Change In Definition Of Domestic Violence?

[sholling]

The Daily Caller has an interesting article on the changing definitions of what constitutes domestic violence. I'm all for locking up physical abusers of either sex (experts say it's about 50/50 male on female/female on male) but this is getting silly. How many men are going to lose their rights for being annoying?

Now, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, partner violence also includes “getting annoyed if the victim disagrees” and “withholding information from the victim.” If that doesn’t suffice, “disregarding what the victim wants” also counts as a punishable offense.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/07/yi...#ixzz17Tv25E9V

[RandyD]

As someone who represents people in domestic violence cases, in my experience, women are far more likely to fabricate stories to obtain the temporary restraining order. Many of them are not truly scared. Instead they are only annoyed, irritated and angry that they can't have their way. They abuse the restraining order process.

[CCWFacts]

This is nothing new.

Radical feminists have long had the view that basically any relationship between a man and a woman is violent and coercive:

In the book, she [Andrea Dworkin] argues that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women, and sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission, and "may be immune to reform."

This is from someone described as "one of the most influential writers and spokeswomen of American radical feminism during the late 1970s and the 1980s".

Of course anything that happens in a relationship between a man and a woman is coercive, because women are powerless in a patriarchal society, so they can't do anything by consent. This is why, for radical feminists, the only acceptable relationships are lesbian relationships. Everything else is a man being violent to a woman, even if he's saying, "good morning, dear, can I get you some coffee?"

These aren't just the incoherent, isolated ravings of one insane, but influential, woman (Andrea Dworkin). No, these ideas have quite a bit of resonance:

Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, also sees some value in this loose use of "rape." She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. "To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't care a hoot about him." Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience. "They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions."

Source

Obviously, left-wing academics and radical feminists will see domestic violence as being inherent in male-female relationships. And hey, if it happens to not be present, it still has the potential to be present, and so it's ok to treat an innocent man as if he did it, because he could have! That's not a ranting lunatic saying that, that's an Assistant Dean at a highly regarded Ivy League college. I'm sure she would see "loss of gun rights" as one of the "benefits" of false accusations against men.

This discussion of feminism may seem like a detour from gun rights, but it's very relevant, because they are trying to use it as tool to end gun rights. They already did it by creating a lifetime ban on gun ownership for anyone convicted of DV (and DV is very very broadly defined, including non-violent incidents). They already allow people to be stripped of their rights based on a TRO, which may involve little or no due process or evidence. This is a serious avenue of attack on us.

[Gray Peterson]

Of course anything that happens in a relationship between a man and a woman is coercive, because women are powerless in a patriarchal society, so they can't do anything by consent. This is why, for radical feminists, the only acceptable relationships are lesbian relationships.

You're kidding me, right? You realize that a very large majority of the feminist movement in the late 1960's and the 1970's hated the existence of lesbians and actively pushed them out whenever discovered, right?

Andrea Dworkin doesn't speak for the feminist movement, or even the lesbian feminist movement. She was a lesbian separatist, who believed that women should establish their own homeland (with "land and guns", wowie, there's a 2A vibe for ya).

This idea that the only acceptable relationship to "radical feminists" are only "lesbian relationships" is not true. The "radical feminists", for the most part, hated lesbians.

It also ignores the fact that men are victims of rape too.

[sholling]

It also ignores the fact that men are victims of rape too.

Unfortunately our society looks down on male victims of domestic violence and few officials take reports seriously. I call it the "man-up syndrome". Also most in our society consider adult male on adult male rape and female on male rape to be hysterically funny. Many in fact consider male on male rape to be just part and parcel of a jail sentence.

[NightOwl]

Many in fact consider male on male rape to be just part and parcel of a jail sentence.

This is true. I was quite surprised to find here at Calguns people posting their cheers for someone to receive such. Yet, it always seems to be sympathy for female rape victims (also thinking of prison here).

Interesting double standard.

[vantec08]

As someone who represents people in domestic violence cases, in my experience, women are far more likely to fabricate stories to obtain the temporary restraining order. Many of them are not truly scared. Instead they are only annoyed, irritated and angry that they can't have their way. They abuse the restraining order process.

.. . . . which is why I vehemently disagree with the mandatory booking requirement.

[nicki]

Domestic Viiolence.

The reality is all couples fight and it appears that Domestic Violence laws cause far more problems than just gun rights.

I know two guys who had to go through these anger management workshops and they said it cost them close to 10K.

One of the guys was telling me that the workshops caused divorces, one familiy wound up homeless because of the fees.

Nicki

[Casual_Shooter]

My father joked when I got married that I should memorize two words:

"Yes dear".

Now I'm thinking he wasn't joking.


EDIT: What does the CDC have to do with domestic violence?

[NightOwl]

Why is it we "need" domestic violence laws at all, anyway? What's wrong with the good ol' standbys of Assault, Battery, Attempted Murder, etc etc? Pretty much how I feel about "hate crime" laws too, though.

[anthonyca]

If most men truly understood what can already be charged as domestic violence they would change their mind about calling someone a "wife beater". I have posted jury instructions in the past and I am too lazy to do it again but many people can't believe that they are actually "wife beaters" by definition of the law.

[meinbruder]

Gee Whizzzz, why didn’t they decide this back in 1982? I could have divorced my Ex as an abusive witch within a week of the wedding.

But what do I do about Mom?

The Daily Caller has an interesting article on the changing definitions of what constitutes domestic violence. I'm all for locking up physical abusers of either sex (experts say it's about 50/50 male on female/female on male) but this is getting silly. How many men are going to lose their rights for being annoying?