5 ms·

> 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 hou

> 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.

kennywinker 5y ago
But they lived together there? Even when it's under the status of a romantic relationship, that's still at least partially a tenant-landlord relationship and as such the tenant has rights. Setting aside all the gender politics - you don't get to evict a tenant at a moment's notice. And yeah, he got evicted sorta. But he still owns the house. I'm not saying it's an ideal situation... but given the tenant landlord power imbalance, I don't think it's actually obvious that he gets to keep living there and she doesn't just because they've separated.
- frosted-flakes 5y ago
  I'm trying to get this straight. If he owns the house and lives there, then why do his tenant's rights supersede his own? The tenant might live there and thus has certain rights, but so does he.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    Not if he's determined to be an aggressor in the eyes of law enforcement in the (at least, US) jurisdiction.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jokethrowaway 5y ago
      In this case noone is claiming abuse, there is no aggression. She merely stated she was feeling unsafe. We don't live in minority report, so he's not an aggressor.
      - EliRivers 5y ago
        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)
  - morsch 5y ago
    I don't think it's absurd that the tenant gets extra protection to counterbalance the ownership issue that lets the owner-tenant have the last word in the long run. But I suspect the man would draw the short straw regardless of the ownership situation. 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.
    - jokethrowaway 5y ago
      So you think if the woman owned the house and the man told the police he "felt unsafe" they would throw the woman out of her house? 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.
      - morsch 5y ago
        So you think if the woman owned the house and the man told the police he "felt unsafe" they would throw the woman out of her house? 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.
        5y ago
xnyan 5y ago
If you legally live in someone’s home, in most jurisdictions (in the US) then you have at least some rights even if you don’t pay rent. 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.
- atatatat 5y ago
  Reclaim any of the 51+% of our federal budget on weapons we either don't ever shoot or leave in the desert, use the reclaimed former tax revenue to maintain separate apartments longer, even if just a bedroom one rents.
  - grapist420 5y ago
    military spending is 51% of discretionary spending. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ6wwEzN6y62UA9KIzATgXKFu5t7FraQlbH0A&s https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ6wwEz... Not 51% of government spending, which is much much larger
    - atatatat 5y ago
      How many trillions per decade is that?
      - grapist420 5y ago
        cool but it’s not the half of the federal budget you suggested
        cycomanic 5y ago
        That's splitting hairs though isn't it?
        smsm42 5y ago
jshmrsn 5y ago
I’m not a lawyer, but in my state there is a legal concept of your place of residence which entitles you to certain eviction protections, regardless of ownership or lack thereof of that place.
- dTal 5y ago
  And yet, a resident was summarily evicted and forced to live in a tent.

kennywinker 5y ago

But they lived together there? Even when it's under the status of a romantic relationship, that's still at least partially a tenant-landlord relationship and as such the tenant has rights. Setting aside all the gender politics - you don't get to evict a tenant at a moment's notice. And yeah, he got evicted sorta. But he still owns the house. I'm not saying it's an ideal situation... but given the tenant landlord power imbalance, I don't think it's actually obvious that he gets to keep living there and she doesn't just because they've separated.

frosted-flakes 5y ago
I'm trying to get this straight. If he owns the house and lives there, then why do his tenant's rights supersede his own? The tenant might live there and thus has certain rights, but so does he.
- atatatat 5y ago
  Not if he's determined to be an aggressor in the eyes of law enforcement in the (at least, US) jurisdiction.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    In this case noone is claiming abuse, there is no aggression. She merely stated she was feeling unsafe. We don't live in minority report, so he's not an aggressor.
    - EliRivers 5y ago
      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)
- morsch 5y ago
  I don't think it's absurd that the tenant gets extra protection to counterbalance the ownership issue that lets the owner-tenant have the last word in the long run. But I suspect the man would draw the short straw regardless of the ownership situation. 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.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    So you think if the woman owned the house and the man told the police he "felt unsafe" they would throw the woman out of her house? 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.
    - morsch 5y ago
      So you think if the woman owned the house and the man told the police he "felt unsafe" they would throw the woman out of her house? 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.
      - 5y ago

xnyan 5y ago

If you legally live in someone’s home, in most jurisdictions (in the US) then you have at least some rights even if you don’t pay rent. 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.

atatatat 5y ago
Reclaim any of the 51+% of our federal budget on weapons we either don't ever shoot or leave in the desert, use the reclaimed former tax revenue to maintain separate apartments longer, even if just a bedroom one rents.
- grapist420 5y ago
  military spending is 51% of discretionary spending. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ6wwEzN6y62UA9KIzATgXKFu5t7FraQlbH0A&s https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ6wwEz... Not 51% of government spending, which is much much larger
  - atatatat 5y ago
    How many trillions per decade is that?
    - grapist420 5y ago
      cool but it’s not the half of the federal budget you suggested
      - cycomanic 5y ago
        That's splitting hairs though isn't it?
        smsm42 5y ago

jshmrsn 5y ago

I’m not a lawyer, but in my state there is a legal concept of your place of residence which entitles you to certain eviction protections, regardless of ownership or lack thereof of that place.

dTal 5y ago
And yet, a resident was summarily evicted and forced to live in a tent.