> The pendulum needed to swing toward protecting women by default
He owned the house. If she felt in danger, the cops should come and escort her out of the house that doesn't belong to her. I don't see how your story is related to this.
He owned the house. If she felt in danger, the cops should come and escort her out of the house that doesn't belong to her. I don't see how your story is related to this.
The alternative is that one partner can abuse the other, then throw them out on the street if they wish or if the victim complains.
I think it would be better if there was a real third option, but I’m not aware of it.
Thats literally what happened here. You have a blindspot to men being the victim like the person here was.
use the reclaimed former tax revenue to maintain separate apartments longer, even if just a bedroom one rents.
As for your second sentence- the total value of the US real estate market is about $56 trillion, so I kind of doubt that the government is going to make much of a dent here. There's not a lot of places where you can say even the US government doesn't have enough money, but....
Which I'm fine with, it still seems to be a reasonable heuristic given how imbalanced I believe domestic abuse is. But obviously it's unjust in some cases, and not useful for same sex relationships. Let's strive for a world where as many women as men own shared housing and act abusive towards their spouse.
Domestic abuse has been ignored for too long and I'm glad women are being listened to. Men are still rarely listened to. Look at Johnny Depp for one.
The police / legal system is biased against men, from "always believe her" to "she gets to live with the kids and his expenses" to "you were married so you have to keep paying to maintain her life quality after marriage".
The problem with bias is that it creates economic incentives for women to lie their way to the life they want. You married a rich guy and you're bored because he's always working and he's never home? A small lie and you'll get him out of the house, pronto!
I think we should revert to property ownership in this case. If she feels unsafe, she can leave. If she is a 50% owner I can understand removing the suspected abuser from the premise. Unless she can't prove abuse I think she should pays the lodging fees though, for example by losing a small portion of the shares in the house. If she owns the house 100% he should just leave.
No, I don't. Which is why I said "I suspect the man would draw the short straw regardless of the ownership situation." But I think domestic violence initiated by men is a bigger societal issue than women lying their way to the life they want.
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind this statement. Are you saying that men should receive unequal treatment from police in these matters?
We don't live in minority report, so he's not an aggressor.
Surely what you've got here is evidence that we do live in minority report.
(We don't, but I guess what I'm suggesting is that you're stating something in flat contradiction of the facts presented above; if this event happening means "we are living in minority report", well then, here we are living in minority report)