They help women move – literally – out of abusive relationships. For free.

Miami Herald ^ | AUGUST 01, 2017 | SANDRA DUERR

[Fightin Whitey]

You, you, you, you, you, you, you, you and you are right.

[Tax-chick]

Good story. Thanks for posting.

[Buttons12]

Just passed this along to someone who’s been through it, though not with any organization’s help. Her reply: It won’t last.
She says there are too many pitfalls, especially relating to property. Who owns what, what to take, disputes, possible legal actions against those who helped the victim move.
Secondarily, custody issues.
Third, some victims have nowhere to go after they’ve worn out their welcome at the shelter, which doesn’t let anyone stay indefinitely. (My acquaintance was told 30 days max at shelter, then public housing, where the waiting list was six months.)
Helpers have their hearts in the right places but they can face overwhelming blowback from the domestic abuser.

[Buttons12]

My post above presumes they are moving the personal property as well as the person. And that the person has children.
I’m not familiar with the practices of this company and could always be wrong. Don’t laugh, it’s happened :)

[Popman]

We’d have less of a need for these services if most of these women comported themselves as a helpmeet as given in Scripture. If you comport yourself in a Christian manner, you will never have relationship problems. It is the issue of the sinful modern world and its influences that cause marital discord.

Don't forget the Scriptural commands for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church...

Back in the real world, the subject is far more complicated than wives comporting themselves to live christian lives...

In many ways you are supporting the idea wives should be doormats

[Popman]

Thanks for sharing this story...it renews my faith in mankind a bit...

Wondering how fast the feminist Nazis will turn this into a identity politics

[Tax-chick]

Her reply: It won’t last.

According to the article, it has already lasted twenty years.

[Tax-chick]

Doug Wilson, have you finally signed up for FR? Welcome ... you’ll find plenty of soul brothers here.

[Campion]

Tell that to the woman who married a violent sociopath... or married a man who later became an alcoholic (say, due to dealing with the death of a child, etc).

And how did she not figure out that he was a violent sociopath when they were dating?

[vladimir998]

“There are battered men, but only a small percentage of DV victims in male-female relationships are the males.”

Actually about half are men. It has been known for about 40 years that women are as likely to abuse men as they other way around. In fact women are more violent than men: http://www.aeesq.com/2017/03/23/women-initiate-domestic-violence/

The first major study of domestic violence in the U.S.A. (about 40 or so years ago) showed women used violence about as often as men. The two male researchers who did the study concluded that that had to be some sort of bizarre statistical error but they couldn’t figure out how it came about. Their assumption was that domestic violence was a male only issue. Their prejudice got in the way. Typical liberals.

[Popman]

And how did she not figure out that he was a violent sociopath when they were dating?

Immaturity, naivety, stupidity, to name a few...

I know two women when they were young, married the first guy who paid attention to them because they were being molested at home.

Took their first chance to get out...

One worked out OK, one if the guy hadn't died, I would have killed him myself...

[MayflowerMadam]

I worked with battered women about 20 years ago. It’s classic for men to be charming throughout years of dating, then after marriage the beast appears. It happened to my mom. Two weeks after the wedding. Put up with it for 60 years but didn’t leave. Dad died and she’s had a nice life for 9 years.

[Terry Mross]

Lots of times the husband will accuse the mover of being the wife’s lover. It’s wise that “two rode together”.

[momtothree]

“... you’ll find plenty of soul brothers here..”

... and the choir yelled AMEN!

[grey_whiskers]

"55% of women slaughtered every year" vs . what is number of people killed in, say, Rwanda? Where 500,000 were killed mostly with knives and machetes, in around 11 months during Bill Clinton's presidency?

Hyperbole much?

[rrrod]

Half right also means half wrong.

[bgill]

Now that the story is out, abusive spouses will be stalking the moving vans to know where the safe houses are.

[grey_whiskers]

This appears to contradict your post #9 this thread, viz:

My dad, a pastor, dealt with members’ domestic issues for over 50 years. Ninety percent of the time, the husband was the problem. They were batterers, drinkers, bullies, didn’t provide for the family, adulterers; you name it. Often, one man was all of those things. You’d see (still do) women attending church without their husbands ALL the time, but almost never see the men in church alone.

as compared to this post:

It’s classic for men to be charming throughout years of dating, then after marriage the beast appears. It happened to my mom. Two weeks after the wedding. Put up with it for 60 years but didn’t leave.

Also, from post #9:

Most wives would love to be a helpmeet, but in order for a Christian marriage to work out, both parties must do their parts according to Scripture. Men don’t get to tell their wives to “be submissive” unless they’re being a Biblical husband.

That is literally the exact opposite of Scripture:

1 Peter 3:1ff

"In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives."

Now the interesting part, is that Peter references Sarah as the example of how Christian women should act.

Sarah was the one where when Abraham went to live in Abimelech's kingdom, Abraham knew Sarah was a hottie, so he lied and said Sarah was his sister, not his wife, so that they wouldn't kill him to have her for themselves. She ended up getting taken into the King's harem, but God prevented the King from defiling her (and in the meantime, cursed his flocks and such with barrenness as a warning).

And then, later, God appeared to Abraham and promised that in about a year, Sarah would have a son, even though she was post menopausal. (Sarah overheard it and laughed, and she got caught out: with the result the son was named "laughing boy.")

And later, Abraham tells her, more or less, you know our son? Well, God told me to take him up on the mountain and offer him as a sacrifice.

You know the rest of the story, I'm sure: God provided the ram caught by the thorns in a thicket.

But why didn't she have a cow when Abraham told her?

...incidentally, Sarah wasn't exactly innocent in all this, either. She gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham, and said, Here, get *her* pregnant, since I'm not having kids. And we'll call her kids mine. But when Isaac was born, Sarah drove Hagar and her son into the desert to die: but God saved them, and according to His word, made even the bondservant's son into a great nation.

[Celerity]

My solution to the problem is a bit more effective, but no one really wants to talk about it.

John Moses Browning invented the device that stops people from doing wrong onto others. He developed a device that prevents a larger, stronger opponent from a guaranteed domination.

With this device a little old lady has the same chance as a strapping young man in one of the most important challenges we’ll ever face - our own mortality. In other words, With this device no one will ever abuse you again. You need not fear.

Helping these women move is .. interesting. To a shelter ? they can’t take anything with them anyway, so what’s the move entail ? And a husband will always have the ability to find them (Look in the women’s shelter ? Visit the shelter and force your way in ? Lemme tell you, without that Browning invention, he’ll get in and do harm.)

But give her a gun, as she has the right to own - not the fanciful idea, not the privilege and not the “need”. She has a right to a gun and that gun will settle the seas of evil turbulence. That gun will save her and hers. That gun will end the trauma.

Just let her exercise the right that she has been given not by our founding father, but by our creator originally. Let her exercise her human right to self defense.

A moving company ? Thanks, but what we should be sending in are hi-points.

[momtothree]

I see your point, C.. but the women really do have to “show” that they are in direct threat and feared for their lives. The only way to really do this is to have a “record” of the violence (medical and photos), police calls and get out with a worthless piece of paper called a restraining order. Now... with this all set up and he tries to break in... she defended herself. Unfortunately, without a clear line of trying to “get away”. she can face criminal prosecution and go to prison (essentially exchanging one prison for another). At least, it is more discussed nowadays... unlike a Great-Aunt I had who took her kids, and disappeared (her only way out was to pack a few things, and move across the country, change her name and live in secrecy).