Wife to get €18,000 per month and two homes in settlement

jackofalltrades

zeffabelli wrote: »

90% of domestic abuse is bi directional.

Source?

DV is a pattern, an entire system.

Some definitions require it to be a pattern.
Where as others define any incident as domestic violence.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - attack the post not the poster

bucketybuck

wandatowell wrote: »

The ****ty situation of a person who beats her partner and he in turn cheats on her.


Fcuk 'em both.

This is the sort of rubbish that pollutes threads like these.

There are relationships out there where one partner really is beating the other, where there is real domestic abuse. You have husbands beating the **** out of their wives, and wives drawing blood and smashing things over their husbands heads. Some people are in a living hell because of relationships like that.

And here we have a case where the wife once slapped her husband on the cheek, most likely after hearing that he had cheated on her with her best friend.

Any social justice warrior who wants to call this case domestic violence is just a fool, anybody who thinks this is even in the same ballpark as real godsforsaken domestic violence has had no experience of what its really like.

And saying that in this case she was "beating" her husband is just moronic.

smash

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Odd pseudo-feminism?

Seriously like, I know this is the gentleman's club and all and this one caught my eye on the front page, but that's a low shot simply because I think the whole "reverse the genders" argument is an absolutely meaningless phrase. "Reverse the genders" is pseudo-intellectualism at it's finest?

You say this because you don't like the facts of the gender reversal scenario. You act like they're not there and there's be no difference, when they clearly are there and there would be a difference. A previous poster even have a real life example.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are hundreds, nay, thousands of cases of male victims of domestic violence in Ireland and the opening post picks an example of a woman who hit a man twice in an 18 year marriage for his consistently cheating on her?

It's a bit like - the man can cheat on his wife all he wants, but if she loses her shít, well, we should condemn her and ignore what the man did.

But nobody is saying that. He clearly didn't love her, maybe he only stayed with her for the kids, who knows. But he was fed up her spending his money and getting aggressive and he filed for the separation. It doesn't excuse his actions, but it shows clearly where his head was at... He wanted out. She seemed content to put up with it and throw a few slaps and then go on to live the high life and spend his money.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's honestly pseudo-feminist about most people's normal reaction in those circumstances?

It was to do with your post. You have a "well fcuk him" attitude and almost a "you go girl" attitude to the whole thing. She's not a victim here. She gets to walk away with millions and continue as she's always done with just a slightly smaller allowance. He gets to walk away having to pay for her life in the hopes that he doesn't go bankrupt because if he did then he'd have nothing and she'd still have it all. It's also not the first time you tried to play the 'men can't be victims' card.

zeffabelli

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Source?


Some definitions require it to be a pattern.
Where as others define any incident as domestic violence.

http://www.europrofem.org/contri/2_04_en/en-viol/56en_vio.htm

http://www.stopabuseforeveryone.org/finding-help/info-on-domestic-violence.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-sacks/researcher-says-womens-in_b_222746.html

It's OTT in my opinion to label a slap in the face in the context given here, which is a concern, not nice - etc, with a DV label.

So what everyone is going to call the cops everytime they get slapped in the face? Call womens aid and ask for a place, a place that could be given to someone who has sustained chronic injury.

Seriously, while it is cause for concern it is not on the same par as serious domestic abuse. It's insane to me to compare this situation with a woman wgo gets stripped and thrown out into the garden in the middle of winter with the patio doors locked, or a man who had boiling water thrown at him while his pants were down in teh toilet. These are assaults, this is domestic violence.

Not a slap in the face with ZERO consequences. The term abuse is so MISUSED that it means nothing anymore, and that is more abuse to the people who are really getting whipped and we can thank the political activists for that.

Are people seriously suggesting he press charges, get a safety order and seek counselling from amen for this? Is this not a little hysterical of a reaction?

.

eviltwin

nokia69 wrote: »

I bet it would if it was a man giving the slap to a woman

No it wouldn't. We all lose the rag and sometimes go too far. It doesn't make one an abuser or the other abused. The definition of domestic violence is that it's on going unlike a normal spat which has a beginning and end.

jackofalltrades

zeffabelli wrote: »

http://www.europrofem.org/contri/2_04_en/en-viol/56en_vio.htm

http://www.stopabuseforeveryone.org/finding-help/info-on-domestic-violence.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-sacks/researcher-says-womens-in_b_222746.html

Which one of those links backs up the "90% of domestic abuse is bi directional" claim?

Eviltwin wrote:

The definition of domestic violence is that it's on going unlike a normal spat which has a beginning and end.

There doesn't appear to be a universally agreed on definition for it.

Icemancometh

eviltwin wrote: »

No it wouldn't. We all lose the rag and sometimes go too far. It doesn't make one an abuser or the other abused. The definition of domestic violence is that it's on going unlike a normal spat which has a beginning and end.

Violence of any type is never acceptable. I agree this wasn't domestic abuse, but it is still violent behaviour without any real justification. I've never hit anybody, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't expect them to be understanding about it.

One eyed Jack

smash wrote: »

You say this because you don't like the facts of the gender reversal scenario. You act like they're not there and there's be no difference, when they clearly are there and there would be a difference. A previous poster even have a real life example.

No, I say it because I've simply never liked the "if the genders were reversed" scenario, whether it be a man or a woman. It's simply unrealistic mental gymnastics that don't actually do anything to address the issue, in this case it's the issue of male victims of domestic violence. At least I think that's the point the OP was trying to make?

But nobody is saying that. He clearly didn't love her, maybe he only stayed with her for the kids, who knows. But he was fed up her spending his money and getting aggressive and he filed for the separation. It doesn't excuse his actions, but it shows clearly where his head was at... He wanted out. She seemed content to put up with it and throw a few slaps and then go on to live the high life and spend his money.

Seems to me at least to be exactly what the OP was trying to say?

Zaiden Scary Rapper wrote: »

The overarching attitude in this thread appears to be "she only gave him a slap, he probably deserved it" maybe he did deserve it and it is only a slap but the real issue is that the received message particularly on the internet is that the woman is always the victim and the downtrodden regardless of the circumstances. Maybe she did only give he a few slaps but the problem is that with so many social justice warriors who jump on any opportunity to highlight any perceived injustice that they rules only seem to be applied one way.

It was to do with your post. You have a "well fcuk him" attitude and almost a "you go girl" attitude to the whole thing. She's not a victim here. She gets to walk away with millions and continue as she's always done with just a slightly smaller allowance. He gets to walk away having to pay for her life in the hopes that he doesn't go bankrupt because if he did then he'd have nothing and she'd still have it all. It's also not the first time you tried to play the 'men can't be victims' card.

Well you're just reading my posts all wrong then. One is as bad as the other as far as I'm concerned, and both should have walked away from each other a long time ago. She chose to stay with him and turn a blind eye to his infidelity, and he chose to stay with her. Would he have been able to get to the position he's in where he earns over €1m a year without her having stayed at home to raise four children? I doubt it, and she would not have enjoyed the lifestyle she did without him earning that sort of money. I sincerely cannot see him going bankrupt any time soon.

I have very little sympathy for either of them, and I never said men can't be victims, ever. You may have interpreted something I said that way, but that's certainly never been the case. I'm not trying to play any men can't be victims card here either, but you'd struggle to find people who would classify the man in this case is a victim of domestic violence, let alone take his claims seriously.

What bugs me is the OP using this case as an example to highlight male victims of domestic violence, and completely missing the irony of this statement -

Zaiden Scary Rapper wrote: »

the problem is that with so many social justice warriors who jump on any opportunity to highlight any perceived injustice that they rules only seem to be applied one way.

And the only reason I noticed this thread on the front page is because I thought "WTF??" when I read the thread title. Then I read the article and the thread title made sense.

Moonves

Stop acting like it's difficult to reverse genders, it's quite simple actually.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Seems to me at least to be exactly what the OP was trying to say?



I have very little sympathy for either of them, and I never said men can't be victims, ever. You may have interpreted something I said that way, but that's certainly never been the case. I'm not trying to play any men can't be victims card here either, but you'd struggle to find people who would classify the man in this case is a victim of domestic violence, let alone take his claims seriously.

.

I don't think anyone but the two people in a marriage can fully understand the marriage, in fact they probably can't either.

It may not be inertia that causes people to stay, maybe it is admirable to try to get through frustrations, to keep the family intact.

I don't think any of us can judge this.

Maguined

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would he have been able to get to the position he's in where he earns over €1m a year without her having stayed at home to raise four children? I doubt it, and she would not have enjoyed the lifestyle she did without him earning that sort of money. I sincerely cannot see him going bankrupt any time soon.

Why wouldn't he? If she didn't stay at home and instead had her own job why would he be less successful? Surely she would be contributing to chreche/nanny/cleaner costs with their combined income would be manageable.

For low income households childcare is frequently too expensive so one parent staying at home often becomes better finanicall than two low end incomes paying for creche and child minder costs. However for high income families one parent staying at home is normally done for a lifestyle choice.

The Diabolical Monocle

Don't marry.

Pawwed Rig

Maguined wrote: »

Why wouldn't he? If she didn't stay at home and instead had her own job why would he be less successful? Surely she would be contributing to chreche/nanny/cleaner costs with their combined income would be manageable.

Yes he would per my post earlier the succesful people I interact on a day to day basis have 1 thing in common which is that their spouse is at home picking up the slack due to excessive hours.
Paid childcare is not reliable as every cough or splutter from the child means the parent is called to collect them and look after them. People in these kinds of businesses do not have the flexibility to do that so with 4 kids of course he wouldn't have been as succesful.
IME where both spouses do work they both work in the same business but one will always be the primary child carer.

One eyed Jack

Moonves wrote: »

Stop acting like it's difficult to reverse genders, it's quite simple actually.

It's difficult for anyone to imagine themselves as their opposite gender. You're asking people to imagine male victims of domestic violence as women, and obviously vice versa. It simply makes no sense. You want to apply certain conditions to a scenario to suit your argument, but what it does is changes one of the most intrinsic elements of your whole argument, and now instead of having people understand that there already are plenty of cases of male victims of domestic violence, you've got them focused on what if the victim were a woman instead! How does that address the issue of male victims of domestic violence? It doesn't, not in my opinion anyway.

zeffabelli wrote: »

I don't think anyone but the two people in a marriage can fully understand the marriage, in fact they probably can't either.

It may not be inertia that causes people to stay, maybe it is admirable to try to get through frustrations, to keep the family intact.

I don't think any of us can judge this.

Well we could, we could judge the case as reported, based on our own personal experiences, and then we could just apply our own standards, reverse the genders, make up stuff that was never reported to suit our arguments, engage in a bit of mind reading and projection... when the fact is really we'll just never know anything for certain, and I don't think we'd still come to the same conclusions as the OP that this man was a victim of domestic violence.

Maguined wrote: »

Why wouldn't he? If she didn't stay at home and instead had her own job why would he be less successful? Surely she would be contributing to chreche/nanny/cleaner costs with their combined income would be manageable.

For low income households childcare is frequently too expensive so one parent staying at home often becomes better finanicall than two low end incomes paying for creche and child minder costs. However for high income families one parent staying at home is normally done for a lifestyle choice.

And that's what I think this was - a lifestyle choice, which enabled the guy to wholly concentrate on his career while his wife concentrated on being a homemaker and raising the children. 18 years later, it doesn't suit him any more and he wants out, so he was the one initiated divorce proceedings, whereas if he'd stayed married to her, she would have continued to cost more money in the long run than a divorce settlement cost him. The guy isn't completely stupid either, he'll have done the math on this one and made sure he was getting the better deal in the long run.

Neyite

Icemancometh wrote: »

Violence of any type is never acceptable. I agree this wasn't domestic abuse, but it is still violent behaviour without any real justification. I've never hit anybody, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't expect them to be understanding about it.

This wasn't domestic abuse. It was two isolated incidences of assault (whether provoked or not). The first is planned and intended, the latter is is also an act of violence but not premeditated. A bit similar to the more extreme examples of the difference between murder and manslaughter. Neither are acceptable, but you cant say that they are the same.

What are recognised forms of domestic abuse reach far beyond the physical acts. In fact, most people would say that the cruel emotional and verbal attacks are far more damaging to a persons psyche than a black eye.

Maguined wrote: »

Why wouldn't he? If she didn't stay at home and instead had her own job why would he be less successful? Surely she would be contributing to chreche/nanny/cleaner costs with their combined income would be manageable.

For low income households childcare is frequently too expensive so one parent staying at home often becomes better finanicall than two low end incomes paying for creche and child minder costs. However for high income families one parent staying at home is normally done for a lifestyle choice.

I've one toddler -we both work full time. If we had more kids, financially, and for the overall good of the family, it would be more beneficial to us as a team for the lesser earner to give up work and be the full time homemaker. In our case, that would be me. So, I'd have a gap in pension contributions, a gap on my CV, outdated or obsolete skills, and entry level pay scale so when kids are old enough to come home from school themselves, make a snack and not burn the house down, I'd be at a huge disadvantage re-entering the jobs market.

The flip side would be that by me solely doing the school runs, the after school activities, doctor /hospital /dental appointments, grocery shopping, laundry, house cleaning, dinners, the weeks where the kids have chickenpox, tummy bugs etc, I'd free up my partner to dedicate himself fully to his career, and climbing that ladder, letting meetings or client appointments run over because he doesn't have to fly out the door to beat traffic to pick up kids.

Until I had our kid, I never realised how much time you take out because of one thing or another. I took nearly a year of maternity leave, because we felt as a couple it was beneficial for our child and we had the luxury of being able to juggle it financially, then in the first year back, I took 20 days off work - between annual leave and unpaid leave, because toddler was unwell with one thing or another - typical Crechitis. My partner took about half that as well.

We are a team. I earn less, but everything is pooled, always has been since we moved in together. We are both happy with that, and if our income was enough that I could work part time or flexible hours to do the school run etc, life would be so much easier for both of us, and hugely beneficial for our child. That's a view both of us have.

And if we split, I would very much expect that our child has an equal quality of life in both his mum and his dad's house. You cant say that it's fair to a kid to have to spend half a week with one parent who is on a pittance and cant afford to give the children the lifestyle they are accustomed to when the other one who kept 'their' money gets to swan in, shower the kids with fancy gadgets and trips to Disneyland on their time etc.

eviltwin

I recently became a stay at home parent. It's a job in itself with its stresses and pressures. It's a shame it's still seen as easy street at best or akin to golddigging at worse.

Neyite

eviltwin wrote: »

I recently became a stay at home parent. It's a job in itself with its stresses and pressures. It's a shame it's still seen as easy street at best or akin to golddigging at worse.

Returning to work after maternity leave meant that for the first time in nearly a year, I could finish a cuppa before it got stone cold.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Neyite wrote: »

This wasn't domestic abuse. It was two isolated incidences of assault (whether provoked or not). The first is planned and intended, the latter is is also an act of violence but not premeditated. A bit similar to the more extreme examples of the difference between murder and manslaughter. Neither are acceptable, but you cant say that they are the same.

What are recognised forms of domestic abuse reach far beyond the physical acts. In fact, most people would say that the cruel emotional and verbal attacks are far more damaging to a persons psyche than a black eye.



I've one toddler -we both work full time. If we had more kids, financially, and for the overall good of the family, it would be more beneficial to us as a team for the lesser earner to give up work and be the full time homemaker. In our case, that would be me. So, I'd have a gap in pension contributions, a gap on my CV, outdated or obsolete skills, and entry level pay scale so when kids are old enough to come home from school themselves, make a snack and not burn the house down, I'd be at a huge disadvantage re-entering the jobs market.

The flip side would be that by me solely doing the school runs, the after school activities, doctor /hospital /dental appointments, grocery shopping, laundry, house cleaning, dinners, the weeks where the kids have chickenpox, tummy bugs etc, I'd free up my partner to dedicate himself fully to his career, and climbing that ladder, letting meetings or client appointments run over because he doesn't have to fly out the door to beat traffic to pick up kids.

Until I had our kid, I never realised how much time you take out because of one thing or another. I took nearly a year of maternity leave, because we felt as a couple it was beneficial for our child and we had the luxury of being able to juggle it financially, then in the first year back, I took 20 days off work - between annual leave and unpaid leave, because toddler was unwell with one thing or another - typical Crechitis. My partner took about half that as well.

We are a team. I earn less, but everything is pooled, always has been since we moved in together. We are both happy with that, and if our income was enough that I could work part time or flexible hours to do the school run etc, life would be so much easier for both of us, and hugely beneficial for our child. That's a view both of us have.

And if we split, I would very much expect that our child has an equal quality of life in both his mum and his dad's house. You cant say that it's fair to a kid to have to spend half a week with one parent who is on a pittance and cant afford to give the children the lifestyle they are accustomed to when the other one who kept 'their' money gets to swan in, shower the kids with fancy gadgets and trips to Disneyland on their time etc.

You would be at a disadvantage but you could still re-enter the workforce and earn an income, but how much of a salary would you be sacrificing by giving up work to staying at home and how much less of a salary would you receive when re-entering the workforce? Realistically you would probably be a few hundred euro down per month compared to your peers when re-entering work so compared to all those years out of employment you wouldn't be that much worse off than your colleagues who decided to stay in employment.
People also have to bear in mind that they make certain choices in life and those choices have risks and rewards e.g. getting married, having children etc.

Moonves

Neyite wrote: »

This wasn't domestic abuse. It was two isolated incidences of assault (whether provoked or not). The first is planned and intended, the latter is is also an act of violence but not premeditated. A bit similar to the more extreme examples of the difference between murder and manslaughter. Neither are acceptable, but you cant say that they are the same.

What are recognised forms of domestic abuse reach far beyond the physical acts. In fact, most people would say that the cruel emotional and verbal attacks are far more damaging to a persons psyche than a black eye.



I've one toddler -we both work full time. If we had more kids, financially, and for the overall good of the family, it would be more beneficial to us as a team for the lesser earner to give up work and be the full time homemaker. In our case, that would be me. So, I'd have a gap in pension contributions, a gap on my CV, outdated or obsolete skills, and entry level pay scale so when kids are old enough to come home from school themselves, make a snack and not burn the house down, I'd be at a huge disadvantage re-entering the jobs market.

The flip side would be that by me solely doing the school runs, the after school activities, doctor /hospital /dental appointments, grocery shopping, laundry, house cleaning, dinners, the weeks where the kids have chickenpox, tummy bugs etc, I'd free up my partner to dedicate himself fully to his career, and climbing that ladder, letting meetings or client appointments run over because he doesn't have to fly out the door to beat traffic to pick up kids.

Until I had our kid, I never realised how much time you take out because of one thing or another. I took nearly a year of maternity leave, because we felt as a couple it was beneficial for our child and we had the luxury of being able to juggle it financially, then in the first year back, I took 20 days off work - between annual leave and unpaid leave, because toddler was unwell with one thing or another - typical Crechitis. My partner took about half that as well.

We are a team. I earn less, but everything is pooled, always has been since we moved in together. We are both happy with that, and if our income was enough that I could work part time or flexible hours to do the school run etc, life would be so much easier for both of us, and hugely beneficial for our child. That's a view both of us have.

And if we split, I would very much expect that our child has an equal quality of life in both his mum and his dad's house. You cant say that it's fair to a kid to have to spend half a week with one parent who is on a pittance and cant afford to give the children the lifestyle they are accustomed to when the other one who kept 'their' money gets to swan in, shower the kids with fancy gadgets and trips to Disneyland on their time etc.

It was domestic abuse in my opinion, she needlessly assaulted her husband, I think most would consider it domestic abuse if a husband hit his wife after discovering she had an affair.

nokia69

zeffabelli wrote: »

It's OTT in my opinion to label a slap in the face in the context given here, which is a concern, not nice - etc, with a DV label.

Seriously, while it is cause for concern it is not on the same par as serious domestic abuse. It's insane to me to compare this situation with a woman wgo gets stripped and thrown out into the garden in the middle of winter with the patio doors locked, or a man who had boiling water thrown at him while his pants were down in teh toilet. These are assaults, this is domestic violence.

I agree people should try have a little nuance

there was a thread a while back in the ladies lounge about a man who was convicted of sexual harassment, he pinched a co worker on the ass and made some sexual remarks, so the case went to court, the man lost the case and no doubt lost his job, fair enough

but all the women in the ladies lounge were of the opinion that the mans name should go on the sex offenders register with rapists and paedophiles, there was no grey area, no middle ground, no nuance

in cases like this the courts and society in general are willing to see the grey area for woman but are far less lightly to do the same for men

kunst nugget

Zaiden Scary Rapper wrote: »

You would be at a disadvantage but you could still re-enter the workforce and earn an income, but how much of a salary would you be sacrificing by giving up work to staying at home and how much less of a salary would you receive when re-entering the workforce? Realistically you would probably be a few hundred euro down per month compared to your peers when re-entering work so compared to all those years out of employment you wouldn't be that much worse off than your colleagues who decided to stay in employment.
People also have to bear in mind that they make certain choices in life and those choices have risks and rewards e.g. getting married, having children etc.

This is completely disconnected to the realities of actually having children and people generally can not leave and re-enter the job market at the click of their fingers - especially when the issues of children and childcare costs are in the equation.

v638sg7k1a92bx

kunst nugget wrote: »

This is completely disconnected to the realities of actually having children and people generally can not leave and re-enter the job market at the click of their fingers - especially when the issues of children and childcare costs are in the equation.

It was in the context of re-entering the workforce after the children had grown up and childcare costs were no longer applicable. Anyway, in the event of separation/divorce, the childcare costs would be split or most likely paid by the father.

Pawwed Rig

Also the pension shortfall and obsolete skills are nearly a bigger issue than what the actual income would be never mind the general reluctance campanies have of hiring middle aged people into junior/semi junior positions in companies.

kunst nugget

Zaiden Scary Rapper wrote: »

It was in the context of re-entering the workforce after the children had grown up and childcare costs were no longer applicable. Anyway, in the event of separation/divorce, the childcare costs would be split or most likely paid by the father.

How many companies do you know are in the market for hiring middle-aged women whose last time in the workplace was 15 years ago?

Neyite

Moonves wrote: »

It was domestic abuse in my opinion, she needlessly assaulted her husband, I think most would consider it domestic abuse if a husband hit his wife after discovering she had an affair.

A single isolated slap is assault. I've been a victim of domestic abuse, and if a woman told me that their normally non-violent husband slapped them upon finding out about her constant philandering and that she was having an affair with his best friend, I would consider it assault, not domestic abuse.

Would you not consider a woman like this turning up at a refuge demanding a bed, a barring order for her husband and supervised access to his kids a bit of a drama queen? I would, and I'd tell her to cop on.

Domestic abuse is about far more than a slap, and in many cases no physical abuse occurs, its all verbal and emotional abuse that the abuser uses.

Neyite

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Also the pension shortfall and obsolete skills are nearly a bigger issue than what the actual income would be never mind the general reluctance campanies have of hiring middle aged people into junior/semi junior positions in companies.

I took six months out of work to become an unpaid carer for someone. The only gap in my CV ever, and that was a big thing they focused on in the interview.

Pawwed Rig

Ah I can understand them questioning gaps (you may have been in prison :P) but once explained it is usually ok particularly if it is a clear once off event.

zeffabelli

Neyite wrote: »

Would you not consider a woman like this turning up at a refuge demanding a bed, a barring order for her husband and supervised access to his kids a bit of a drama queen? I would, and I'd tell her to cop on.

This loss of discernment is what leads to more abuse. A person who does this in their state of victimisation then becomes the abuser but used state resources as the primary weapon.

Depending on the context of the philandering and the circumstances it breeds, it may in and of itself constitute abuse. Think gaslighting, obfuscations, abandonments, etc. {In the OP- she was childcaring full time not only when he was working, but when he was philandering too.}

Drama queen/king. Yes. And abuser in his or her own right.

Problem is all these activists are convincing people of their victimisation and entitlement to its benefits.

ancapailldorcha

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Ah I can understand them questioning gaps (you may have been in prison :P) but once explained it is usually ok particularly if it is a clear once off event.

Would it depend on the sector? I know women in academia who've had it tough when they've had to take time out to have children. It immediately sets them at a disadvantage in terms of grant applications and publications.

zeffabelli

Moonves wrote: »

It was domestic abuse in my opinion, she needlessly assaulted her husband, I think most would consider it domestic abuse if a husband hit his wife after discovering she had an affair.

Some would also consider an affair and its outputs domestic abuse.

Moonves

Neyite wrote: »

A single isolated slap is assault. I've been a victim of domestic abuse, and if a woman told me that their normally non-violent husband slapped them upon finding out about her constant philandering and that she was having an affair with his best friend, I would consider it assault, not domestic abuse.

Would you not consider a woman like this turning up at a refuge demanding a bed, a barring order for her husband and supervised access to his kids a bit of a drama queen? I would, and I'd tell her to cop on.

Domestic abuse is about far more than a slap, and in many cases no physical abuse occurs, its all verbal and emotional abuse that the abuser uses.

An unnecessary slap is domestic abuse imo, if there is a formal definition which contradicts my interpretation I will stand corrected.

Guy:Incognito

fits wrote: »

You know, just because they are wealthy doesn't mean its not a sh1tty situation to be in.

If I have to chose between my ****ty poor life and a ****ty wealthy life, I'll take the wealthy one thanks.

Pawwed Rig

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Would it depend on the sector? I know women in academia who've had it tough when they've had to take time out to have children. It immediately sets them at a disadvantage in terms of grant applications and publications.

I don't know anything about grants and publications but I work in finance and to take even a 5 year break would be catastrophic to your career as tax laws change, accountancy standards change, best practise changes. It would be very difficult to keep up with these changes without looking at them every day.

Pawwed Rig

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If I have to chose between my ****ty poor life and a ****ty wealthy life, I'll take the wealthy one thanks.

Reminds me of something I was told once.
'People tell you winning the lotto won't make you happy but it will make my misery alot more bearable':D

kunst nugget

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Reminds me of something I was told once.
'People tell you winning the lotto won't make you happy but it will make my misery alot more bearable':D

€500 notes wipe away tears way better than 5c coins do.

Lux23

If the roles were reversed, I probably wouldn't blame the husband for giving her a smack. This guy seems like a toe rag and I am glad the judge saw through his attempt to make himself look like a victim.

Neyite

Moonves wrote: »

An unnecessary slap is domestic abuse imo, if there is a formal definition which contradicts my interpretation I will stand corrected.

I don't think that there is a formal definition, but rather a range of behaviours that an abuser chooses from to abuse another person. I'm not saying that a slap is not violent and wrong, and a criminal act in its own right- it is, absolutely, and slapping as part of that range of behaviours is domestic abuse, but as a stand-alone action, with no other abusive behaviours displayed prior to that, its more correctly defined as an assault, in this instance.

We are all capable of behaving like a sh!t to our partner when pushed to our limit, but that doesn't make us necessarily a bad person. Just someone who did a bad thing.

zeffabelli

Lux23 wrote: »

If the roles were reversed, I probably wouldn't blame the husband for giving her a smack. This guy seems like a toe rag and I am glad the judge saw through his attempt to make himself look like a victim.

He is using a tactic the abuse industry created for divorce cases, its usually credited with being used by the women, but the men do it too.

zeffabelli

Neyite wrote: »

I don't think that there is a formal definition, but rather a range of behaviours that an abuser chooses from to abuse another person. I'm not saying that a slap is not violent and wrong, and a criminal act in its own right- it is, absolutely, and slapping as part of that range of behaviours is domestic abuse, but as a stand-alone action, with no other abusive behaviours displayed prior to that, its more correctly defined as an assault, in this instance.

We are all capable of behaving like a sh!t to our partner when pushed to our limit, but that doesn't make us necessarily a bad person. Just someone who did a bad thing.

The example in the OP is terrible since slapping means so many different things to different people and cultures.

Technically if someone taps me on the shoulder that is also "assault" - any touch without consent is "assault."

It all has to be contextualised.

ancapailldorcha

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't know anything about grants and publications but I work in finance and to take even a 5 year break would be catastrophic to your career as tax laws change, accountancy standards change, best practise changes. It would be very difficult to keep up with these changes without looking at them every day.

Once you finish your PhD, you're looking at 1-2 year Postdoc contracts for the next 10-15 years until you start applying for lectureships. A lot of people don't go that far down the road but if one needs over half a year to have a baby then that'll have a knockon effect regarding how attractive they'll be when they're applying for another contract with someone else.

zeffabelli wrote: »

He is using a tactic the abuse industry created for divorce cases, its usually credited with being used by the women, but the men do it too.

The abuse industry?

Pawwed Rig

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Once you finish your PhD, you're looking at 1-2 year Postdoc contracts for the next 10-15 years until you start applying for lectureships. A lot of people don't go that far down the road but if one needs over half a year to have a baby then that'll have a knockon effect regarding how attractive they'll be when they're applying for another contract with someone else.

And that is a fair point. The maternity laws like so many others are essentially designed for the public sector where a person will spend may years in the same employment. Where people move about there are severe restrictions for women of child bearing age such as having to wait a period of time before they can get maternity leave (I think it is a year), the time off not being available to share with your spouse putting you (at least) 6 months behind a similar colleague professionally. Moving around different jobs during child bearing years is very difficult.
There is also the issue of promotion. Many women who are planning on having children will be reluctant to apply for a promotion as they feel they would not be giving their all to the new job/greater responsibilities should they go on maternity within a few months and also they perceive (with good reason) that their employer might be a bit miffed where they are in a new job with planned assignments that they won't be around to do.

Simple solution is to eliminate the risk for employers by having paternity leave but unfortunately their does not seem to be any appetite to seriously change things in this regard (the muted 2 weeks is derisory).

ancapailldorcha

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Simple solution is to eliminate the risk for employers by having paternity leave but unfortunately their does not seem to be any appetite to seriously change things in this regard (the muted 2 weeks is derisory).

I'm not sure how much of maternity leave is spent on pregnancy and how much is spent nurturing the baby which would be the main difference there. Saying Dads could have equal paternity leave would leave both parents at home and wouldn't be cost effective. In Scandinavia, I think there's an allowance that parents can allocate at their discretion.

eviltwin

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not sure how much of maternity leave is spent on pregnancy and how much is spent nurturing the baby which would be the main difference there. Saying Dads could have equal paternity leave would leave both parents at home and wouldn't be cost effective. In Scandinavia, I think there's an allowance that parents can allocate at their discretion.

Minimum 2 weeks have to be taken before the due date and the rest after.

zeffabelli

nokia69 wrote: »

I agree people should try have a little nuance

there was a thread a while back in the ladies lounge about a man who was convicted of sexual harassment, he pinched a co worker on the ass and made some sexual remarks, so the case went to court, the man lost the case and no doubt lost his job, fair enough

but all the women in the ladies lounge were of the opinion that the mans name should go on the sex offenders register with rapists and paedophiles, there was no grey area, no middle ground, no nuance

in cases like this the courts and society in general are willing to see the grey area for woman but are far less lightly to do the same for men

That's insane.

This is why I can't take the sex offenders registry seriously either.

In the US even if the chlid did not see you and you are within 400 meters or something like that, let's say you had to pee or I don't know some college guy streaking and had no idea...wham you are on the registry...no job...can't rent an apartment...shows up on lists.

If someone does that ONCE, on ONE day, he or she is defined for life, but the other 364 days of the year over many years, s/he hasn't done anything.

Oh don't worry, the men are in on the abuse industry also, and between them and the feminists will make all human relationships impossible.

eviltwin

zeffabelli wrote: »

He is using a tactic the abuse industry created for divorce cases, its usually credited with being used by the women, but the men do it too.

I used to work in that 'industry'. I never encountered anything like this. Abuse is more than just the physical, it's the on going intimidation, fear that goes with it. It's like bullying, it's persistent, covert and more often than not hard to prove.

zeffabelli

eviltwin wrote: »

I used to work in that 'industry'. I never encountered anything like this. Abuse is more than just the physical, it's the on going intimidation, fear that goes with it. It's like bullying, it's persistent, covert and more often than not hard to prove.

Have you worked for family lawyers or sat in the courts all day?

You will see how it works. Family and divorce lawyers are constantly concuting up stories of abuse to win cases, secure evictions and custody orders. Without doubt there are non physical forms of abuse, of course there are, but because of the 'vagueness' of the definitions, it is being exploited.

The industry is going to destroy it for genuine victims and make human relations impossible.

Moonves

In what circumstances and on what basis should one party receive compensation from their spouse in the case of a divorce? And what should determine the level of compensation?

If one party deprives the other of sex should they receive compensation?

ancapailldorcha

zeffabelli wrote: »

Have you worked for family lawyers or sat in the courts all day?

You will see how it works.

The industry is going to destroy it for genuine victims and make human relations impossible.

How so? You'll always get a few chancers but that doesn't mean that most claims aren't genuine.

eviltwin

zeffabelli wrote: »

Have you worked for family lawyers or sat in the courts all day?

You will see how it works. Family and divorce lawyers are constantly concuting up stories of abuse to win cases, secure evictions and custody orders. Without doubt there are non physical forms of abuse, of course there are, but because of the 'vagueness' of the definitions, it is being exploited.

The industry is going to destroy it for genuine victims and make human relations impossible.

I worked in victim support. I saw people with clear proof of abuse being let down by the legal system. I've never heard of anyone lie with no supporting evidence to verify their claim being successful.