Domestic Abuse - Why Do Women Put Up With It?

[Guides009]

I don't usually read the Mirror, this story of a mother of 8, has really made me upset.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/mum-eight-beaten-death-paving-22504713?utm_source=mirror_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=EM_Mirror_Nletter_DailyNews_News_smallteaser_Image_Story&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter&ccid=397482

• became aware of

GilbertMarkham

How about we give those good and clever women who aren't secreting abusers away in their homes the legal tools to have their abuser automatically locked up so the victims can be safe?

Shall we focus on saving the ones we can? And not to put too fine a point on it - if SS can take the kids as theybe discovered he's back in the house again, they obviously figured it out somehow, this way, the police take him, rather than SS taking the kids.

Most women want to leave. There is presently nowhere to hide from a determined perpetrator. We need to change that. We need to make it so that the perpetrator needs to hide - not his victim.

@PicsInRed

What you suggest about automatically locking people up is not going to be legal. If you need to be remanded, then it’s about the risk you present.

Why does this matter so much? Because the woman who does not say her ex is a risk, or has allowed him to come back into the home will have generated evidence that she doesn’t mind this apparently dangerous guy near her and her kids.

I concede it would be rather inconvenient for men

It wouldn't be inconvenient for them at all because they wouldn't be being reported for beaching an "order" to stay away from the woman in cases like this (unless her family or someone else became aware and reported him).

Say your law was in place .. he was banned from going near this woman and their kids, whether she agreed or not. They see each other covertly (not unlikely scenario given the relationship continued for years after a jail time worthy assault) so the breaking of the order is not even known about it. At some point later he murders her in (or just outside in this case) the home he was covertly living with her in ... What could you have done?

In this case he had done at least one prison sentence for assaulting her, bur she continues the relationship. That statement is without blame on the woman .. it is just fact.

If he shows up at her house and he hasn't assaulted her yet, there is nothing she can do. The police won't arrest him, it will only make him angry.

However if he had a life ban from going anywhere near her, with prison for a breach - he'd soon get tired of prison. This would also require severe changes to child access laws.

Doing nothing hasn't worked.

I find your title accusatory and I haven't read the responses. Not all MNers experience DV and it is those who have no clue who are the most vocal of those who are victims.
You know why they stay. It's well documented in even the most rudimentary of reading material.

They see each other covertly

Shall we focus on protecting the vast, vast, vast majority of women who woukd happily never have anything to do with their abuser ever again, rather than remaining peculiarly focused on the rare woman who would rather be bashed than free.

The police won't do anything just because he is stalking you,, even with a non molestation order.

They wont do anything when he shouts through their letterbox that mummy is being bad to poor daddy.

They wont do anything when you are raped and bleeding for days because you previously had a relationship and it is your word against his.

They need him to actually be violent and for there to be witnesses, physical injuries and even then, innocent until proven guilty.

They wont do anything if he goes through your rubbish bins and finds out he successfully impregnated you by rape. It isn't illegal.

You document it all, you write 40 page statements to the court to get a detailed non molestation order. But he still turns up at school sports days, goes to your mothers deathbed and emails you daily about how the kids need a dad.

They don't stop and people believe them.

It takes 7 attempts because with the best will in the world, sometimes it is easier to live with them than trying to keep them away.

Fire proof letter boxes, 6 ft high fences, cctv, blocking every channel of communication. Subjecting my family to 3 years of intrusive SS weekly involvement. Just some of the steps I have had to take to try to get free.

So i have a non molestation order, he has seen his kids once in the last year and yes, he emails me as Hotmail won't let me block, but I never reply, ever.

You are not talking in facts you are simply casting all women who suffer DV under the same banner and assuming you know best.

You know nothing.

[quote LexMitior]@PicsInRed

What you suggest about automatically locking people up is not going to be legal. If you need to be remanded, then it’s about the risk you present.

Why does this matter so much? Because the woman who does not say her ex is a risk, or has allowed him to come back into the home will have generated evidence that she doesn’t mind this apparently dangerous guy near her and her kids.[/quote]
If there is no evidence he is a risk to her and the kids, then there is no risk which necessitates the removal of the children from the mother.

If there is sufficient evidence for the state to remove the children from the custody of the mother - there is clearly enough evidence for a non-mol on the father.

If he breaches this non-mol, the penalty should be imprisonment.

Either society wants to protect women and children or it wants to defend and uphold the right of violent men to access, brutalise and murder those women and children. Only one right can prevail - right to safety or right to brutalise. Our laws make clear which is is.

*What you suggest about automatically locking people up is not going to be legal. If you need to be remanded, then it’s about the risk you present.

Why does this matter so much? Because the woman who does not say her ex is a risk, or has allowed him to come back into the home will have generated evidence that she doesn’t mind this apparently dangerous guy near her and her kids.*

I'm glad someone else is pointing out the feasibility of this grand plan/solution, rather than just attacking those who point out any issues and smearing them as "blaming women".

I never ever ever blame women for violence against them.

What I'm interested in whether a real solution exists, and what percentage of women it might work for.

Perpetually, repeatedly locking up men who have been charged with assault on a partner, if you even get an opportunity to lock them up (who's reporting that they're breaking this new law if the woman isnt reporting them for whatever reasons?) .. does not appear to be it.

We're apparently going to do this (and also pay for supervised access to kids by these men?) or do we also get a law banning men assaulted their partner from seeing their children til they're 18 .. in countries where people still live below the poverty line.

*men who assaulted

and also pay for supervised access to kids by these men?

Why would you want them to have any access at all?

Some women may go along with this law and, with support, never ever see their ex again after an assault (including having to arrange independent child access) ...
Others would not. It would take more time, more experience, more realisation etc. before they ended the relationship (if they ever did); and during that time they would not be reporting him for breaking this "law".

That does not mean it is in any way their fault if he assaults them again.

What percentage of women would fall into the categories, I don't know.

I think we need to have education for young people about DV and relationships from a young age, compulsory. Even then it is an incredibly difficult thing to manage given the emotions, bonding (even if it's unhealthy), attachment, investment etc involved in relationships and families.

Why would you want them to have any access at all?

I don't care if they do - I'm just running through likely scenarios if you tried to setup such a law.

It's another sticking point in our laws to add to the one lex pointed out.

@chickenyhead I'm so sorry for what you've been through.

I'm even more sorry that society/the justice system/emergency services still hasn't learned,still hasn't changed, still turns a blind eye.

Your story is so similar to one of my friend's. Down to the fire proof letter box. Except he got proof of paternity in his rape trial,which he was found not guilty off(and in all fairness it was a massive blow to CPS,the officers etc because they were sure he was going down) , and then used to go to court and try to get access.

Luckily he was too lazy to fully commit to the process , but the terror my friend felt on the day she was informed and all the months after...

@GilbertMarkham

Some women may go along with this law and, with support, never ever see their ex again after an assault (including having to arrange independent child access) ... Others would not. It would take more time, more experience, more realisation etc. before they ended the relationship (if they ever did); and during that time they would not be reporting him for breaking this "law".

That does not mean it is in any way their fault if he assaults them again.

What percentage of women would fall into the categories, I don't know.

I think we need to have education for young people about DV and relationships from a young age, compulsory. Even then it is an incredibly difficult thing to manage given the emotions, bonding (even if it's unhealthy), attachment, investment etc involved in relationships and families.

Well what we're doing now isn't working is it?

And there are plenty of cases where such a law would've saved women and children. I even posted some.

We're definitely to saving and protecting enough women and children. Saving a few (the number is actually higher than you think) more would still not be enough, but it would be a start.

If a man breaches his bail conditions, he can be sent to prison.

If a man breaches a non molestation order, he can be sent to prison.

If a mother throws out an abusive man, she protects her children. If she takes him back, she is saying and please understand that these things need to be proved in a court, which needs evidence not feelings, she negates what she has claimed. This matters enormously.

I don’t like abusive men - but there has to be evidence that they are, and to the required standard which is beyond all reasonable doubt.

However if he had a life ban from going anywhere near her, with prison for a breach - he'd soon get tired of prison. This would also require severe changes to child access laws.

But as I've said what feels like fifty million times now, a breach would have to be reported; and if no-one else reported it (which is very possible for various reasons) the onus would be entirely on the woman to report it ... And from what I've read about the relationship history in this case, I don't believe it would have been reported.

And similar scenarios across any country; are likely.

You are just battering on with this idea regardless of its fundamental flaw.

Because there is nowhere to go, only the streets. You have no support, no money, no job, no family or friends who can help. Nowhere/no-one to keep your beloved pets safe if you leave.
Refuge space hard to come by and even then only temporary, especially if no DC involved.

Even if you could leave, he's always home anyway and moving out while he's there would be impossible.

Shall we focus on protecting the vast, vast, vast majority of women who woukd happily never have anything to do with their abuser ever again, rather than remaining peculiarly focused on the rare woman who would rather be bashed than free.

The seven attempts on average to end an abusive relationship bench mark does not suggest that the vast vast majority of women cleanly end a relationship (often a marriage with kids) after one assault.

It's suggests it's much more difficult and complicated than that

Not just practically .. but emotionally.

*It

@ComeOnBabyPopMyBubble

Thank you

The police told me I had little chance of successfully prosecuting for the rape.

He hasn't taken me to court yet for custody, I am expecting this next. At the moment he is waiting for my non molestation order to end again and believes that he will be able to wear me down eventually.

It comes to something when the abuse suffered makes it so that even a payment in to your bank account makes you panic. He has never ever paid for anything, but now he is doing this, rather than paying for supervised visits as a reasonable person would.

He is working on me in a way that others would consider reasonable behaviour. It isn't. He doesn't give anything without expecting something.

Not evidence for renewal of the non mol, but my panic is rising already.

I totally believe that DV needs to be taught in every school. I totally believe that if you are a risk to a mother of your children, you are a risk to those children too. I believe their parental rights should be void.

And there are plenty of cases where such a law would've saved women and children. I even posted some

Everyone one if those cases is of an ex with whom the victim was no longer living. And in two cases the victim reported him to the police beforehand.

My point has never been related to cases like that .. and I've repeated that point over and over.

It was that in cases like this one, with the victim still living with the murderer, and having not recently reported him ... The victim would not have reported him until the attack. Any breaches of this proposed law would not have been reported because she chose to return the relationship until.shirtky before she was murdered (unless others reported him).

I find this what if stuff a bit weird tbh and the well the woman needs do do xyz.

In this case. He had done time for violence. She had eight children. That is a lot of kids to walk out with. I mean where the hell do you go with 8 kids? What does the packing even look like? Who will have them?

She had dumped him. He got violent. She called police. He beat her to death with a paving stone in front of the kids.

Can you even imagine how scary he must have been? How trapped she must have felt with 8 kids to care for? I can't even imagine caring for 8 kids day in day out, you wouldn't have any headspace at all would you, you'd be knackered.

This is being framed as her culpability as much as him?

I mean, come on.

What we need is (globally):

Police to take DV seriously (and crimes against women in general)
Actual real decent options to leave
Or even better to stay at home and the man is kept away
Decent prison time. He got 15 years for this? With past convictions for DV? I mean. Come on.

The narrative being sold here by some is about foolish women who stick with abusers and neglect the kids and reject help. And yes that happens. But it's far from the only narrative.

Loads of women have given their personal stories on this thread as to why they didn't leave immediately, thank you to those women for sharing.

She had told him to leave. There were 8 kids there. He's massive and scary. How the fuck would you get him out??