Hamlet, can I add to the view that staying there longer does not put you in a better position unless you are absolutely sure you can cop this for the rest of your life and that she will stay for the rest of hers. Unless there is a massive change to the implementation of family law (for the better) then staying just gives you less time to move on later. If you do reach breaking point and do harm yourself then you end up in an even worse position. Only you and your wife can make decisions about staying in that marriage but please don't assume that you will be better off financially tied to an abusive spouse. How much better off will you be if ever you fail to get that knife away from her? Worse yet what if you slip and cut her with it while trying to disarm her?

Repartnering is hard, there are good women out there, the tricky bit for us is working out which ones they are. There are no easy answers and no guarantee's.

For myself I found myself becoming something I did not like in the face of constant pressure and abuse. The obsenity of the family law system has made life harder than it needs to be but it's still generally a lot better than living with an abusive spouse.

Whatever you choose, good luck and best wishes.

Kay, thanks for your great input to this. You seem to have a good nature.

For others please take care not to turn this into a female bashing session. There are planty of women out there who've done enormous wrong in this but there are also plenty of guys who do wrong that is just as severe. It's not a gender problem, it is a human problem and the prolonged finger pointing just delays finding effective ways of dealing with it.

R0bert

Phew! Thanks Robert for pointing out that violence is a human issue, not necessarily a gender one.
Nevertheless, may I remind some of the more mysogynistic posters here that Waleed is talking about a very real, gender based problem in much of the world. There is simply no argument that women and children, but especially female children, in the third world suffer a greater degree of violence and aggression at the hands of people who are meant to protect them. Female circumcision, for example, is a brutal practice with lifetime health consquences for millions of women in Africa and parts of Asia. There is simply no male equivalent to this. It is also worth remembering that the saying "rule of thumb" comes from the English common law dictum that a man could beat his wife as long as he used an implement no thicker than his thumb.
While individual men may well be victims of individual women, violence against them by their wives has never been enshrined in law, this must be taken into account when we discuss this issue. Nowhere are men promised to women as sexual sacrifices in payment of female debts, nowhere are boys killed because they have lost their virginity and so besmirched the families honour. Nowhere are men required to cover every part of their face before going outside or banned from school and work on the basis of their gender.
Waleed is absolutely right when he argues that violence against women also damages men, wherever it occurs. There was a study done recently ( and I am sorry I can't give you links or references) that showed men in countries that routinely oppressed women - like Pakistan - have shorter life spans than men in countries that don't. And this was regardless of their poverty, wealth or general health.
Violence is always wrong, but there is and always has been systemic and legally and religiously sanctioned violence by men against women and that is the difference.

RObert

Thanks mate. I have felt this way all of my nursing career - nothing new for me. In mental health nursing I have seen all sides of the coin. I have been an advocate for Mens' Rights for years - to no avail.

Enaj, I know that you hold very strong feminist values, and I usually respect the way that you present your ideas. You are always articulate. Even so, I found the last sentence of your last post very dated.

I really do get sick and tired of women (not necessarily you) blaming men for just about anything - including being alive. These days it seems that women even blame men for impregnating them (the women).

Enaj, when I was savagely bashed and raped by two men, the greatest help I recieved was from male police persons and my male friends. They wanted to talk about it with me. They wanted to help me express my feelings. They all demonstrated their shame that the perpetrators could have done same to me. They all expressed shame for being male.

My female friends did not want to talk about it. They sent heaps of flowers - so much so that my home looked like a funeral parlour. My female friends could not talk about it because I represented what they knew could happpen to them (or anyone else for that matter) - and they could not face that. They could not cope with my honesty.

My female counsellor was a great help (cynical comment). After every session she said something along the lines of: "You teach me so much". Spare me!

My experience as a victim of wife bashing and then rape bashing has made me a very strong woman (sadly). I became a better psych nurse than I could have ever imagined. I started to write a book, but my family remain ashamed of my experiences. Sad eh?

Go Hamlet. Go RObert.

Regards
Kay

@Kalweb
I must say,you're a brave and courageous woman. Not everyone can come out and speak about a horrible experience.

Enjay writes "there is no argument, etc..."

I disagree. There is argument about the matters raised. For example, female circumcision is conducted and condoned by tribal women to their girls. This is a women's issue. Why are men being blamed for it? And is not the surgical removal of the foreskin of a penis not a male equivilent?

The myth of "rule of thumb" as described is just that, a silly myth.
Ref - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb

Men may not be offered as sexual payment of debts, but men were and still are held accountable (even in many Western countries today) for a wife's debt, with penalties including custodial sentences.

Boys are often killed, murdered, mutilated for besmirching family honour in many parts of the world, and for transgressing the honour of another's family, particularly that of its womenfolk. It's called tribal justice.

Even in the Western world today, men are expected to wear certain styles of clothing, facial hair, silly hats and other paraphenalia to satisfy social and religious codes.

Lifespan is dependent upon an enormous number of factors. Generally speaking, quality and quantity of food, water, education and health systems have the most significant effects. Those factors are generally worse in the the Third World nations mentioned.

The statement "there is and always has been systemic and legally and religiously sanctioned violence by men against women" I respectfully suggest is bunkum, and should read - there is and always has been systemic and legally and religiously sanctioned violence by authorities and the state against humanity, especially men.

Women do not hold a monopoly on global victimhood and the entire concept of White Ribbon Day is a sexist fraud aimed at shaming men and driving a wedge between the sexes for the purpose of destroying trust between men and women and ultimately breaking up marriages as directed by the Marx Manifesto of 1848.

In fact I argue that White Ribbon Day and the writing of Waleed Aly in these pages stand as a covert act of violence against humanity and all men in particular.

I am not big on conspiracy theories. I tend to believe that individuals will seek power in relationships, whether those relationships are with other individuals, or with nations.

I see violence as a manifestation as that quest for power, whether in war or in the home. Some forms of violence are justified, such as the use of police powers to deal with crime, or the defensive use of military force.

I don’t see any feminist or lesbian cabal trying to put men down, or destroy families. I see people trying to deal with violence in ways that are not necessarily helpful for all the people involved.

I can see a history of inequality in some areas, such as women being seen as the property of men, with no rights of property ownership and no control over their own bodies. This inequality has not yet ended, with some men still feeling that they ‘own’ their female partners and daughters.

But what I am saying is that individuals should now be treated equally regardless of gender or of sexual inclination. Courts have ordered men to undergo anger therapy management courses prior to sentencing for domestic violence offences. I am not aware of similar courses being required of women.

A police officer has told me that no magistrate would ever make a DVO or AVO against my wife because she would be seen as a woman with an illness, that is a borderline personality disorder and alcohol dependence. There would be no such reluctance in the case of a male.

And this partly answers why I stay. We talk about people taking their citizenship vow seriously, to uphold their end of the social contract. I would say the same about the marriage vow. I know that the idea of the ‘marriage contract’ is long gone, but I still consider that, for me, the vow including the words ‘in sickness and in health’ apply. I would not seek to imply that others should be kept to that, but as long as I am able to deal with her sickness I will stay.