Topeka, Kansas is now officially the best place in the U.S. to beat your wife. The city council decided to repeal the local law that makes domestic violence a crime there by a vote of 7 to 3. Thanks guys! Their reasoning is not that they hate women, but that it’s just too darn expensive to prosecute the hordes of wife-beaters (and girlfriend-beaters, and various other beaters) out there, and therefore easier to decriminalize domestic violence.
One of the damn funniest legal writers out there, Elie Mystal, has a commendable piece on the Above the Law blog:
The Topeka City Council] wouldn’t have repealed misdemeanor ordinances about robbery. The(y) wouldn’t have decriminalized drugs. They wouldn’t have messed around with funding the prosecution of something that they really cared about.But women, and the beating thereof? Oh, let’s make a political point about fiscal responsibility with that. They would have seen the problems with headlines claiming Topeka was a drug haven or the storefront robbery capital of the world. But when they contemplated becoming Disneyland for wife-beaters, they were cool with it.(via)
I know a lot of people who think of themselves as “socially liberal, but fiscally conservative,” and here’s an example of of that philosophy failing to the utmost. It’s hard to fathom anyone thinking, “Ehhh, what’s a few bruised ladies in comparison to all that moolah?!” but that’s exactly what the Topeka City Council (elected officials, respected pillars of society) thought when they decriminalized domestic violence.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how disgusted are you? Tell me what you think in the comments.
I get that this ruling sucks, but you act like women are the only people affected by this verdict. Men are abused too, and they also have to deal with this, so stop trying to act like this is only a women's issue and marginalizing male domestic abuse victims.
That's not a failure for "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" philosophy. At worst it's a dilemma.
Wow. That's unbelievable.
I'd say about a 9. I read over at the I Blame The Patriarchy blog and truth be told, I'm not surprised. As Twisty would say, "Men hate you." However, my understanding from the articles I have read including this one: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/228254/20111010/topeka-kansas-city-council-decriminalize-domestic-battery-domestic-violence.htm is that all misdemeanors are going to be let go. In Kansas, this includes things like driving on a suspended license and a first drug possession offence. What I would like to see is if in practice they let only the DV go or all of the misdemeanors. But, I also resent having a separate category for DV. If dude beats you, that's assault. Period. There should be no separate category that basically screams "bitch wouldn't make him a sandwich" and allows for this lack of prosecution. Assault is assault, and if he picks up a weapon it's assault with a deadly weapon. About time we claimed our rights to be treated like every other citizen back. And to Anonymous I'd say we marginalize them because they are the margins. Overall women victims significantly outnumber men and if men don't like that marginalization stop supporting the patriarchy that does it. After all, it is you men who are in charge. It is you men who hold the courts, the legislature, and the presidency by a wide margin in most cases. Stop telling us how to act and take some action why don't you?
Completely enraged. I'll be postfeminist in the postpatriarchy, thanksverymuch, Topeka.
What Jenni said. In many jurisdictions the fact there's a law on the books doesn't translate into meaningful enforcement; often, when cops arrive on a DV call, they characterize it as a "domestic dispute" in which there aren't really an assailant and a victim so there's no role for law enforcement. California has tried to move away from this by requiring the police to identify a "primary aggressor" so self-defense doesn't relieve the original assailant of blame. But there's still a significant gap between the law and the way it's enforced. The Topeka council jerks aren't necessarily any worse than other government bodies, they're just too dumb to hide behind a rhetoric of fairness, though I don't think they're well-placed just now to accuse their critics of hypocrisy.
Yes, anonymous, it's true. Sometimes men get abused. But by a wide margin, guess who by? Other men! Surprise!So basically, Topeka is down with some manly violence as long as it's men doing the hitting.
What about the menz, sez anonymous. Yes, this is definitely about men, as almost everything is. What kind of a world is it, when a man can't beat up on his woman in peace? You know how women are! They drive you crazy!!!This isn't assault, which is still a crime; harming a woman is not a crime when perpetrated against the woman a man is in control of. As long as a man can refrain from harming other men, or women who are not his property, he is well within his rights as a citizen of Kansas.
@JenniJust because I am a man does not men other men care about me. Men are seen almost always as aggressors and incapable of being abused by a women, in certain studies it was even shown that men and women abuse at almost equivalent rates. It's not men in charge, it's a small group of people who happen to be mostly men. You act like the fact that they are men means they are going to help other men. That's false.@john_burke100Exactly what I meant. Primary Aggressor laws force cops to arrest someone at a domestic dispute. In many cases, this is the man, because he is seen as more of a risk, regardless of who started the conflict.@Pon KeenMen are hit by women too in relationships, but never report it for fear of being seen as weak. Yeah, patriarchy sucks for everyone not in power, it's not like being a man automatically gives people some magical protection under the patriarchy. So it's not that a majority of men are hurt by men, but rather that when hit by women, men are taught to shrug it off and not consider it abuse.@HattieStop trolling. I was talking about a clear focus on women in this blog when men are abused too. You act like every man is invincible under the patriarchy when really men are under more rigid gender roles than women. Men cannot be hurt by women according to gender roles, so men obviously can't be abused /s. They didn't make DV legal for men, they made it legal for everyone(actually they just pushed the jurisdiction of it to another level). Dismissing male victims is a product of the patriarchy and is outright misandrist. Why do you act like all men are in control of the country when it's a very very powerful minority who happen to be mostly, but not all men?
@AnonymousI actually thought you had a point at first, many men don't come forward when abused. Then you had to continue with this gem. .."when really men are under more rigid gender roles than women"… you lost me because I can't even begin to see the outline of that little thought holding any sort of fact. Let it go. Everyone agrees the law sucks. ~JKHPS. the reason men are seen as the aggressor in most DV disputes is the sizable difference in muscle mass and bulk, which is present in *most* cases, not *all* when police are involved.
Anonymous, what are the studies you mention, but don't cite, that show "almost equivalent rates"? One was based on depictions of domestic violence in newspaper comic strips, which used to trade on the image of the harridan wielding a rolling pin; these are (to put it mildly) not a reliable basis for conclusions about actual behavior. My point about primary aggressor was that without such specific language, cops often refuse to acknowledge clear evidence that the man is the assailant, especially if the woman has defended herself; even when such laws are on the books, they often ignore them. Rigid gender roles are not the same thing as domestic violence, which in the real world is overwhelmingly committed by men against women and children. And whining is really unattractive, you dig?
An anonyomous troll accuses me of trolling! Get stuffed!
Sarah, I know I already commented on your facebook about this but it's still incredible how much bureaucratic b.s. can influence the way our citizens are protected and prosecuted.
jo(e) – INORITE?Jenni – Until I started reading IBTP, I had no idea how much some men (and some women) really do hate women. And then I got to have first-hand object lessons in male hatred via comments on this blog, and from ACTUAL MEN I KNOW IRL on the Facebook version of the blog. Guhhhh. But then there are always the jo(e)s and John Burkes and Brightened Boys of the world, they give me hope.Deena – me too! John – It's a sad state that I expect the ruling won't change the actual enforcement rates much. It'd be interesting to see a comparison of DV prosectution rates of Topeka vs various other locales as time goes on to see if a DV-is-illegal law actually does any good.Pon Keen & Hattie – No doubt. I wanted to go back and add "and some men" to the post, cuz, you know, a small fraction of DV is women-against-men, but that'd be kowtowing to rabid MRA trolls. No one's "trying to act" like the majority of domestic violence is committed by women against men. That's simply the way it is. No amount of acting (or trolling) will make that less true.Jen – Innit though? It's enough to make a girl want to spend an hour or five looking for the perfect pair of boots to distract herself from the sad state of reality…
It'd be interesting to see a comparison of DV prosectution rates of Topeka vs various other locales as time goes on to see if a DV-is-illegal law actually does any good.It would–let me see if I can locate some reliable data. I have the impression (that's all it is) that local policy is really crucial. The DA and police brass have to be serious about enforcement, and the people doing the work–police, firefighters, EMTs etc.–have to get good training and supervision. I also think making women and children safer is a more realistic goal than actually getting rid of misogyny–the Twistolution, as it's called over at IBTP. I used to think working for mitigation was a bad thing because it only postponed the fundamental transformations that would surely come if we fought hard enough; I don't think that any more. Some undetermined part of the change in my attitude, I know, is due to advancing age, but there it is.
Herehttp://www.acfjc.org/is a good example of what local government can do.
Hilarious typo above. "Committed by women against men" should've been "committed by men against women," clearly.