Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,594
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Indeed. To me, it starts with a piece of philosophy that to me has come up time and again: those who want to leave a situation need a way made clear for them; societies which wish to define situations which necessitate such an open way must provide the surety to those seeking such an exit. It cannot simply be "you have a right to leave", but "because you have a right to leave society has an obligation to ensure you have somewhere to go".We need to do much more to prevent violence towards women and children —and men —all people. We need to do much more to treat mental illnesses and to help people cope with stresses and strains that all of us experience but for some, much more than others.
This means shelters for abused people with a guarantee to a bed for everyone.
It means shelters that do not automatically assume the person there is there because they are abusive (which is an unfortunate fixture of the majority of homes for a certain fraction of victims).
It means providing legal defense for those who must fight through an illegal barrier to their exit.
I also wonder what impact this whole situation has on suicides, as the domestic violence situations I have observed skewed towards a preference for suicide in situations where it is the "atypical" partner committing the abuse, and there is no opportunity for social recognition of the abuse.
I will reiterate though that every time someone blames the problem based on looking at "probability someone is an abuser due to demographics" it exacerbates those very demographics.
I would as soon think that instead of there being such major population differences, that we may be blinding ourselves to the ways that different populations achieve "abuse".
We do know that due to differences that follow demographics that the specific actions someone takes to pursue an outcome may have outsized effects: more often, men will take a definitive approach to suicide and murder, and fail at social attacks against career/livelihood/family access, and women are just the opposite insofar as their responses are more socially oriented including the violence they engage in.
I would absolutely support an "open way" doctrine far more expansive than merely domestic situations. It already ostensibly exists in the right of travel, and I think it also ought exist for anyone who wishes to leave any country, for any other country that will have them. It's an important doctrine, and I think that anyone who stands in someone else's way to close it "has their own blood upon them" as it were.
That said, I see an issue in framing it as "against women", because it's yet another message that leads to too many suicides at the hands of people for whom there is no way out, for whom the only options would be to kill a lying spouse who everyone will believe (and go to prison for it and suffer some fates worse than death), or to kill themselves and let that be the end of their suffering, or to give everything up and start over and never see your kids or family ever again.
It makes me think of the story of Fenris, a fearsome beast capable of devouring the world. It struck fear even into the hearts of the gods, and burst many chains thought to be physically indestructible. The thing that eventually served to bind Fenris was not such a chain, but a dainty ribbon made of that which barely even existed at all! I wonder at hearing this if there is not more reciprocity among the statistics, but that the chain that binds some is obviously a chain, and that others are instead bound by the ribbon.