Mom Stabs Dad - Paper Doesn't Call it DV - Neither Does Office on Violence Against Women
November 14th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.This looks like a pretty standard case of domestic violence (York Record, 10/27/09). Oh, don't get me wrong, the article doesn't call it domestic violence, and you can guess why that is - a woman stabbed a man and to call that domestic violence would violate a cardinal rule of DV reporting.
It seems that Josh Denenberg, of York, Pennsylvania, went over to his girlfriend's house. Christine Spillane is also the mother of Denenberg's nine-month-old daughter. The two tell conflicting stories, but, while he was holding the baby, she stabbed him with a kitchen knife at least twice. Depending on who you believe, he either did or did not push her before she stabbed him.
Whatever the case, the police arrested her and charged her with aggravated battery. A York County judge let her out of jail on $5,000 bond and issued an order of no contact against her, meaning that she's to stay away from Denenberg. And that of course raises an issue - who's got the baby? If she has her, the no-contact order means Denenberg can't see his child.
Denenberg's injuries are described as "serious," and he's in the hospital for treatment.
One interesting sidelight is that, according to the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women, the incident might actually not be domestic violence. How could that be possible? Here's the lead-in to its definition of domestic violence.
Domestic violence can be defined as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.
Of course saying it "can be defined" is slightly odd in what is in fact the Office's definition. Is it, or isn't it? But nowhere does the definition refer to anything but a "pattern." So if there's no pattern, there's no DV? If Spillane had never been violent or abusive before, would the OVW say it's not DV?
I bring this up mostly to highlight the surpassing weirdness of what masquerades as rational discourse on domestic violence. I mean, when a government Office, that takes who knows how much money to maintain, can't figure out that a one-shot (perhaps literally) incident can constitute DV, there's something seriously wrong. And notice too that the OVW relies on the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the national Center for Victims of Crime and WomensLaw.org as its sources for the definition. So it's not just one organization but several that have come up with this gem.
Undermining your partner's "sense of self-worth?" Making repeated attempts to get your wife to stop buying so many pairs of shoes? Putting to sleep a terminally-ill pet? Yep, each of those constitutes violent behavior under the OVW definition. Shooting your husband in the head with a shotgun while he sleeps? Not necessarily.
I suggest that these people have been marinating in their own bile too long. Someone needs to stage an intervention.
"));
19 queries. 0.312 seconds.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
The only true choice left for men who want a career and a life is to never be involved with marriage, kids and such. This country is lost to agendas mongers and truly stupid people who have turned the greatest nation on earth into a toilet of hatred and blame, and being a man automaticly labels you a deadbeat, abuser and wife beater. Kinda like when the Germans labled human beings kikes so that, like putting dogs down, they could do without any regret.
By the way, I just put my dog down and cried like a baby. Guess I do not belong in this society, thank God.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
On a related note, some interesting news from:
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=99018
"A new report on LGBT domestic violence has found that there was a 125% increase in domestic violence-related fatalities in 2008."
"According to the results, police misconduct has become a rampant problem regarding the reporting of domestic violence. Reports of police misconduct in domestic violence cases increased in 2008 by 98%. According to the report, both the victim and the attacker are often arrested. Police officers often mistake victims with masculine gender expressions for the attacker."
November 14th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Really is a classic case of a female on male dv:
1. Children in danger
2. Use of a weapon.
3. False allegations of one sort or another.
Not only did she falsely accuse him of not paying child support, she attacked him so severely she even broke the kitchen knife!
November 14th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Just missed point four:
4. Despite the severity of the attack she's still been released on bail (and low bail at that).
November 15th, 2009 at 12:23 am
"Domestic violence can be defined as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner."
What a load of crap. 'Power' and 'Control?' Unless the world stops buying this neo-Marxist language, nothing's ever going to change.
DV is about anger, rage, ignorance, poverty, alcohol, drugs - issues that society doesn't want to face.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:18 am
***Femspeak annoucement***
Only men commit domestic violence.
Women are victims of domestic violence.
Women are an "oppressed" class.
Men are the "oppressor" class.
Men use domestic violence to maintain women in subjection.
***Femspeak announcement over***
November 15th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Welcome to Ministry of Truth controlled by the inner party of feministas. War is peace. Freedom is slavery, Domestic Violence is by man. Doublethink from "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Feminism."
November 15th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Wow... Nope... no pink elephants in THAT room...
Not to be a nit-picker Robert but, you refered to the child as a girl and then as he/him...
TMOTS
November 15th, 2009 at 11:02 am
NE Says:
"***Femspeak annoucement*** Only men commit domestic violence."
Which is exactly the problem with letting these kooks control the dialogue about DV. Remember, at least when it comes to DV, these people have a tremendous amount of influence with the police, the courts, the politicians and the media. Practically everytime some DV related incident occurs, some male-hating radical with repressed daddy issues pops up out of the woodwork to claim that the police and the courts need "better training"... and they are the ones who want to control the type of "training" that is conducted. This is one reason why we have the current mess, where the man is virtually guaranteed to be arrested, even when he is the victim.
As it was pointed out in the article I posted above, even in DV incidents within the gay/lesbian community, the police almost always arrest the individual who looks the most masculine.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:17 am
"the incident might actually not be domestic violence..."
Well this is conjecture, but to add my own (and from personal experience): calling the incident DV would probably compel social workers to remove the child from mom's custody and into foster care (since dad is injured in the hospital). That could allow dad to get sole or primary custody when he recovers - and from what I've seen, many in the child protective industry would rather have a child abused before having to hand them over to - a man.
Still, that doesn't explain or excuse the media's "lace curtain" on calling female DV what it is. It would be easier to change the media perceptions first, and the system's later.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
"But nowhere does the definition refer to anything but a 'pattern.' So if there's no pattern, there's no DV? If Spillane had never been violent or abusive before, would the OVW say it's not DV?"
Hmm. I have a sneaking suspicion that were the genders reversed such that it was a guy who had stabbed his female partner twice with a knife, the first stab would have been an 'incident' and the second 'a pattern'.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
York County is a joke.