to question a man’s character based on the type of woman he’s married to?

[PostingOnMN]

There are these two women I know personally and I know for a fact they are not nice people. I don’t know their husbands personally but I’m questioning the character of a man who willingly marries someone who is rude/mean to people for no reason at all. Like what kind of man are you? Not just that on social media they (the women I know) post endless social justice-y stuff that I know in real life they don’t actually live according to.

I've already been clear enough. I know (and think you do too) the difference between "can" (literal ability) and "can" ( more to circumstances preventing you from doing it) based on the context. Didn't think I'll need to divide the word further. I know family members who've been in either of those situations. I have no idea what else you want me to say.

You keep saying 'anyone CAN walk out', you seem to have ignored those who're disabled. To use your words, No it's not that simple. Not anyone CAN walk out.
Otherwise, we're saying the same thing. I don't wish to play semantics with words.

More to circumstances = due to circumstances

@GoOnDoAnASEyeroll

I've already been clear enough. I know (and think you do too) the difference between "can" (literal ability) and "can" ( more to circumstances preventing you from doing it) based on the context. Didn't think I'll need to divide the word further. I know family members who've been in either of those situations. I have no idea what else you want me to say.

You keep saying 'anyone CAN walk out', you seem to have ignored those who're disabled. To use your words, No it's not that simple. Not anyone CAN walk out.
Otherwise, we're saying the same thing. I don't wish to play semantics with words.

Well of course you don't, when it means asking what you actually mean and it turns out you might not have thought this through.

I thought "chained to the radiator or something" covered those who literally can't walk or crawl or roll or skateboard or whatever out of there. Although you could argue that unless they are very very restricted, they can still make phone calls. Are you saying that disabled people and literal captives are the only people you judge as unable to leave? Or are you pouncing on disabled people for a "gotcha" when it's quite clear what was meant in context? And not clear what you meant at all?

You are complaining about words, but you said that anyone who stays with these people when they can leave is "not all that opposed" to this behaviour. The logical next question, then, is: whom do you consider able/unable to leave?

It's not an offensive question. It's a very important one, especially in the context of abusive relationships or dangerous men.

I find it very odd that you’re concentrating on what must be ‘wrong’ with the husbands of these women, rather than the behaviour of the women themselves. Why aren’t your questioning their characters?

You do like playing games, DrSbaitso and twisting words. I could pick apart your post and argue fairly but knowing your history (I've seen you many times doing the same with others and once I had to stick up for one poster), this will go on forever and you'll never admit to understanding...or perhaps you'll never understand the other person's point.

You can have the upper hand. Let me help you: You win. I'm stupid. I have no idea what I'm saying. Sorry.

@GoOnDoAnASEyeroll

You do like playing games, DrSbaitso and twisting words. I could pick apart your post and argue fairly but knowing your history (I've seen you many times doing the same with others and once I had to stick up for one poster), this will go on forever and you'll never admit to understanding...or perhaps you'll never understand the other person's point.

You can have the upper hand. Let me help you: You win. I'm stupid. I have no idea what I'm saying. Sorry.

I'm asking you to clarify what you mean by "able to leave". You're making quite a serious claim against these women, and when I said you were oversimplifying the realities of abusive relationships and violent men, you said you weren't. So if it really is that simple, what does it mean?

@GoOnDoAnASEyeroll

Or is it more likely that he masked and it took me time to realise, realise it was him not me, and then to leave?

I think this is what OP is saying. That you realised and left is a positive thing and different from those who realise and don't leave (assuming that they can leave). Those who willingly stay are either cut from the same cloth or don't see it as a problem, which is essentially the same.

I believe OP is saying if you (man or woman) willingly stay with a known wanker/racist/abuser/murderer, etc, then you can't be all that opposed to it yourself.

But who are we to say who is willingly staying? To the outside world it might look like that, quite often we are not aware when someone is being abused. So it’s okay to judge their partners then is it? Because we believe they are willingly staying with these horrible people? It’s really not that black and white at all.

Also nowhere in the OP did they state these women were known racists or murderers.. that would be the biggest drip feed I’ve ever seen on Mumsnet if that was true. The OP seemed to pretty much say ‘these women are bitches so is it okay if I judge their partners for being with them’.

@LadyMuckington Yes I stated something similar re:OP's post, after the thread you've quoted.

My post was in response to someone who talked about being with an abuser, finding out and then leaving. It was clarifying what OP meant and quoting where she or someone else mentioned racists and murderers. It's not a judgement call to all because you're right we don't know everyone's circumstances. This is why I've said it as a caveat on my posts. There are circumstances that are different and serious.

I wrote this later too and it's clear what I mean. There are people in both circumstances and it will be disingenuous to say there aren't. Doesn't mean I go around judging everyone when I don't know what their circumstances are.

That's the thing we've said. For some, they can't leave due to circumstances beyond their control. That is different from those who "can't" leave because they can't be arsed or don't see it as a big deal.

I don't think OP is saying they must leave - it's up to them. Just that if they aren't leaving because of the latter, then it says something about them.

Best to call a spade a spade.

It's okay if you disagree.