[kennywinker]

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]

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.

[morsch]

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]

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]

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.

[dTal]

>But I think domestic violence initiated by men is a bigger societal issue than women lying their way to the life they want.

I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind this statement. Are you saying that men should receive unequal treatment from police in these matters?

[atatatat]

Not if he's determined to be an aggressor in the eyes of law enforcement in the (at least, US) jurisdiction.

[jokethrowaway]

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]

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)