder his own children and take his own life so that he can get revenge on his ex-wife. I think the solution needs to be focused on identifying those men before they act, or at an earlier stage of stalking behavior.
Click to expand...

This is the issue, people need to face serious consequences for breaking Restraining Orders. Restraining Orders need to be considered a due process court order, break one and you go to jail, you go straight to jail, and you stay there until the Judge decides to let you out. They might still not work on the suicidal killer, but most of them don't get there as a first step. If they get locked up for the first offence of breaking the court order, then it might never get to the point of a murder/suicide.
 
As a divorce attorney, this is absolutely nuts.

First of all, many couples who divorce have actually been separated for some time (even those living in the same house and sharing the same bed). Second of all, it's sexist. Men running away from an alcoholic probably number the same as women leaving a similar substance abuser - the same for adultery. And the sexism doesn't end there. What about homosexual marriages?

Forcing a divorcing couple to seek counseling together, something that's floated about occasionally, will mean putting one spouse in a room with his/her abuser. It will give that abuser one more chance to exploit that power dynamic.

The only time that divorcing spouses should be given mental health counseling, together or independently, is to help them co-parent children - and that's only if the relationship did not involve abuse and if they each agree to it voluntarily. I've seen couples who I absolutely thought would fight to the death over a paperclip come out of such voluntary programs and be respectful and communicative in a way that let them each keep good, strong relationships with their children.

I do agree with the liberal granting of orders of protection including taking away a significant other's firearms and placing an automatic hold if they try to acquire one. Those cases should move swiftly through the justice system so that the spouse under order has a fast lane to have his/her rights restored.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Again this is another one of those articles that could do with a boomer trigger warning. We see them again and again held up as nutty leftwing academic ideas in contrast to a commonsense every man thinking.

What we have in the article are people looking at a terrible tragedy, in the context of a wider domestic violence problem where on average a woman a week in Australia is murdered by a current or former partner, and examining ways to prevent this.
Click to expand...


In 2017 there were 40,032 divorces in Australia (https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/blog/marriage-and-divorce-statistics-australia.html)

This, with my dodgy maths and accepting your 52 women a year statistic above give a rate of just under 0.0013%

Would you consider the inconvenience and the expense worth it at that rate?
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
In 2017 there were 40,032 divorces in Australia (https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/blog/marriage-and-divorce-statistics-australia.html)

This, with my dodgy maths and accepting your 52 women a year statistic above give a rate of just under 0.0013%
Click to expand...

Your math is dodgy. The fraction is 0.0013. The percentage is 0.13%.

Would you consider the inconvenience and the expense worth it at that rate?
Click to expand...

I don't think the fundamental problem with forced counseling is "inconvenience", but no, probably not worth it to my mind.
 
Is this because women don't kill their kids? Or, in this current War on Men, do we just pretend it doesn't happen?

The hypocrisy and double standards are astounding. And because I believe in mens rights, I think every child born in the west should have a paternity test to see who the father REALLY is. Funny how the media doesn't dare bring up what all the DNA/genetic testing companies already know.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Staying with the Latin, tu quoque.
Click to expand...

It's explicitly not a tu quoque. A tu quoque would be absurd. Just like the proposal as such is absurd. It's a bigoted, sexist stereotype, like saying women shouldn't be president because of PMS.

If you see my reductio as absurd and offensive, then you're halfway to understanding why the original serious proposal is also absurd and offensive.
 
PhantomWolf said:
If women murdered their ex's at a similar rate to men then you might have a point, however until that point, showing how silly the idea is doesn't need to result in misogyny.
Click to expand...
It doesn't result in misogyny. It rejects misanthropy on the same grounds that we reject misogyny.

You're basically making the Schroedinger's Rapist argument. Except instead of making it as a guideline for how women should protect themselves around men, you're making it to justify government-mandated medical treatments. Because #notallmenbutwhyriskit
 
Wirelight said:
Is this because women don't kill their kids?
Click to expand...


In the only case in my career where children were murdered, it was the wife who asphyxiated herself with her two children in her car. I had one case where the man murdered the wife (after she let an order of protection expire). I had two where the man committed suicide.

But these were the vast minority of my 17 year caseload.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom