Maybe; this woman was found to be lying and that is why the judge seemed very harsh.

Maybe the judge is an asshole.

Who knows. I think it's a little of both.

'Funny how the question is always "why doesn't she just leave?" instead of "why doesn't he just stop being abusive?".

TLS, you're almost certainly a troll, but I can't resist.

" While Pockele dismissed the charges, the transcript suggests he seemed to believe White was threatened and pushed down hard enough to leave large, hand-print bruises on both arms."

That's also beside the point- if he doesn't believe her, he dismisses the charges. That is a reasonable judicial decision.

To pretend that women can simply walk away from their abusers shows incredible ignorance and sexism. Abusers are most likely to kill their victims AFTER the victims leave the abusive situations.

"TLS, you're almost certainly a troll, but I can't resist."

The conversation has ENDED. You are not worth my attention.

Every time I read something like this, it makes me want to go to law school and work my way up to becoming a judge, just so there's one less a-hole like Justice Pockele making such ludicrous decisions.

It's particularly disturbing that he would tell the victim not to call the police if it happened again. Can you imagine someone whose home was broken into being told not to call the police if it happened again? Or carjacked? Domestic violence isn't just something to be "worked out." It's a system of power and control that can escalate to murder. And in this day and age, thank Godde, IT'S A CRIME.

TLS-Out of curiosity, what leads you to believe the victim is lying? I can't find anything in the article that suggests that, and it sounds like the police and her local DV advocate believe her. The threats and violence mentioned in this article are nothing far out.

"TLS-Out of curiosity, what leads you to believe the victim is lying? "

Just the way the judge seemed really harsh. It leads me to believe she was lying. I'm sure the judge has greater insight on the issue than the article does.

Fuck off, TLS. No one was looking for your attention.

I will never understand how judges like this get away with such willful ignorance of the challenges facing victims of DV. I mean, they must, more than most people, be faced with the reality of these victims' lives.

Looks like the judge believed it was very probable she was telling the truth but thought it was a preventable problem so he shouldn't be dealing with it. Wow. It's amazing how something so close to home (1.5h away) affects me so. I hope something comes of her reporting the judge. I'm so glad she did that and this got news coverage.

johanna in dairyland:

Some of us are already on our path to the bench. We'll make the world a better and more just place. Huzzah!

Destra - thank you. :) Good judges on the bench can save lives, and kudos to you for taking that path.

I think it is time to send copies of It Could Happen To Anyone: Why Battered Women Stay (second ed) by LaViolette and Barnett for general reading to the judge's office. Great to see more courts participate in institutional battery.

I was required to take Gender and Law classes as a BASIC precursor to legal studies in school before I changed majors. Someone needs some continuing education and a censure.

"Just the way the judge seemed really harsh. It leads me to believe she was lying. I'm sure the judge has greater insight on the issue than the article does."

You have GOT to be joking, TS. Way to victim blame AND TROLL.

TLS, I thought you made an interesting point.

I agree with others that the judge is a douchebag for telling the defendent not to come back.

BUT

none of us is in a position to assume that the defendent was lying OR THAT SHE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH.

We were not at the trial. We have not read the transcript. All we have are a very few, obviously cherry-picked, quotes from the judge, and there is a LOT of information missing in the article. And, you'll notice that the judge states that while the woman's story was slightly more believable than the man's, he does not seem particularly impressed with either of their stories, and he states that he does not have enough evidence to press charges.

So yeah, the judge was way out of line when he told them not to return to court. But why this reaction to TLS's comment? Why are we making assumptions that the defendent was telling the truth, and how is that any better than assuming the opposite, when we don't have the facts?

Isn't it possible that the judge enjoys making inappropriate snarky comments (which he should be punished for, no argument here) after the fact, but that his opinion of the suppsed crime during the trial may be a little more insightful than our judgments based on a fluffly news article?

This judge is a total hypocrite.

Basically, he's acting as if he believes that she was assaulted, but that it was her fault. He told her to not "go back to her ex-partner" because if she does, something like this could happen again (and she shouldn't call the police to have them clean up another one of "her" messes).

Then he dismisses charges.

He's letting on he believed it happened (telling her to call police if she goes back), but then indicated it shouldn't have happened because she should have known better or something and left her partner before he abused her.

This judge is either an idiot or a complete hypocrite.

Yeah, not that anyone here is responsible for hand-holding people through such basics as 'yes, in fact, courts DO re-victimise women', but:

Shouldn't the fact that the judge dismissed the charges make the point that he doesn't take domestic violence seriously? If he really just didn't want to see these two particular people back together again, well, that in itself should not stop him from passing sentence on someone who he admits in all likelihood did commit the crime.

Instead, he dismisses the charges, proving he thinks even when the evidence is clear that DV has occurred, it really 'belongs behind closed doors'.

And if you can't see the victim-blaming here (women 'get themselves' beaten by their partners, just like they 'get themselves' pregnant or raped or whatever), then you are just not trying.

What the hell is happening to my so-called liberal province of Ontario? This comes less than a year after Wayne Ryczak received a day for killing Stephine Beck. It seems as though the judicial system is declaring war on the most vulnerable women. I believe some sort of judicial review is in order. If the law cannot protect the most vulnerable what is the point of the law?

Oh, and while I can't speak for anyone else, my response to TLS was due to the seething contempt he* showed Katie after she merely gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was not a troll and took the trouble to engage him and explain to him.

He made her point pretty well though; he certainly was not here to discuss, just to sniff around and pee on things.

* Just a guess.

Valerie-

Don't know if you're responding to me or not. But my point was that it's NOT clear that he thinks the evidence points to DV. Yes, the way the article frames it it sort of fuzzily points that way. But the quotes that were carefully picked from the judge could be taken many different ways, *depending on what else happened at the trial, and what else he said before/after that*. All I'm saying is, I would need to learn more about what happened at the trial before I decide that injustice has definitely happened.

The judge probably found out she was lying like she had in the past and did not want her wasting anymore of the court's time or the taxpayer's money.

And the judge is right, we are not weak and disadvantaged anymore and it's high time that women leave if they don't like the situation, instead of trying to be vengeful and deceitful.

Many woman lie and claim to be battered and can't leave, but the reality is that a lot of these women simply don't want to have to go out and support themselves, instead they live off of the man and use "battered woman's syndrome" as an excuse so they can stick around long enough to have the man arrested, kicked out and issued a restraining order, and then they can get the house.

I suspect that is what the woman here was trying to do and the judge rightly saw through it, good for him

stana, you clearly love to victim blame, along with TS. get your head out of your ass.

You trolls make me sick.

As a law student in the province of Ontario who has worked in victim support for the Ministry of the Attorney General's Office I find this story absolutely horrific and yet unfortunately the reality of what women in this province face when dealing with domestic violence. The point is not the verdict or reality of this specific case but the sentiments expressed by the judge when delivering the verdict. This is the true injustice as it extends beyond the two people involved in this case and spreads to all women who are facing domestic violence and chose to not press charges or pursue legal action. I wish I could say that this case is an anomaly but I have studied, read and sat in on trials, hearings and verdicts that show that this is not an isolated incident.

But my point was that it's NOT clear that he thinks the evidence points to DV.

It’s only unclear if your reading skill are impaired. The judge flat out says it was her own fault she was abused, she should have left him, and she will get no protection if she is abused again. He obviously didn’t have a problem with the charges, he had a problem with the victim.

I suspect that is what the woman here was trying to do and the judge rightly saw through it, good for him

Yes? Hmmm…well, I suspect you are a sexist, misogynistic, unhappy, bitter, MRA, asshole of a troll trying to stir up shit at a feminist website. What do you bet I’m closer to the truth than you?

Oh, gah ... does anyone have a link to the detrolling protocol?

But it's so easy to get feminists worked up! All you have to do is toss off one comment that takes you thirty seconds, and they work themselves into days-long rage over it.

So. Funny.

I mean seriously, how do you hypersensitive girls make it through the day?

Shelby, that's what you read in the article about the trial. A short, opinionated piece designed to draw attention and be interesting.

If the impression you just wrote came from the trial itself (i.e. the verbatim transcript) then I would fully agree with you.

But it didn't come from the trial, it came from the journalist, and the journalist left a lot of information out.

Marilove- the above point is why I'm withholding judgment on ANY OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED. I'm not assuming that anyone is lying or that anyone is telling the truth. How is that victim blaming? Where did I ever say that it's the defendent's fault? Or that she was probably lying? I'm inclined to believe that the woman is telling the truth and the man should rot in jail, but because I wasn't at the trial I don't know what I'm talking about. So I'm not assuming that my hunch about the woman's victimhood is definitely true. Again, how is that victim blaming, to say that I don't know 100% what really happened, because I wasn't there?

And no, my opinion does not exist solely to piss you off. I actually feel this way, and it's important enough to me that I post about it. It's really insulting to be dismissed as a troll when I am trying hard to sort out conflicting ideas in my head.

Courtesy of JKayOh – who swore it was the last time on another post, but it’s just so appropriate

Ode to trolls: (In the spirit of Dr. Suess)

Oh Troll, Oh Troll
Why are you so sad?
Do you need the attention
that you may never have had?
The net is so big!

Thousands of places to choose
Why settle on one
That opposes your views?

We berate you!
We fight you!
Such angst and derision…
Dear troll, are you engaging in…
…Troll masochism?

Go be with your own,
Run off and play
Stop sitting and stewing
In Mom’s basement all day.

And we must all remember
To focus on our goals
Although it’s so tempting
Stop feeding the trolls!

Did I miss something? Where is the reason to believe the judge thought she was lying? If he thought she wasn't being beaten, he wouldn't have given her a lecture about why she should have left.

NatashaK - Thank you for clarifying the problem. It is the sentiments behind the decision about the status quo and the judge's worldview that are deplorable. It is great to have the perspective of someone who is familiar with the legal environment in the province.

The trolling is just drivel. Obviously there is little framing behind the philippic posts and minimal knowledge about the research relating to the criminal institution and women in western culture.

So when someone makes a comment that you guys disagree with, you call them a troll. Maybe you are scared of someone that challenges you views.

And by the way, there may be a few times here and there where woman's rights are not at the forefront of politics, laws, judicial decisions, law enforcement, media etc..., but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of the time, cops tend to take the woman's word over the man's and you guys know it.

I think that this one time, it didn't work for this woman and a lot of you are angry about that.

Yes folks, don't feed the trolls, it makes them feel legitimized.

The idea that any judge...or any person, but especially a judge--could declare that in the event of a further crime, a victim should not seek help is..............beyond disgusting. What kind of country do we live in?

Janetmiddleton and foxdie are clearly trolls. I am honestly trying to engage in a discussion. Did I not say that I think it's deplorable that the judge told her not to come back? It would really help me out to retain my faith in feminism if y'all would give my opinions a teeny modicum of respect instead of just telling me to get my head out of my ass. Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to see where you all are coming from, but I have to ask questions if I want to understand it, and when you WILL NOT ANSWER THEM but just insult me, that doesn't help me to gain perspective. Too bad for you I'm not going anywhere, because I still learn a lot from this site. Just, I could learn a lot more if people would be more helpful...

Okay, I know everybody seems to be distracted by the trolling situation, but I have a question that is actually somewhat related to the issue at hand...

Katie, I have often heard that of all victims of murder in the context of an abusive domestic relationship, the majority occur while or after the victim was attempting to leave. Is this the statistic you were referring to?

I sometimes see people use this statistic to imply that leaving an abusive relationship is more dangerous than staying. Lacking any information regarding the rates at which women attempt to leave abusers, the typical length of time passed before they do so, and the number of women killed period, that is not really what this statistic means. It is really easy to misinterpret statistics like this, and I hate to see twisted facts used to discourage women who might otherwise leave abusive partners.

To be clear, I am not accusing you of misrepresenting anything. I am just very curious about the origin of this. If this is not the fact you are quoting, could you please point me towards where you first heard it?

Stana –

”Thirty years ago . . . there were all sorts of women in houses where men had beaten them, husbands had beaten them regularly, and they could not get out," the court transcript shows Pockele said.

"They did not have jobs to go to and they had kids, and they were trapped. There was no way to stand up and get out, and we were trying to help the weak and the disadvantaged, but modern women are not weak and disadvantaged . . ."

That is directly from the court transcript. It’s not an “impression” I got from the piece, but a direct quote of the judge. Now, please do tell why he would bother to berate the woman for not leaving an abusive relationship if he thought she was lying? If there wasn’t enough evidence against the defendant, why bother with lecturing her on how she should have left and she shouldn’t ask for help if it happens again?

You are coming across as victim-blaming because, despite the obvious fact that the judge dismissed the charges because he thought the victim was to blame, you keep claiming it’s possible she lied. But, we are talking about how the judge here, not the victim. And, the judge never once claimed he was dismissing the charges for anything other than the fact that he blames the victim.

Okay, while foxdie and janetmiddleton aren't even pretending not to be trolls, stana is... making an effort, I suppose.

To answer:

Stana: I don't know if you have noticed this, but Feministing? Is a feminist blog. As such, it tends to be populated by- wait for it- feminists. (And trolls, but that's another comment.)

And while I applaud your efforts to better inform yourself- if they are honest, which I honestly have my doubts about- it is not the responsibility of the Feministing community to handhold you through a primer on the history of DV or the incredible injustices faced by women seeking to find a way out of the vicious cycle.

I would suggest reading up on it, and when you have a basic idea, come back with informed questions. Because tossing out 'oh, well, maybe she IS lying!' and then not understanding why people call troll and are offended points to either straight up ignorance- which can be remedied through research and an open mind- or that you are, indeed, a troll.

It would really help me out to retain my faith in feminism if y'all would give my opinions a teeny modicum of respect instead of just telling me to get my head out of my ass.

Just to be clear, stana, it isn't our responsibility to maintian your faith in feminism. If your head is in your ass, we are going to tell you about it - we (or at least, most of us) don't hand-hold on this site.

Just to be clear, stana, it isn't our responsibility to maintian your faith in feminism. If your head is in your ass, we are going to tell you about it - we (or at least, most of us) don't hand-hold on this site.

Word, Shelby.

Also, for any commenters worried about troll-age; I tossed an email at our lovely Mod Squad about this thread- and hell, I doubt I was the first to do so- so hopefully we can get back on track. :D

mamram- I'm a law student taking coursework in DV and I work at a domestic violence organization- Katie's right. Women face the highest chance of death when leaving an abusive partner- because the batterer is trying to regain control over the woman. A google search will lead you to dozens of studies. Here's one I found:

"Women who leave their batterers are at 75% greater risk of severe injury or death than those who stay." Source: Barbara Hart, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 1988.

This doesn't mean women should stay in DV realtionships, it just means that leaving is VERY dangerous, and requires TONS of resources and safety planning. If a person who wants to kill you shares a child with you and knows all of your personal information- where you work, your SS#, where all your fmaily members live, where your child goes to school... it's really hard to stay safe. Which is why it is so infuriating that the judge would tell this woman she could "just leave". If only it was that easy.

As a strong believer in the intersection of race, class and gender when dealing with discrimination and in an attempt to shift the conversation away the troll-tango towards some more substantive discussion, I thought I would add some more food for thought.

Judge Pockele is also known for his involvement in the infamous Ipperwash crisis, particularly his comments on death of Dudley George, an Ojibwa who was killed during an altercation with the Ontario Provincial Police.

The independent inquiry following Ipperwash ruled that the OPP, the government of former Ontario premier Mike Harris and the federal government all bear responsibility for events that led to the death of Dudley George.

This directly contradicts Pockele's statements that the Natives were "extremely dangerous, violent and assaultive" and that the native protesters were the "cause of all violence and injuries."

For those who are interested, I have included some links below.

http://www.albionmonitor.com/free3/ipperwash3.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ipperwash/
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/index.html
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR20/003/2003/en

Wow, NatashaK, that judge is a real piece of work. It's just distrubing that there are people like him in positions of authority (and more than a little deflating).

mamram- I do not want to speak for Katie since I couldn't know what she was referencing to, but there are several studies in the late 90s that show that women who recently separated from their abusers were victimized (non fatal and fatal) about 25 times more than married women ( Journal of Interpersonal Violence (/i>, 1998)

Of course this has changed in the last decade, but I am not sure the attitude of the courts has progressed very far.

I think that it speaks more to the types of legal ramifications and protections women get while in the transitioning period. DV is so multidimensional in the leaving process and I do not think that the court system helps make the situation any easier.

“It's just distrubing that there are people like him in positions of authority…”

Uh, yeah, that would be “disturbing”
I cun spehl, I sware!

Hey, I really appreciate your acknowledgement.

Shelby- in response to the quoted section: Yeah I read that too. But when I read it, I thought that sounded like something that a judge would say if he doubted someone's story, like, well obviously you're not REALLY being battered because you're a modern woman and modern women don't get battered. Which sucks A LOT that he would think that!! But it *is* a separate issue from him telling her not to come back even though he believes her. See what I'm saying? Not disputing that the judge needs to be kicked out pronto. But I think there are nuances here, that are being glossed over a teeny bit. And, that the scenario I just suggested is definitely not the only possibility.

Sarah- Of course it's not your respnsibility to teach me about feminism. But here's my beef:

1)You assume that I don't know anything about domestic violence because I'm questioning the *journalism* in this one instance. My mother was a victim of crushing domestic abuse. Trust me, I take it seriously, and I do a lot of reading up on the topic. Please don't assume what I know or don't know just because I disagree with you.

2)I don't expect anyone to give me a feminism 101 lecture. (Took it in college, thanks) But when I come to someone with specific questions, I do appreciate when they're addressed, and not immediately dismissed because I smell "trolly". So thank you (really!) for making the effort to have a discussion with me. I know people like me annoy you, and I do appreciate it.

But it *is* a separate issue from him telling her not to come back even though he believes her. See what I'm saying?

No, not really. He berated her for not leaving an abusive situation and told her not to ask for help if it happens again because he thought she was lying? That's more than nuances, it's a huge leap in logic.

Ok, if he thought she was lying (which I'm not assuming, we're just playing what-ifs) he wouldn't be berating her for not leaving, he would be "calling her bluff" trying to prove that obviously she wasn't battered because if she was she would have left. And he would be telling her not to come back because he thought she would be lying again. I'm not saying it happened that way and not your way. I'm saying we don't know which way it happened because the news article doesn't give enough info for us to know one way or the other.

Which is why I questioned everyone's taking for granted that the judge believed her. I think it's plausible that he believed her, and I also think it's plausible that he didn't believe her.

Either way the judge has no business in the courtroom, I just think it should be up for discussion whether he believed her or not, rather assumed that he did.

For the doubtful out there- this is tacked onto the bottom of the article:

JUDGE'S COMMENTS

Other excerpts from Justice Pockele's June 23 decision:

To the accused: "As I listen to the evidence, she has told me something that is a little more believable than yours, but I have to decide that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Probably. You are an extremely jealous individual. She has got some bruises on her arms . . . I am not going to decide the case on that basis."

To the woman and man: "I want you to know I do not disbelieve either one of you, but do not ever come back into a court in this province with a problem if the two of you go back and live with each other again. Do not come back here. I am telling you right now you have to take care of your own stuff. Do not bring it into a criminal court. Do not be calling the police to mop it up."

This is an incredibly important discussion and I'm glad to see that it's being had on here. In my opinion a very important piece is often forgotten during discussions about domestic violence. No, it is not the victims's fault that the abuse happens. Yes, if the victim returns it is still the fault of the abuser that the abuse happens. However somewhere along the line there is at least an iota of choice involved in returning and it seems that in conversations about this that isn't acknowledged when it's appropriate to do so. Often when it is acknowledged at all people cry 'victim blaming' right from the get go instead of wanting to explore what, if any, place that conversation has in DV situations. No, I am not agreeing with the judge that made the ignorant choice to tell a woman not to call for help if she returned (just to be clear). I'm just trying to say that maybe, just maybe, empowerment of victims might start with the idea that we probably do have a choice. Unfortunately you can't call me ignorant or say that I'm ill informed because I too was in a relationship where I was abused repeatedly and continued to choose to go back. Yeah, I also acknowledge that psychologically I had become wired to continue going back however, I still made a choice. If I never acknowledged that I would have remained a victim.

I agree that the question should be "why doesn't he/she just stop being abusive" rather than the only question being "why doesn't he/she just leave". But I do think it's valuable to focus more attention than is usually given to the complex issues with someone getting out of an abusive situation. And I do think it's valuable to ask both questions instead of just asking "why doesn't he/she just stop being abusive"; especially considering how spiritually/physically/emotionally/socially destructive it is for the abused to remain in an abusive situation.

The judge’s ruling in this case represents an extreme lack of knowledge in relation to the psychological effects of domestic violence. By saying that women today are “not weak and disadvantaged” and that White should have been gone “in a flash,” Justice Gregory Pockele makes clear his ignorance. It is not a simple matter of up and leaving. Women in domestic violence situations are more than just physically broken. Their self-confidence has been shattered by the abuser. They most likely have extremely limited resources or nowhere safe to go after they leave. They have been convinced by their abusers that they are not worthy of love or safety, and that the abuse they are receiving is the result of something they did.

The fact that the focus of the trial shifted from the abuser to the abused is a typical societal response to domestic violence cases. If a woman is abused, many continue to ask what she did to deserve this punishment. With this disgusting mindset, Justice Gregory Pockele dismissed the charges, then had the audacity to go after White for not leaving! Pockele is looking at this whole situation backwards—the issue here isn’t that White stayed with her partner, but that her partner was abusive! Domestic violence is not excusable, and the emphasis should not be put on what women should do to protect themselves, but how we can create a society that refuses to accept perpetrators of domestic violence. Pockele should be nothing less than stripped of his title.

The judge’s ruling in this case represents an extreme lack of knowledge in relation to the psychological effects of domestic violence. By saying that women today are “not weak and disadvantaged” and that White should have been gone “in a flash,” Justice Gregory Pockele makes clear his ignorance. It is not a simple matter of up and leaving. Women in domestic violence situations are more than just physically broken. Their self-confidence has been shattered by the abuser. They most likely have extremely limited resources or nowhere safe to go after they leave. They have been convinced by their abusers that they are not worthy of love or safety, and that the abuse they are receiving is the result of something they did.

The fact that the focus of the trial shifted from the abuser to the abused is a typical societal response to domestic violence cases. If a woman is abused, many continue to ask what she did to deserve this punishment. With this disgusting mindset, Justice Gregory Pockele dismissed the charges, then had the audacity to go after White for not leaving! Pockele is looking at this whole situation backwards—the issue here isn’t that White stayed with her partner, but that her partner was abusive! Domestic violence is not excusable, and the emphasis should not be put on what women should do to protect themselves, but how we can create a society that refuses to accept perpetrators of domestic violence. Pockele should be nothing less than stripped of his title.

he would be "calling her bluff" trying to prove that obviously she wasn't battered because if she was she would have left.

The judge wouldn’t have been “calling her bluff,” he would have been calling the prosecutor’s bluff, since that’s who was taking the defendant to trail. But, this wasn’t a game, it was a criminal trial. She wasn’t suing him or divorcing him or trying to get custody of kids; this was not a civil trial. The man was being tried by the crown attorney (same as a prosecutor in the States) on behalf of the providence or town or whatever area she/he represented. There was obviously enough evidence (not supposition) and facts that this man indeed broke the law that the crown attorney felt they had a case. This woman wasn’t going to win anything if the defendant would have been found guilty. The judge’s job was to listen to testimony and look at the evidence and determine if the defendant was guilty – it isn’t his job to belittle or berate the witness nor teach her a lesson. This was a criminal trial for a man accused of assault (among other things), there was absolutely no call to say what he said to the crown attorney’s witness.

Pockele should be nothing less than stripped of his title.

Here, here!

This makes me sick. I am definitely going to be writing to my MP about this one.

ShelbyWoo @ 6:59PM 10/10

You nailed it! Bravo!

Eco and AlexM, thank you for your responses. That is exactly what I was looking for.

Stana, I don't think you're a troll. Not by a long shot. But, I do think you have a bit of the joyful contrarian about you.

"Which is why I questioned EVERYONE's taking for granted that the judge believed her." [emphasis Okra's]

Your posts emphasize, repeatedly, that you are the lone one out, the voice in the wilderness who is willing to take a step back and see the big picture, where "everyone" else isn't.

Several people have already pointed out that the judge said [praphrase of exact quotes from the court transcript, given above: "you are no longer so weak and disadvantaged in this society that you cannot leave your abuser; you should have left your abuser; and if it happens again in the future, know that you should have left and that the courts should not be receptive to your claim."

Going along with the crowd just because they're the majority is foolish and weak-minded, very true. But it's equally foolish and weak-minded to strenuously rebut the crowd--even when they're in the right-- simply and ONLY because you don't want to be in the majority.

I may have misinterpreted you, and for that I'm sorry. But in the chance I've hit the nail on the head, I hope you'll think about what I've said.

I agree that women are not at as much of a disadvantage as they were in the past. Women just have to get over the fear and get out.

vballcourt -- "Yeah, tough break about being homeless (since the place you lived in belonged to your abuser), jobless (since he made you quit in order to keep a closer eye on you), penniless (since the only money you had was what he gave you every week), with no friends or family who will help you (since he deliberately destroyed your relationships with those people so you would be dependent solely on him); and it sucks that you'll never see your kids again (the ones he purposefully impregnated you with so that you'd be less likely to leave); and that's too bad about how you now live in fear of being murdered/of your children being murdered/of being reported to immigration/of your abuser killing himself, just like he always threatened to do if you ever entertained the slightest notion of leaving him; and it's a real shame how your self-image has been utterly annihilated during your time with this scumbag to an extent that will cripple your ability to function in the outside world... but hey, at least you got out! Sunshine and daisies!"

Is that the sort of pep talk you had in mind for abuse victims? Because if not, you need to go educate yourself about the range of behaviors the word "abuse" encapsulates.

This is a good time.

It's Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

This may be going a bit off topic but it's something I thought of while reading the comments.
There seems to be this damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't thing going on (as so often happens with expectations on women) when it comes to 'getting out of abusive relationships'
I can remember tons of embittered MRA types crying about how 'women are so unfair, she left me, doesn't want anything to do with me, got a restraining order against me. But I didn't do nothin!'
At the same time women are expected to somehow just -know- if their partner is potentially abusive and get out before they ever get hit.

This is one of the reasons I can no longer watch Judge Judy as she has exactly this attitude towards abused women 'you chose him'/'I would never stay in a relationship like that'/'it couldn't have been that bad if you didn't leave'
I just can't watch that show anymore for fear of hearing one of her victim-blaming tirades argh!

OMG!!! Like really??? I think that the judge is absolutely crazy. Do people not realize that to beat the crap out of your spouse is a crime??? Well it is. The judge who told a woman such bull should be barred. And the cops that failed to do anything should be stripped of their badges.

Anyone who asks why a battered woman doesn't "just leave", clearly doesn't understand how or why domestic abuse cycles start and how and why they so easily continue. I wish I could begin to explain it, but it's so friggin' complicated. But sometimes it's a person who needs to dominate in order to feel "good enough". Sometimes it's a person who feels (for a plethora of potential reasons) that they deserve abuse. Maybe one was abused as a child and continues the pattern of violence. Maybe one was abused as a child and accepts that role for life. Maybe there's a guy who thinks it's his job to beat on women. Maybe there's a woman who thinks it's her job to get beaten because she's a woman. Maybe the abuser is FUCKING BAT SHIT CRAZY and the partner is afraid to leave. Maybe the abused is afraid that if s/he leaves, the abuser will kill them. Maybe there are children in the relationship and they abused thinks it's better for the kids to stay rather than break up the family. Maybe the abused literally has nowhere else to go. (Doesn't help if you can't even call the police either, eh?) Maybe they really truly do love each other but they don't know how to stop so they just continue giving/accepting abuse and then apologizing & forgiving because no one ever intervenes.

Any of you trolls ever think about that? Fuckin' christ...

Having witnessed it first-hand as a child, I consider all the victim-blaming comments to be personally offensive. If you haven't been there, or know someone who has, or studied psychology, then you don't know what you're talking about and you should really STFU.

Well said, Danyell.

Now I'm interested what a non-troll doubter of DV would have to say in response.