Hitting A Woman?

[jimbob]

I do not that is thinking things through. Where would be be as a society if everyone thought this way? Martin Luther King did not think this way and I think his sacrifice was worth it, even for his kids sake.

He was campaigning publicly against discrimination. Completely different to a private individual being attacked by her partner in the anonymity of their home.

Is there a corollary of Goodwin's law when people invoke Gandhi or Martin Luther King in a spurious case?

We are talking about a very unlikely event anyway, if you give people love and understanding, it will be one in several hundred million that you will find yourself cornered where you will have to hit someone.

This has been covered before, but why are you so hung up on killing? People have the right to not be assaulted. Why should they have to try to put up with that for any reason?

It is a spurious argument, but what are the odds of being injured by someone if they repeatedly punch you?

So you have a choice. There are better odds of you dying in a car wreck. Think of it this way. Go out as a martyr for the sake of peace when people will rally in support of your daughter or survive and maybe die the next day in a car wreck such that noone will care.

That is possibly the most crass statement I have seen on this forum, and there have been some contenders. WTF should someone die for an imagined moral victory, and how would being orphaned* help the daughter? ETA: How does a rally help the daughter - even if it should happen.


*Several choices:

Father is arrested for murder, and put away for a long time, not technically an orphan but no parent available.

Father is arrested for murder, and executed; an orphan

Father gets away with it, and then starts to abuse the daughter who has nobody to protect her.

ETA: Father doesn't kill mother, and continues to injure her, and nothing changes, except that the daughter keeps seeing her father attacking her mother and probably her too.

 

[Cainkane1]

Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.

I smacked my ex wife with a divorce after she told me she hated my G-----n family and that I had taken her away from the man she really loved and that she was only with me to live off of me. Does that count?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I smacked my ex wife with a divorce after she told me she hated my G-----n family and that I had taken her away from the man she really loved and that she was only with me to live off of me. Does that count?

Hmmm, delicate issue. I guess it would depend on an infinite number of variables. Like, it wouldn't be the same if you had smacked her but not too hard, as opposed as actually smacking her so hard that she falls to the ground. Also, if you were much much bigger and stronger than her, it would probably not be alright.

 

[gentlehorse]

Hmmm, delicate issue. I guess it would depend on an infinite number of variables. Like, it wouldn't be the same if you had smacked her but not too hard, as opposed as actually smacking her so hard that she falls to the ground. Also, if you were much much bigger and stronger than her, it would probably not be alright.

Read again:

I smacked my ex wife with a divorce after she told me she hated my G-----n family and that I had taken her away from the man she really loved and that she was only with me to live off of me. Does that count?

Bold mine--

 

[jadey]

I smacked my ex wife with a divorce after she told me she hated my G-----n family and that I had taken her away from the man she really loved and that she was only with me to live off of me. Does that count?

That depends on the thickness of the divorce. Are we talking Sunday Washington Post, or maybe wednesday edition. Did you rub her nose in it while smacking her on the behind, or smack her on the nose. You really haven't provided enough detail for us to judge.

FYI. That is one nasty avatar.

 

[qayak]

Excuse me, but I believe that Martin Luther King ... apart from being very well known globally when he died, was actually shot by someone from a bit of a distance ..... so, not exactly comparable with having been beaten to death by his partner 'for the good of the cause', is it?

I'll ask you again, how many people can you name who were beaten to death and in the process martyred by their partner, so that all the rest of us can be more aware of the disgrace of domestic abuse?


People would have rallied around my daughter, yes. And the chances are that on at least one of the occasions my ex tried to kill me that it could have been ruled an accident, and on aother possibly suicide. In any case I kept my abuse secret from everyone, so he would then have had custody of my daughter. Yeah .... you're real smart on thinking these things through.

So ... let's review your logic. I should have let him kill me, so that I would be martyred for the cause of raising awareness of domestic abuse .... except that no one would ever have heard of me, or cared, or said anything other than 'she must have deserved it' or 'she was an idiot to stay' .... or alternatively I should have let him kill me just in case I would have been killed by a car the next day instead. hmmm.... funny that I am still alive here now (no car got me either), and I feel I can do much more for 'the cause' by raising awareness as a survivor . Oh - and I can also ensure my daughter is raised safely.

I think this is a little dishonest. You are dribbling out the details when they suit your purpose and then claiming people are stupid because they didn't know them.

I also think Bill Thompson is way out beyond Planet X.

 

[jimbob]

I think this is a little dishonest. You are dribbling out the details when they suit your purpose and then claiming people are stupid because they didn't know them.

I also think Bill Thompson is way out beyond Planet X.

Agreed with the highlighted part,

Anyway here is Chillzero's first post in this thread: The salient points seem pretty obvious in her first post.

Sure. Hi. I'm chillzero, and I'm a survivor of spousal abuse.



Well, here's the thing.
One man's abuse is another man's difficult, bitch of a wife who dares to 'put her hands' on him.

My ex would agree with you completely that he had been hitting me, and not just some random woman. His point would be that in his opinion I behaved in such a manner that I drove him to the point of fury so much that there was no choice for him but to punch me ... kick me in the back and stomach ... drag me around by my hair ... hold me to the wall by my throat ....

He'd even say that I had instigated it, and I will agree that yes, indeed, I laid my hand on him first on a few occasions..... and by 'laid my hand on him first' I mean that I placed my hands on his shoulders to try and push him away just a step or two after having him scream and spittle in my face for at least 20 minutes while my back was against a wall and I had nowhere else to retreat to.


Funny ... he thought so too.
On one occasion he thought so so much that he tried to break my fingers because I was trying to use my mobile phone surruptitiously to call for help. I had dared (about an hour beforehand) to try and push past him to get out of the door when he refused to let me leave ... but ... you know ... that's ok - he's just 'defending' himself against a clearly aggressive and angry person... right?

We had been part of a similar discussion to this thread early in our relationship, and I had vocally agreed with many people here that the gender of a person is irrelevant, people should avoid violence, unless personally threatened. I still believe that. However, this one single comment of mine was used again and again and again throughout my marriage to justify the beatings I took when the fact that I disagreed with him would escalate from me disagreeing, to us arguing, to us shouting, to him shouting and screaming while I cowered, to him beating the daylights out of me for being such a difficult bitch to live with - why couldn't I ever just do what I was told?

So, I'm not a perpetual victim. I'll never, ever allow any man to place a finger on me again - he won't even get the chance to try and justify it. I spent many years rebuilding myself, and yes, I still have a way to go, and I have friends who have helped me on the way. I'm not a perpetual victim, and I agree with what slingblade said that to many women, the sign of a man "is to note which men feel no need to "test their manhood" because they know this is a stupid, caveman sort of way to think, and which men seem to think their manhoods are real and need defending."
(I am not so clear on the 'stats' she quoted, just to be clear.)

 

[qayak]

Agreed with the highlighted part,

Anyway here is Chillzero's first post in this thread: The salient points seem pretty obvious in her first post.

Yes, I read that but this is new:

And the chances are that on at least one of the occasions my ex tried to kill me that it could have been ruled an accident, and on aother possibly suicide.

I am only bringing this up because it introduces something completely new into the discussion . . . actually several things. We have now stepped from beatings into the realm of attempted murder and premeditated murder. This changes the discussion completely because it escalates the violence to where lethal force would be unquestionably justified by Chillzero.

Not that I would be likely to argue against the use of lethal force at the point Chillzero was already at but, this does change the whole landscape of the discussion.

 

[chillzero]

qayak, I was not introducing those pieces of information to add anything new to the discussion or steer it elsewhere, or to justify anything. I was responding to the absolute stupidity of the comments that I should have let me husband kill me, because then people would support my daughter, I'd be a martyr, andalso because someone killed Martin Luther King.

I was not making any case for or against the use of lethal force. It is simply fact that had I been idiotic enough to allow my husband to kill me, then I wouldn't be a martyr because it may not have been obvious that I was killed through domestic violence. Regardless ... the fact that hundreds of people die through domestic violence every year and Bill Thomson can't name one of them but for some completely bizarre reason harps on about Marting Luther King instead, speaks volumes against his claim that it is better for a person to die and become a martyr at the hands of their partner, than to do what I did and try to survive.


(ETA: There was nothing premeditated in my case, by the way - we are talking about heat of passion and fury going too far. I particularly remember one occasion that I mention above because my husband sneered about it in a later fight. I'm not going into more detail than that, and I did not intend to derail the discussion in that direction.)

 

[gentlehorse]

qayak, I was not introducing those pieces of information to add anything new to the discussion or steer it elsewhere, or to justify anything. I was responding to the absolute stupidity of the comments that I should have let me husband kill me, because then people would support my daughter, I'd be a martyr, andalso because someone killed Martin Luther King.

I was not making any case for or against the use of lethal force. It is simply fact that had I been idiotic enough to allow my husband to kill me, then I wouldn't be a martyr because it may not have been obvious that I was killed through domestic violence. Regardless ... the fact that hundreds of people die through domestic violence every year and Bill Thomson can't name one of them but for some completely bizarre reason harps on about Marting Luther King instead, speaks volumes against his claim that it is better for a person to die and become a martyr at the hands of their partner, than to do what I did and try to survive.


(ETA: There was nothing premeditated in my case, by the way - we are talking about heat of passion and fury going too far. I particularly remember one occasion that I mention above because my husband sneered about it in a later fight. I'm not going into more detail than that, and I did not intend to derail the discussion in that direction.)

Chill,

FWIW, I appreciate the fact that you're willing to share you personal experiences with us. Thank you. I also appreciate the fact that folks don't have to tread lightly around the topic in an effort to keep from offending you. Seriously. Thank you again.

 

[qayak]

Chill,

FWIW, I appreciate the fact that you're willing to share you personal experiences with us. Thank you. I also appreciate the fact that folks don't have to tread lightly around the topic in an effort to keep from offending you. Seriously. Thank you again.

Seconded

 

[qayak]

qayak, I was not introducing those pieces of information to add anything new to the discussion or steer it elsewhere, or to justify anything. I was responding to the absolute stupidity of the comments that I should have let me husband kill me, because then people would support my daughter, I'd be a martyr, andalso because someone killed Martin Luther King.

I was not making any case for or against the use of lethal force. It is simply fact that had I been idiotic enough to allow my husband to kill me, then I wouldn't be a martyr because it may not have been obvious that I was killed through domestic violence. Regardless ... the fact that hundreds of people die through domestic violence every year and Bill Thomson can't name one of them but for some completely bizarre reason harps on about Marting Luther King instead, speaks volumes against his claim that it is better for a person to die and become a martyr at the hands of their partner, than to do what I did and try to survive.

I agree with your points completely. I think it is especially important for Bill Thompson to consider that the number of martyrs for a cause is infinitesimal compared to the number who suffered and died for the same cause.

(ETA: There was nothing premeditated in my case, by the way - we are talking about heat of passion and fury going too far. I particularly remember one occasion that I mention above because my husband sneered about it in a later fight. I'm not going into more detail than that, and I did not intend to derail the discussion in that direction.)

I meant premeditated on the part of your ex. The fact that on two occasions he could have made your death look like an accident or a suicide, which takes some forethought or was that just your thoughts when thinking back on the subject?

And just to clear things up:

. . . by raising awareness as a survivor.

My Perpetual Victim comment had nothing to do with bad things happening to people. It had to do with a particular outlook on life. Anyone who successfully defends themself in any situation is a survivor and no one can call into question how they did it, or sit back in their armchair and give sage advice on what that person "should" have done. The fact that a person survives means they did everything right.

That said, I am very glad you survived the abuse. I am also glad that you seem to have a very positive outlook on life.

 

[chillzero]

Chill,

FWIW, I appreciate the fact that you're willing to share you personal experiences with us. Thank you. I also appreciate the fact that folks don't have to tread lightly around the topic in an effort to keep from offending you. Seriously. Thank you again.

Seconded

Thank you.

I agree with your points completely. I think it is especially important for Bill Thompson to consider that the number of martyrs for a cause is infinitesimal compared to the number who suffered and died for the same cause.

Absolutely.

I meant premeditated on the part of your ex. The fact that on two occasions he could have made your death look like an accident or a suicide, which takes some forethought or was that just your thoughts when thinking back on the subject?

No, it is a matter of hindsight. See my (ETA) ...

And just to clear things up:

My Perpetual Victim comment had nothing to do with bad things happening to people. It had to do with a particular outlook on life.

I still think it was out of line, given that they were direccted at someone who also spoke up about the fact she was abused. However, I asked you both to drop it to prevent further derail, and so I intend to do so too.

Anyone who successfully defends themself in any situation is a survivor and no one can call into question how they did it, or sit back in their armchair and give sage advice on what that person "should" have done. The fact that a person survives means they did everything right.

That said, I am very glad you survived the abuse. I am also glad that you seem to have a very positive outlook on life.

Well, it's not always the case that I come across as positive, and some people close to me are still paying the price for some of the insecurities and self doubts that ome after such a difficult relationship. I recently started a relationship with brodski, and I've gotta tell you - that guy has the patience of a saint and I love him for it.

Some scars from violent relationships never show on the outside, not until you get really close to a person, and they can be so much more damaging than broken ribs, black eyes, perforated eardrums, and so on. When a person sets themself above you and convinces you that you deserve to be mistreated and abused, that you are not worth anybody's time, care and attention, that you bring pain and sadness with you wherever you go, that you are always in the wrong - that stuff is hard to deal with.

The violence in these sorts of relationships is usually secondary to the actual mental damage that gets done, and even the toughest seeming survivors can struggle to ever be 'themself' afterward. However, I must apologise again for dragging the disussion a little more off to the side than intended. The OP wasn't about violent relationships or domestic violence, but about whether or not people consider there to be justifiable circumstances under which they would commit violence against a person, and I have to say some of the responses have been .... enlightening.

 

[slingblade]

I also appreciate the fact that folks don't have to tread lightly around the topic in an effort to keep from offending you. Seriously.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I had a question on a related topic, but I'm not sure it's close enough to go in here.

 

[chillzero]

I had a question on a related topic, but I'm not sure it's close enough to go in here.

well, if you start a new thread on it, please link us up.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Did you actually read Chilzero's story?

This story shows that in the UK about 70 women and 30 men were killed by their partner in a year.


Hardly hundreds of millions to one against.

What are the odds of someone being hurt by a partner if the partner has already assaulted them before?

That would be more relevant to Chilzero's case.

The problem, I think, is the fact that people stay with their abusive mates as the abuse escalates.

The problem is not the hitting. The problem is in the staying.

Abused wives often do not have a place to go.

It is a big societal problem. Hitting back, though, is not the answer.

 

[arthwollipot]

The problem is not the hitting. The problem is in the staying.

No, I think you'll find that the problem is the hitting.

 

[chillzero]

The problem is not the hitting. The problem is in the staying.

So ... Bill .... come up with a list of martyrs for this cause, while you were gone from the thread?


...or ... is it now your contention that they deserve it for staying .... or for fighting back in order to survive?

 

[Eddie Dane]

I will hit in self-defence and I'll spank on request.

That's about it.