Women safe with males in dv shelters?

35
jessy Says:

February 26th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
It is nonsense that male and female abuse victims cannot be around the opposite sex. In fact I would venture to say it is a critical part of the healing process to interact positively with the other sex.

Now this writer is not displaying too much intelligence (and this is only my humble opinion). She/he says that women should be forced to be around men while in a shelter escaping drwadful domestic abuse at the hands of their partner (mostly male partners). What is to stop their abuser from seeking services at this same shelter, claiming abuse from his partner, and being escorted to the shelter where his victim is residing? Now this takes brains jessy.... This is the very rerason why men are refused at women's shelters. Because the ability of a man to be able to access this shelter and then finish the job as it were, is too great. So it is simpler to just not allow a man at a shelter for victims of dv.

I jhave done numerous research on this issue and have discovered that nearly all of the shelter programs have plans in place to help male victims of dv. No they are not allowed access to the woman's only shelter. MRAs/FRs also like to claim that once a male child reaches a certain age, that child is denied access to the shelter also. This again is simply not true with the 200+ dv agencies I have contacted.

But again to go back to jessy's statement on Sacks' website, this simply shows the lack of logical thought process on his/her part. This indeed explains much of the problems with all of the MRA/FR thought processes.

Men on the issue of help for those living at or near poverty

To see the original comment which started this thread click Petunia. Then go here, here - more MRA, here, and here. Good (bad?) parts summarized below (as always - in 'their' words)

Mr. Bad Says:

January 5th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Argh! Bad tags. Try again:

jeana said:


"They just have far less patience than women and aren’t willing to take any crap. They get angry more often and at littler things. I’m not sure that’s really better. That’s why you need women: to soften the hard edge of dads."

What a steaming pile of horse manure. Women are no more patient, nurturing, less violent than men are - men are just different about these things.

However, jeana, I don't particularly object to single mothers by choice. What I object to is single women choosing to be mothers and then presenting me (and other taxpayers) the bill for her choices. All the while doing a spectacularly dismal job of being a "mother" by raising a family of career criminals.

You want to raise a kid on your own? Knock yourself out. But truly do it on your own instead of just pretending by taking all the credit for the good things while at the same time blaming society, especially men, for the poor outcomes and then billing the taxpayer for child support via WIC, welfare, childcare subsidies, school lunch programs, etc., etc., etc. And then, when you've done all that and the kid ends up in a criminal, we end up paying the bill for his arrest, prosecution, incarceration, etc., etc., only to pay for the kid's welfare, counseling, umemployment, etc., once he gets out.

jeana Says:

January 5th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Mr. Bad,

I also don’t like being presented with a bill for a poverty stricken single mother who choose to have a baby when she clearly knows she shouldn’t have one. I don’t agree with people who say that everyone has the right to have a baby regardless of their situation. But once the kid is here, what can you do? You can’t let them die in a gutter somewhere.

However, I don’t really object to helping a pregnant poor mother get nutritious food, poor kids (from 2-parent families too) getting their one hot meal a day free at school, and child care subsidies that allow a woman to work and decrease the burden she is to society. I am also for men getting subsidized (free, actually) medical care, their kids getting free meals if they’re poor, and child care subsidies if they need it. People are poor and there’s no magic pill to get them out of poverty.

I would object (if I were an MRA) not to any of the programs you mentioned but to single females getting pregnant on purpose and roping a guy in to pay for child support when he clearly didn’t want to become a father.

Pankaj Says:

January 5th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
"However, I don’t really object to helping a pregnant poor mother get nutritious food, poor kids (from 2-parent families too) getting their one hot meal a day free at school, and child care subsidies that allow a woman to work and decrease the burden she is to society."

Jeana,

Should people be forced to do "good"? The quotes define subjectiveness of the idea.
Should people be punished for earning a living through hard work?

jeana Says:

January 5th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
PK,

First of all, there are indeed people who “beg” because it gets them $300-$400 a day. They’re not actually poor; it’s a lifestyle choice. That being said, there are lots of poor people begging that are actually poor and don’t (at that time) have any other options.

So you’re comparing people who would severely injure kids to get more $$ with poor moms? And then you have the nerve to suggest that the state should have the right to step in and take away a poor woman’s kids because being poor means she is somehow morally unfit? I remember when some Republican years ago suggested that all kids on state aid be taken away from their parents and put in orphanages. I bet you’d be for that.

Do you also think that poor men, who are unfairly mostly ignored by welfare systems, should also be ignored and even have their kids taken away from them? Even if you believe that men are super duper parents and way more important than women in their kids’ lives?

And you make the same argument that lots of conservatives/libertarians make—you are loathe to have the government pay for anything for the poor and instead insist that wealthy people (and charitable organizations) take care of it. The major problem with this, of course, is that this would never, ever happen. (Why don’t they do it now????) Plus, it’s not fair for some poor person to hope to maneuver a patchwork safety net system (which many do anyway) in order to get help. There is a purpose for government, and that is to exist to help the people. Maybe you forgot this!

wolfboy69 Says:

January 6th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Jeana - And you make the same argument that lots of conservatives/libertarians make—you are loathe to have the government pay for anything for the poor and instead insist that wealthy people (and charitable organizations) take care of it. The major problem with this, of course, is that this would never, ever happen. (Why don’t they do it now????)

=======================================================

Because, for some reason, Democrats/liberals only seem to want to give away other people's money, while conservatives/libertarians are the ones who give more to charitable causes. PK is on the right track with this.

http://richiericher.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/arthur-brooks-who-really-cares-the-surprising-truth-about-compassionate-conservatism/

I know, I know....your taxes go to those programs.....so do mine... which means that conservatives/libertarians are giving twice...once by the gun (Taxes) and again on their own.

It would be interesting to note that I myself am a recipient of only one of the above mentioned programs. I make "too much" to receive anything but one item from the 'government'. Yet as some of the above posters believe, I should not be allowed to be a primary residential parent because I have to rely on a program to care for my child. PUHLEASE!!!! I was a SAHM for 6 years at my husband's request. Since having no choice but to gain employment due to his continued and escalating abuse of me by him, I have managed to work for a little under 3 years now. In the course of that 3 years I have managed to raise my income from 4 digit to 5 digit earnings. The first year I was employed I was in 4 digit earnings (which is poverty even for one person). I am now in 5 digit earnings and in one year I doubled my income. Yes you heard that right - DOUBLED!!!! I hope to double it again in two years after I finish my education. Should not be difficult if I can focus on my studies and if my abuser will calm down and quit his games!!!! Oh yeah I know ask for the impossible. At least it is down to a predictable dull roar with the attempts at control and abuse being fairly.....well you know.....predictable.....

The whole point behind this is that without being a recipient of some sort of assistance I might very well stay 'stuck' in poverty forever. Now should the child and I have to live a life in poverty simply because I finally grew a set as so many are fond of saying and said no more abuse? And while I am on THAT topic - why is it always considered manly when a person of feminine persuasion actually stands up for herself and this is construed as growing a set? Why are females always perceived as 'less than'? That a woman cannot possibly be 'strong' and 'feminine'?

That is the content for another post so I will close with this statement:

federal and state level assistance programs are there for a reason. Are we to do as one poster insinuated and remove all children from poor parents (ie - mothers) and give them to rich parents (or fathers)?

A commenter on my blog makes a comment that is so true

Many times we will read on many father's rights websites about men who are being treated savagely and inhumanely in family courts across the land. These posts often leave out material items. I am discussing a recent mens rights blog post. This blog post discusses a man who has been jailed over child support issues. He has issues which have caused him to be unable to pay support. Now if what happened to him is true, why did he not contact any mainstream newspapers or television reporters? If he did so please feel free to post the link here (only mainstream websites - not "mens rights" sites). His savior is also engaging in slightly less than stellar performance by publishing the ex-wife's personal information via their website. If this man wants to put his information on the Internet, then that is his prerogative. However his ex-wife should be able to pursue a case against him as well as this website for exposing her information in this fashion. There are ways to go about this and to publish documents with personal information without the approval of the person to which they pertain is against the law. Now I wonder if the "savior" site will black out the offending personal information, or if our site will be attacked yet again?

Also of mention is the fact that there were several cases against the man mentioned in this story, beginning in 2000.

I challenge all sites that contain links to this information to remove the offending "personal" information and black it out if these documents must be published.

Hmmmmmm - A characteristic common among feminists- an absent sense of humor

Glenn’s cult writes...

One last post - Delusion?
Apparently Glenn's database of comments crashed sometime on December 10th. This was one of his followers comments:
Nelson Says:

December 11th, 2008 at 4:45 am
Glenn's being diplomatic- it was feminist gremlins and he knows it.


Nothing needs to be added here. Oh wait one moment - I will add something. How many abused women have been targetted by their batterer and are made to appear paranoid? I will say nothing more regarding this. Let my followers speak the truth to this.”

Now, as I pointed out to the sad, befuddled creature, only a fool would see this as anything other than an attempt at humor, but as often happens with feminists they are so blinded by their anger they take seriously people who go on about gremlins. As for her claim to have “followers”, if she has them they aren’t bothering to comment on her posts. Indeed, my humble self seems to be the only follower she has- at least until the men she is defaming decide to take legal action.

Now must we really debate why I (along with numerous other women) have no sense of humor when dealing with a man/woman whose writings are so reminiscent of our abusers words? Are we supposed to laugh and go along with everything? Sing Kumbaya while holding hands at the campfire? I think not. To even suggest that an abused woman even be in the same city as someone who has abused her is insane.

I have a story for you. You own a fairly nice house in a nice neighborhood. You hear through the neighborhood grapevine that there has been a rash of burglaries nearby. You make an appointment for a security system to be installed to protect yourself. Before the company can arrive to install this equipment however, you are robbed. Oh the horror. But wait!!!! The thieves have been apprehended and your belongings were found as well!!! Granted they have to remain in police lockup until such time as the trial is complete but hey no biggie you say, at least they are safe and protected from theft now. Your house is only a day or two away from having state of the art security equipment installed so you feel rather safe. The day comes to go to court to prosecute the person or persons who engaged in this invasion of your space. Imagine your surprise when the judge looks at you and tells you that you must share this property with the thief. Huh? You wonder..... Maybe this is just a fluke, you think. The attorney prosecuting this case comes to you after court and tells you that you must work out some sort of arrangement with the thief so that person may have time with your property. You are amazed and bewildered. How can this happen you ask? State attorney says that Thief Rights' Activists online have been pushing for a thief's bill of rights. Even though they broke laws in obtaining your property, they are still granted rights of access to the same property they stole because they have develpoed an attachment to it.

Thankfully we have the Constitution to protect against a scenario like this involving true robberies and theft of "personal" property. But what about children? Children are by no means anyone's property, but many times an abused mother will seek assistance from the courts to get away from an abuser. He is stealing her identity, the children's identities, and robbing all of a good life and a good future. Yet many times the courts simply tell this abuse victim that she must allow the abuser (the criminal) access to something (someone) most precious to this victim - the children. When will the courts see that this simply must not go on? When will the court understand that mothers generally are the only protection a child has. I am not speaking of those few well publicized moms who are awful - because there are some of those moms out there - I am speaking of those moms who are good, who face powerful and controlling domineering men in court. I am speaking of those women who have been beaten and beaten to the point that they lose their identity. Are we not going to provide these women and children with some sort of protection?

So I fibbed I am going to write one more thing :-)

Okay so I told a little white lie and I am writing one more post. I am sincere about keeping this site going and fear writers block/redundnacy in my attempts to expose the "fringe" MRA - of which I believe several are regular visitors on Sacks' site. This is why I have created this site. So my readers I invite you to contribute. Email me with suggestions. I am super busy with that silly thing called life and want this to be the best it can be, so I need help. If you see a clearly female hate site - please email me a link. If you see a clearly mysogynistic post somewhere about women, lying women, men are dv victims more often, anything that we all know flies in the face of truth, please send it to me. I am up for suggestions as to how to make this site the first place for visits - BEFORE they hit up Sacks' site. If we can get to them before they are corrupted, we stand a chance. The women who go into family court with the belief that justice will prevail are the ones in harms way. We need to get to those women first - before the damage. Doing something right the first time around is easier than fixing something that is wrong.