Fem Speak

A tale of two Marys

When the Virginia Tech shooter killed his first two victims, officials detained the girl’s boyfriend and did little else.  After he killed another 30 people, officials admitted that they discounted the first two murders as a “domestic dispute.”  Last week, in a column written before this incident, I noted that this euphemism is used to downplay acts of violence against women. 

“Domestic dispute” is codespeak for the things men to do their “own” women, which therefore do not really concern the outside world.  The distinction is artificial, because violence that begins at home frequently spills into the rest of the world.  Consider, for example, Buckhead shooter Mark O. Barton.  After he shot 9 people at his office, police later found the bludgeoned bodies of his wife and children at home.  In fact, Barton may have killed before.  Someone bludgeoned his first wife and mother-in-law to death years before the Buckhead killings.  Barton was named a person of interest and investigated by police – but the prosecutor did not proceed with indictment.  It makes you wonder if we could prevent some mass murders by taking “domestic disputes” more seriously.

The trial of a woman named Mary Winkler who shot her husband also made front page this week.  When a woman shoots a man (or even a man’s tires, in the case of Miss America 1944), it always makes great headlines.  “Tennessee preacher’s wife convicted” national headlines read.

Meanwhile, another trial involving another Mary never made front page.  Mary Babb (no relation to this columnist) was the victim of many “domestic disputes.”  Because the violence was male-on-female, most of us never read about it.  “Witness describes fatal shooting,” was the local headline for her story.

Mary W. testified that her husband abused her physically, sexually and emotionally.  Friends and relatives said her personality had changed since marrying the controlling preacher, and testified of a black eye and other visible injuries.  Mary W. said he subjected her to sexual acts she found physically painful and morally repugnant.  She was afraid to divorce her husband, who had sworn to kill her and cut her up into a million pieces if she ever crossed him.  After he tried to silence their baby by covering her mouth and nose, Mary W. says she snapped.  She does not remember pulling the trigger.  She fired one blast from his own shotgun – the one he had threatened her with so many times – then she packed her three little girls in the car and fled. 

On Friday, a jury found Mary W. guilty of voluntary manslaughter.  The verdict recognizes that she shot her husband intentionally but without forethought.  Though Mary W. claims the shotgun went off accidentally, pointing a gun at another person certainly suggests intent.  If she was not in imminent danger, her actions can hardly be considered self-defense.  Although the gun had been pointed at her many times in the past, one crime does not excuse another. 

She should have gone to the police.  She should have prosecuted Matthew Winkler for beating and threatening and sexually abusing her.  She should have divorced him instead of shooting him.  Right?

But let us consider the other Mary.  Mary B. was also a victim of an abusive husband, and she did all the things we would have advised Mary W. to do.  Mary B. filed for divorce.  When her husband Thomas responded by threatening her with a knife, Mary B. sought to prosecute him for assault, domestic violence and criminal sexual conduct.  Mary B. obtained an order of protection.  She moved to another city with her three-year-old son and she found a job working for a newspaper. 

While in jail, Thomas was so vocal in his threats against Mary B. that cellmates requested he be moved.  In spite of the threats, and in spite of a prior sentence for assaulting Mary B., the judge let him out of jail on bond.  Several months later, with the court date and charges still pending, Thomas found his prey again outside her place of employment.  He rammed her Ford Explorer till it overturned.  As Mary B. lay trapped on the ceiling of her vehicle, he shot out the window, and then killed her with one blast from a shotgun.

Two Marys faced controlling, abusive husbands.  Mary B. did everything right.  She did not fight violence with violence.  She trusted the authorities to protect her.  Mary B. is dead. 

Mary W. fought back.  Afraid that involving the police would result in her death, she took matters into her own hands.  Mary W. survived.  Because she survived, she is going to jail.  We fail to protect those women who turn to the law for protection – and we prosecute those who protect themselves. Until judges stop letting abusive men go free, we should not condemn women like Mary W. who fight back.  What other recourse do they have? 

Divorce is a legitimate reaction.  The longer an abused woman stays, the harder it is for her to get out alive.  Since abuse gets worse with time, churches and counselors should not advise abused women to tough it out or give him one more chance.  Yet filing for divorce is not sufficient – particularly if Georgia legislators succeed in prolonging the waiting period between divorce filing and finalizing to 120 days.  Statistics show that the rate of marital homicide is highest during the separation preceding divorce.  Some abusers continue to harass or physically attack their victims even after divorce.  Mary B. had already filed for divorce.  Divorce did not save her.

Orders of protection are useless.  These are men who ignore social taboos and break existing laws every time they assault their wives.  They are not going to be deterred by an additional rule on a piece of paper.  Neither is a $30,000 bond (of which he pays just 10%) going to keep such a man from going after his prey. 

Violent men are not stopped by un-enforced laws, restraining orders or fines.  They can be stopped by prison bars.  Until the American judicial system starts locking up abusive men, it should not lock up women who protect themselves. 

-- Jeannie Babb
On the Other Hand
April, 2007

 

Reading Between the (Head)lines

A Canton, Georgia headline reads, “Couple, child victims of apparent murder-suicide.”  The headline is sanitized and de-sexed, suggesting that everyone involved is a victim, as if none of the three were to blame.  The headline does not tell us who shot who, but we all know.  It is not just that 94% of murder-suicides are male on female.  It is the headline that gives it away, by what is left unsaid.  If the shooter had been female, the headline would read “Woman murders husband, leaves baby to starve.”  As another example, consider two arrests that were made Easter weekend.  The male-on-female murder was noted in this gender-neutral manner:  “Arrest made in teens’ death.”  But when three women were arrested for delivering a baby and discarding it, that headline read:  “NY sisters arrested in baby’s death.”

Acts of violence by women against men are still extraordinary enough to rate “Man bites dog” news status.  When Lorena Bobbitt was arrested for maiming her husband, that story was a great headline-grabber.  News of the forced abortion and the continual abuse she had endured at his hands -- so horrible that the judge chose to acquit her for the attack -- barely made a ripple on the news radar.

The media gender bias extends beyond perpetrators; it is also evident in the treatment of victims.  Consider the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal.  The world was outraged at the discovery that priests were molesting altar boys.  We barely noticed that they victimized girls, too.  One priest raped numerous teenage girls upon the altar, yet it was boys who made the news.  Defenders of the Roman Catholic Church note that children are more likely to be sexually victimized by school teachers than by their priest or pastor.  Yet public outrage against student sex abuse has never risen to the level of calling it a scandal.  The difference?  Girls are the usual target.

Abu Ghraib stands as the strongest testament to the media neglect of female victimization.  Emblazoned on our collective consciousness are the images of abused and humiliated men, out of context with Lynndie England’s thumbs-up and happy camper smile.  But where are the photos and the stories of the women who were tortured at Abu Ghraib?  Perhaps you’ll have to look it up, as I did, but women were (and still are) incarcerated in Abu Ghraib.  Many women were stripped of their clothes, tortured, raped, and sexually humiliated right along with the men.  A 70-year-old Iraqi woman was harnessed and ridden like donkey.  But it was only violence against women, so it did not make the front page.

When mentioned at all, the abuse of women at Abu Ghraib is downplayed.  The Taguba report makes no bones about the sadistic torture inflicted on male Abu Ghraib prisoners.  As for the women, the report includes an innocuous-sounding admission of “a male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.”  The legal term for such an event is rape, because the law recognizes that a prisoner cannot give meaningful consent to an armed guard.  Acts against males that involved penetration were termed rape, but the rape of women was categorized as sex.  The women who have been released alive went home tight-lipped.  After all, this is a culture where a rape victim’s family often stones her to death in order to restore their “honor.”

Journalists tell us about violence against women in the passive voice, as if these things just happen.  Consider “school shootings.”  Schools don’t get shot; people do.  And someone does the shooting.  The shooters are nearly always male (boy students or sometimes a man from the community) and the victims are predominantly female.  Sometimes the shooters even excuse the males and shoot girls exclusively.  Very few media outlets have noted the gender component, preferring instead to imagine that school shootings are senseless or random acts of violence.

Another passive term the media likes is “domestic disputes.”  This one sounds like two people on an equal playing field, who are having a bit of trouble working something out.  Yet we most often hear this term after the discovery of a dead body (usually female), e.g. “The couple had a history of domestic disputes.”  To me, a domestic dispute is what happens when somebody uses up all the hot water on a Sunday morning.  The term does not adequately describe what it is like for a woman to be dragged through her house by her hair, choked, or threatened by a person who may be twice her size.  Journalists should avoid using vague, sexless terms like “domestic dispute” and instead write strong sentences such as, “Police reports indicate this was not the first time the man choked his wife.”

Statisticians are also guilty of using this neutered, passive vocabulary.  For example, they inform us that 1 out of 3 girls “will be sexually victimized” before age 18.  Although sexual abusers are almost invariably male, we do not read that “Men sexually abuse 1 out of 3 girls before the age of 18.”  Nor do we ever hear the percentage of men who abuse.  We read about women in the military “getting raped,” not about “male soldiers raping their female comrades.”

If my rephrasing of these sentences disturbs readers, it should.  We should be very disturbed that there are men in our midst, in this very community, perhaps at our church or our children’s schools, who perpetrate crimes against women and children we know.  According to the CDC, men commit over 90% of the sexual violence in America against victims who are 78% female.  Every year, American men kill 1,000 wives or girlfriends and rape or sexually abuse hundreds of thousands more.

Male-on-female violence is pervasive and is mostly ignored by our society.  We cannot adequately address it by talking about how many women are abused.  The problem is not abused women.  The problem is abusive men.

-- Jeannie Babb Taylor

On the Other Hand

April, 2007

The Law of Attraction, Science, and a Challenge to Rhonda Byrne

I am a mystic, but I am also a science geek. I used to teach science to elementary school students. I believe in miracles, but I believe these miracles occur within the framework of a very real world that is subject to certain laws of physics. Science is very complicated, and you cannot reduce the way the universe operates down to one simple formula.

Yet, many are accepting the idea that the so-called Law of Attraction is the way the universe works, or, in the least, the way people’s lives work. This idea, now put forth into the mainstream by The Secret, has been called “scientific” by many of its adherents. Yet, this label is not only misleading but downright false.

The basic idea behind the Law of Attraction is “like attracts like.” Adherents point to science as the reason this is true, citing magnets or quantum physics as “proof.” Actually, science does not say “like attracts like” whatsoever. In the most simplest of scientific explanations, the real truth is “opposites attract.”

Explained simply: A positively charged particle will attract a negatively charged particle and vice versa. Two positively charged particles will repel one another.

This is how magnets really work. This is how electricity works.

So right away, we see how science does not prove the Law of Attraction; in fact, science can be said to completely negate the Law of Attraction.

Yet, we’re not really talking particles here, are we? The Law of Attraction is dealing with human life and interactions, so what we’re really looking at is apples and oranges.

So let’s just step back and look at the concept that one simple law can explain everything that happens. I’ve seen, over and over again, people trying to justify the “truth” of the Law of Attraction by stating that universe is simple and runs by very simple laws. So, the logic goes, people’s lives must be just as simple.

Are the laws of the universe really that simple? Can they be reduced to one simple statement? In fact, when you study science at all, you realize that the universe functions smoothly not because of one reductionist law, but because of a complex series of forces and opposing forces that create a certain amount of equilibrium that allows for the creation of life. (Still, over time, this equilibrium will disintegrate, as entropy and energy dispersal breaks down the fabric of the universe as we know it.)

For example, if the only law of the universe was the law of gravity (and no other forces were opposing gravity), then everything would just stick to everything else and there would be no motion, no movement, no life.

The conflicting forces of the universe create a dynamic interplay that allows for the complex interactions that occur in the natural world. Inertia, for example, could keep that baseball you’ve thrown into the air moving on its trajectory for all of eternity, but it is gravity that ultimately pulls the ball down out of the sky. Inertia, however, is what helps the ball fly in the first place. It’s all interrelated.

It is thus scientific nonsense to suggest that one simple law such as the Law of Attraction is solely responsible for all interactions between humans. Is it possible that “attraction” can and does affect human interactions? Of course. But there are also other opposing forces that temper and mold “attraction” to create a complex system just like the one that operates in our natural world.

What then, of the idea that thoughts create our reality? Let’s give this the mystical benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it is possible that our thoughts have some organizing effect. Yet, those thoughts are also interacting with other thoughts and forces. What determines what will win out? The thought? Or the basic laws of the universe? Is the power of a thought more powerful than scientific law? Is it more powerful than gravity? Care to try that out by jumping off a tall building and believing you can fly?

Thus, when Law of Attraction proponents claim it is “scientific,” they are showing a poor understanding of science.

The true irony, of course, is that the people behind The Secret want you to believe the science “proves” their claims, yet, they are more than willing to dismiss science when it is inconvenient for them.

In a most egregious example, Rhonda Byrne, author of the book The Secret, claims that overeating will not make you gain weight. She writes:

“The most common thought that people hold, and I held it too, is that food was responsible for my weight gain. That is a belief that does not serve you, and in my mind now it is complete balderdash! Food is not responsible for putting on weight. It is your thought that food is responsible for putting on weight that actually has food put on weight. Remember, thoughts are primary cause of everything, and the rest is effects from those thoughts. Think perfect thoughts and the result must be perfect weight.”

This flies in the face of every study that has ever been done on the cause of obesity. It flies in the face of biology. It flies in the face of common sense.

And yet, when you look at Rhonda Byrne, she has aged. Isn’t it her belief about aging that makes her age? C’mon, Rhonda, make yourself younger already!

But it’s no surprise that Rhonda can’t take the wrinkles off her face. And you won’t see Rhonda Byrne flying around in the sky like Superman anytime soon. So one has to ask: Why isn’t she? If thoughts truly are the cause of everything, then why isn’t she defying gravity and wowing us with her mental prowess as a high-flying superhero?

So thoughts affect your metabolism, but not your aging or your flying ability? Hm.

Well, let’s give Rhonda the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe she can affect her metabolism, like a seasoned yogi on a mountaintop.

If this is the case, prove it. Here’s the way to do it scientifically. It’s called the “Supersize Me” Challenge, inspired by the documentary of the same name. So I challenge Rhonda Byrne:

Go overeat at McDonald’s every day for three months. We’ll monitor your health and fitness before, during and after. You must eat nothing but McDonald’s, and not just the salads but the hamburgers too. You must eat until you are stuffed and then some. And we’re going to follow you into the bathroom to make sure you aren’t purging yourself of the food. Finally, you cannot exercise during this time.

If, after three months, you show absolutely no weight gain or adverse health effects, then, maybe then, you will have shown some scientific evidence that what you say is true.

But Rhonda, as we can guess, probably won’t take up this challenge. There is always some sort of excuse or modifier put on these challenges. And that should be your first clue that the “truth” that they espouse isn’t so cut and dry after all.

We in America have been suffering from poor quality science education for decades. As our mystics continue to dilute the discourse with false science, we are in danger of creating an ignorant populace that bases decisions on superstition instead of critical thinking.

I am a believer in the mystical. But I don’t think mysticism or spirituality should conflict with science. The two, in fact, should support each other. True spirituality will not conflict with science whatsoever, but see science as evidence of the beautiful intelligent consciousness underneath it all.

Stephanie Brail