I fell into the side of a trashcan

Umm…

The guy slams your face into a garbage can and you defend him?
 
sharrukin on December 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

 
It’s hard to sympathize with people like his g/f, who enable abusers’ criminal behavior. She’s sick and codependent, probably from an abusive family, just as he certainly is.
 
Anti-Control on December 12, 2012 at 9:37 PM

 
By the time the abuse has emerged, women often lack the ability TO live independently. Meaning, it takes intervention of caring people to open her eyes to opportunities and actual physical means to get away and how to do so safely…and quietly.
 
It’s tough to understand people who are being abused, you’re right, but they’re quite indoctrinated over time…
 
…after they’re already emotionally, physically and usually financially committed…
 
…and the danger increases when the ‘victim’ tries to leave the abuser or does: abusers become more violent when their object of abuse “defies” them and leaves or tries to.
 
(Hi states with right to work laws! Hi Steven C.! – rb)
 

 
So it’s a thing of survival, that some abused think they’re protecting htemselves and children, family, etc., by STAYING with an abuser…
 
So it has to be done with planning and privacy, to depart this sort of awful thing…
 
Lourdes on December 13, 2012 at 2:29 AM

 
Well reckoned and well put, Lourdes. It’s amazing how much this reminds me of something else.

I am having a hard time summoning up any sympathy for this woman. The guy slams your face into a garbage can and you defend him?

sharrukin on December 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

It’s hard to sympathize with people like his g/f, who enable abusers’ criminal behavior. She’s sick and codependent, probably from an abusive family, just as he certainly is.

Leftists are unhealthy, unhappy, maladjusted people, invariably.

Anti-Control on December 12, 2012 at 9:37 PM

By the time the abuse has emerged, women often lack the ability TO live independently. Meaning, it takes intervention of caring people to open her eyes to opportunities and actual physical means to get away and how to do so safely…and quietly.

It’s tough to understand people who are being abused, you’re right, but they’re quite indoctrinated over time if they’re with an abuser who becomes increasingly damaging, so it takes consistent suggestions and offers of ideas of “how-to” to get the person being abused out of the abusive situation.

It’s not a case of some people “wanting to be abused,” but that they realize they are after they’re already emotionally, physically and usually financially committed to someone.

Remember Nicole Simpson? She didn’t, obviously, exercise proper security over the situation she was in, allowing ongoing contact and interactions with the abuser (O.J.) to her eventual demise. Which happens all too often….women in these situations have to understand the danger they’re in (most don’t though they object to being abused) and the danger increases when the ‘victim’ tries to leave the abuser or does: abusers become more violent when their object of abuse “defies” them and leaves or tries to.

So it’s a thing of survival, that some abused think they’re protecting htemselves and children, family, etc., by STAYING with an abuser because the situation becomes more violent if and when they try to leave the abuser or do.

So it has to be done with planning and privacy, to depart this sort of awful thing. Women (and men who are in a similar predicament, though it’s rarer than it is with women) being abused have to be encouraged to act smartly, quietly and securely and then begin the long process of learning how to avoid such relationships in the future (and how to recognize the personalities who abuse others, not an easy thing to do for most of us when these people tend to be so charming at the beginning).

She’s obviously lying. I just don’t get why these women are so attracted to guys who smack them around.

sharrukin on December 12, 2012 at 7:42 PM

I don’t get it either.

gophergirl on December 12, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Can’t speak to this woman, specifically — her mind — but in general, women end up with abusers who reveal their awful behavior in increasing violence over time. So they’re almost always great charmers at the beginning and then they progress with increasingly controlling (and abusive) engagement over time.

It’s a well-observed and predictable pattern.

So, once the abuse becomses physical, or emerges as such, the woman is indoctrinated in the relationship and has become highly dependent (the process of the controlling abuser).

Not to confuse “controlling” from an abusive person with that by a dominant male (or even dominant female, there are some couples with dominant females who do control the relationship with more submissive males)…from an abusive perspective, the type of “control” is itself abusive: demands the female (or male, whoever is being abused) increasingly depend on the abuser, increasingly limit to eventually cease all other social and emotional relationships (person being abused becomes socially and emotionally isolated with and by abuser) and it usually also includes being economically dependent on the abuser (including right down to what clothing “can be” purchased and worn, what can’t, all determined and “allowed” by abuser).

Most women don’t start off being “attracted to men who abuse them,” some of them end up being IN a relationship with a man who abuses them (or, like I already wrote, a male does with an abusive female because there are those relationships among the abusive kind, just not as many as men-abusers-upon-females).

People who abuse others interpersonally, s**ually, physically, emotionally, are almost always very charming at the beginning, overly indulgent of others (lots of special gifts, charms, etc.) and they entrap those who they can abuse and then they do.

I hope she got paid well to change her story.

WhatSlushfund on December 12, 2012 at 8:19 PM

She’s still breathing, isn’t she?

getting punched in the face every now and then is good for your character.

sesquipedalian on December 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM
rogerb on December 12, 2012 at 7:28 PM

…sqatandpissonmyself has been punched in the brain…repeatedly!

It’d be nice to see reporters ask Moran why he so cavalierly minimized violence against women in his public statements. But he voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Act, so what’s a little blaming the victim among friends, right?

Yeah, it would be, but they’re too busy asking questions about Anna Wintour and other shiny objects.

Anyone hear about that Ben Ghazi guy lately? My memory is starting to fade.

So, if this was just an accident, why did he plead guilty to any charge? If the girlfriend is the only witness and she testifies that her heel broke, why wouldn’t he fight this at trial?

Anyway, the girlfriend sounds like the typical battered spouse that keeps coming back for more.

Bitter Clinger on December 12, 2012 at 7:31 PM

That is exactly what she is.

Good post, which highlights the lie they are perpetuating.

I am having a hard time summoning up any sympathy for this woman. The guy slams your face into a garbage can and you defend him?

sharrukin on December 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

It’s hard to sympathize with people like his g/f, who enable abusers’ criminal behavior. She’s sick and codependent, probably from an abusive family, just as he certainly is.

Leftists are unhealthy, unhappy, maladjusted people, invariably.

He’s my congressman too. He will be unless I move away or he dies.

22044 on December 12, 2012 at 8:06 PM

I moved to get away from him. And then 2 years later, redristricting put me back in his district.

I moved again that year.

Yeah, break her face, it’s an embarrassing situation. What a real man you are patrick moron.

Oh patrick, did she deserve it? How often do you beat your g/f?

Bloody, filibustering, old sot.

Resist We Much on December 12, 2012 at 8:36 PM

You have a strong stomach, ma’am!

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews seemed to come unglued Tuesday night, badgering a conservative guest and repeatedly demanding to know, “Who’s paying your salary?” during a segment about Michigan’s new right-to-work law.

Scott Hagerstrom answered Matthews right from the start that he works for Americans for Prosperity, an anti-tax and government spending organization. Matthews, however, was bent on getting Hagerstrom to admit the group’s ties to the conservative billionaire Koch brothers — and asked him a variation of the same question more than 10 times.

“You work for the Koch brothers, they don’t like unions, why are you working for them?” Matthews demanded.

“I work for Americans for Prosperity,” Hagerstrom responded. “This is not about the Koch brothers this is about — ”

“Well, who’s paying your salary?” Matthews said.

“I work for Americans for Prosperity,” Hagerstrom repeated. “We’re a nonprofit.”

“Who’s paying your salary?” Matthews said again.

Hagerstrom said he came on the show to talk about policy, to which Matthews responded, “Who’s paying your salary to do what you’re doing right now?”

“I just told you, Americans for Prosperity,” Hagerstrom said.

“What’s that?” Matthews asked, adding a few moments later, “You’re not answering my question.”

Bloody, filibustering, old sot.

THREAD WINNER! Ding Ding Ding!!

Dam* I wish I’d thought of it…

Well done rogerb, well done…

Tim Zank on December 12, 2012 at 8:30 PM

As George Carlin said after the whole OJ thing, “hey… maybe she had it coming to her”

getting punched in the face every now and then is good for your character.

sesquipedalian on December 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

rogerb on December 12, 2012 at 7:28 PM

THREAD WINNER! Ding Ding Ding!!

Dam* I wish I’d thought of it…

Well done rogerb, well done…

… Nothing. You already told her twice.