Save the buckshot, turn up the band

Bob Allen at Ethics Daily looks at Jocelyn Andersen's new book, Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence:

Andersen says one big reason that men who profess to be Christians beat their wives is the doctrine of wifely submission.

"I believe the way this doctrine is taught and interpreted within many evangelical churches can lead men to believe it is their God-given right to exert authority over their wives," she said in an e-mail interview. "This logically leads to problems with abuse when they attempt to assert this authority -- especially with men who deal with unresolved anger issues."

"In addition, the blame for the abuse is frequently shifted from the husband to the wife," Andersen said. "This happens when she is told that she could be provoking the violence or that if she reacts submissively to his abuse, his behavior might change."

As an example of this teaching, Andersen cites media mogul and spanking guru James Dobson:

In a 1984 broadcast of his radio program, she says, Dobson told his listening audience that he had seen situations where the wife wanted to be beaten up. His hypothesis was that the wife achieved a certain moral advantage from being hit. If she pushed her husband into blacking her eye, the world -- and God -- would view her as a martyr. This way, he said, she could give herself a moral exit from the marriage, because the Bible says marriage is forever.

So for the record, "spanking guru James Dobson" will now be referred to here as "wife-beating apologist James Dobson."

* * * * * * * * *

I don't understand this sign Mitt Romney is waving.

MOMA isn't in Chelsea, it's in Midtown, so ...

What? Oh.

I knew Romney supporters weren't the sharpest tools in the shed, but I didn't think anyone could spell "mama" wrong.

Seriously, though, Romney needs to be made to apologize for "polluting the water our children swim in" with despicable stuff like this.

* * * * * * * * *

Regret the Error catches the following, from Dateline NBC's Web site:

In an earlier version of a schedule posted July 12 on the Dateline NBC site, Eric McLean was incorrectly referred to as a "convicted murderer." Although Mr. McLean has admitted to shooting Sean Powell, he has not yet been tried, and has not yet formally entered a plea. His attorney, Bruce Poston, says Mr. McLean will eventually plead "not guilty" to the charge of second-degree murder.

This is a pretty major screw up, a violation of one of the Big Rules from Journalism 101: the press is not judge and jury. That's why newspapers and TV/radio news programs are riddled with all those "allegedlys" and "police says" and "suspect accused ofs" and why the word "slaying" (as opposed to the legal term "murder") gets used so often.

But look where this correction came from. It wasn't due to a Dateline report, but to an online plug for an upcoming show. Since it was just A) a refer, and B) online, it seems to have bypassed the copy editing process.

This is an example of what I wrote about here. News organizations have embraced new media platforms without adapting their editorial process to cover what they're publishing in these new platforms. One result of that is the embarrassing, but mostly harmless, rash of typos and grammar/spelling/style errors on otherwise respectable news sites. The news organizations have decided they'd rather live with that embarrassment than reverse the industrywide trend of eliminating copy editor positions. But the correction above shows that this lack of editorial process can also have more serious consequences: No editors checking for grammar/spelling/style errors also means there are no editors checking for factual errors or guarding against libel.

Eventually, these news organizations will develop an editorial process for their new platforms, and they'll hire the editors these new platforms require. That probably won't happen, though, until after a few high-profile, very expensive settlements of libel suits.

Also: (via Teresa): "When it comes to proofreading, the red penis your friend."

* * * * * * * * *

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says, "if those who claim to speak for the poor really want to find 'common ground' with us, a good place to start might be with opposing state-sponsored gambling." Noting that state lotteries "are a regressive tax that hits the poor the hardest. Left and right should agree -- state lotteries are a bad bet for the poor."

He's right about that, and he's correct that this is one area where there's room for cooperation between people like him and people like me.

Perkins seems unaware that such cooperation has been going on for decades, which is odd since his sort-of boss, wife-beating apologist James Dobson, served on the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which was signed into law by President Clinton.

Despite Dobson's involvement, that panel came up with several worthy recommendations, such as requiring "warnings regarding the dangers and risks of gambling, as well as the odds where feasible" to be "posted in prominent locations in all gambling facilities." And "that states with lotteries reduce their sales dependence on low-income neighborhoods and heavy players ... including limiting advertising and number of sales outlets in low-income areas."

The commission didn't include my personal hobby-horse recommendation: removing state lotteries' exemption from truth-in-advertising laws.

* * * * * * * * *

From Lawyers, Guns and Money, an acronym worth remembering: GWAPWRSVWPWCO9-11A

I would have gotten a lot more done this weekend if LM hadn't posted a link to this in comments.

Ryan Singel: "There's No Such Thing as the Homeland"

The increasing use of creepy phrases like "Homeland" is one more reason to link to this again: "Politics and the English Language." I recommend re-reading that 2-3 times a year as needed. These days, it's needed.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

Tonio: The difference is that Islamic doctrine openly endorses it as God's will.

That is arguable, and indeed, Muslims have argued against it. The verse in the Qu'ran that says a husband can beat his wife is variably interpreted:

I found the ‘Holy’ Qu’ran (Ali Abdullah–Yusuf) in Twickenham Library and lugged it home. This version demands that a husband must first reason with his wife if she is difficult, then withdraw sexual favors if she continues to be recalcitrant, and if she persists he can ‘beat her lightly.’ However when I googled the subject I was introduced to the ‘Noble’ Qu’ran which gives the first two options but then states quite baldly that a husband can ‘beat his wife.’ There were also several video clips on the internet where Imams (religious leaders) made it quite clear that women could and should be beaten for a variety of reasons but best summed up as ‘neshooz’ – wicked acts.

Various Muslim friends I consulted explained that there were many interpretations and that ‘beating’ could be reduced to a symbolic tap with a handkerchief or a swipe with a small natural bundle of twigs used for brushing teeth called a ‘miswak.’ I remembered the old English law that a woman could be beaten with a stick ‘no bigger than a man’s thumb,’ but at least it wasn’t in the bible. However I was comforted by the life of Mohammed their prophet. He never advocated wife beating. Indeed he was an exemplary man. His first wife was older than he was and he worked for her. He also did household chores and did his own washing and mending and all Muslim men are expected to follow his example. I finished my research with the knowledge that the Qu’ran also says that Eve was born independently of Adam. She is not cast out of the Garden of Eden and she is not cursed by pain in childbirth. In fact women have a far higher status in the Qu’ran than they do in the Old Testament. (cite)

[Chuck]

Jesu: But then, how many men do set their own careers aside and labor so that their wives can have fulfilling and lucrative careers, unencumbered by any household/family work?

I'm laboring in an unfulfillling but moderately lucrative career so that my wife could follow her dream to something that pays poorly for long hours but is more fulfilling. Oh, and I do most of the housework, cooking, shopping, etc, and always have. But that's not really the point here.

You know what? I'd love to be a stay-at-home dad. I love cooking, I actually enjoy laundry, and I'd love to be the "omnipresent" parent when I have kids. But that's really not an option in our society. Obviously, it's Teh Patriarchy's fault, but what do you propose we do about it?

[Tonio]

@Angelika,

"Yet, even those who advocate female submission do not consider wife-beating part of Christian doctrine."

I appreciate their stance. However, my point is that any doctrine of female submission implicitly endorses wife-beating. Or put another way, female submission is the whole basis for domestic violence against women. If a man believes that God has given him almost absolute power over his wife, he will very likely believe that he is entitled to do anything he wants to his life. I acknowledge that the violence also involves unresolved anger issues.

@Jesu,

"The verse in the Qu'ran that says a husband can beat his wife is variably interpreted."

The fact that the verse can and has been interpreted as an endorsement is a big reason to reject the idea of any scripture being the literal or inspired word of deity. Perhaps people would be more likely to stay away from such interpretations if they regarded scriptures as the work of humans and not gods

[Tonio]

Sorry, that sentence should read, "he will very likely believe that he is entitled to do anything he wants to his WIFE."

[Jesurgislac]

Tonio: The fact that the verse can and has been interpreted as an endorsement is a big reason to reject the idea of any scripture being the literal or inspired word of deity. Perhaps people would be more likely to stay away from such interpretations if they regarded scriptures as the work of humans and not gods.

No argument there!

Chuck: You know what? I'd love to be a stay-at-home dad. I love cooking, I actually enjoy laundry, and I'd love to be the "omnipresent" parent when I have kids. But that's really not an option in our society. Obviously, it's Teh Patriarchy's fault, but what do you propose we do about it?

Join the feminist revolution! ;-)

[Mellifluous]

No, no, no! A blogger ethics panel!

[YetAnotherKevin]

Re: Lottery
I only play when the jackpot is large enough to make the game better than fair. E.G. $1 gives you one in a million chance to win more than a million dollars. Under these conditions, it does make sense to buy more than one ticket, up to the maximum needed to cover all the possibilities. Except for two things. Taxes, and the other jerks out there who split the winnings with you. :-)

[Ecks]

Just to back up on the people not willing to flay Dobson yet, he is right that there IS some small percent of women who behave in this way. I could see it coming either as a maladaptive way of handling distress (like women who cut or burn themselves - which is shockingly common), or out of a manipulative personality disorder like borderline, or Munchausen's syndrome.

The way he presented this observation is critical, though. If he talked about this behaviour as a heavily disordered state that requires awareness and help, then I'm with him. If he's using it as a sideways excuse to imply that beaten women were asking for it, and therefore somehow deserve it, then he deserves Fred's epithet and worse.

[Geds]

Knowing a bit about Dobson, it's hard to believe he'd be nuanced enough to think of it as a disorder...

The wimmen are just asking for it most of the time, after all.

[Ecks]

YetAanotherKevin...

except that lottery's run by professionals and by non-moronic non-charity-giving regular people never work that way. Not ever. If the expected payout (payout times probability of winning) is greater than the cost of a ticket, then on average ticket buyers will get more prize money than they pay in. Normally the intent is the other way around - lotteries want to make money, so they set the odds very deliberately such that the players, on average, lose.

[Steve]

However, my point is that any doctrine of female submission implicitly endorses wife-beating. Or put another way, female submission is the whole basis for domestic violence against women.

I don't agree on either point, completely. To some extent maybe.

But your first point: like Angelika said, I know many people that believe in male headship in marriage that would never condone domestic violence. They view it like the man is the "boss" of the family. Simply having a boss at work and acknowledging he has certain authority over you, wouldn't give him a right to hit you (or sexually harrass you for that matter).

Secondly, I'm sure for many people its about inferiority. It can also be about having an anger problem and lashing out inappropriately in the heat of the moment. I've had moments where I've gotten really stressed out with my kids (many factors: I'm tired, they're misbehaving and annoying me, I'm stressed about issues at work, etc.) I need to control my actions at that point...but I can see how people with poorer self-control could lash out...and it may not be because they view their kids or wife as less human, but rather they've got anger and self-control issues they need to deal with. (Please don't see this as apologizing for abusive behavior...it still needs to stop, its just not always about viewing the other person as inferior.)

[Ecks]

I know little to nothing about Dobson, but a quick wikipedia search shows too conflicting bits of info:

1) he has a phd in child psych. As such he should know a thing or two about mental disorders (even if he did get it in '67), which makes me have a hard time believing he'd be dumb enough to see the 'hit-me' pattern as anything but disordered and requiring help, not beatings.

2) OTOH he does seem to have a lot of phenomenally stupid opinions. Marriage rates going down in Scandinavia because gay marriage is accepted? Puh-leaze. Can you imagine that conversation? "Darling, I love you, I want to spend the rest of life with you, and I've dreamed for so long now of walking down the aisle to be with you. But being as Jane and Mary across the street just got married too, I just can't get that excited about it any more. Good thing lesbians don't ever have sex, though, or we'd have to give that up too!"
::facedesk::facedesk::

[Ecks]

I knew one highly educated very independent minded fundamentalist grad student in Canada who believed the line about father as boss. I quizzed her on it because it seemed so out of character for her, and she explained it like this:

"Actually the woman comes out ahead. She has a duty to obey her husband, but he has a duty to put her interests first, and make decisions to look after her ahead of himself."

It was a nice theory, but one can't help but be skeptical of it ever really working out like that (or at least, working out often enough to make the whole system 'worth it').

[Geds]

Ecks: Yeah, it's not a good idea.

The theory of men looking out for their wives more than themeselves works out pretty well, but it's better to have both parties concern themselves with the other and ignore the issue of who's "subordinate" altogether...

[Cat]

I've been fortunate enough in my life to have three female friends who are devout Muslims. If a man laid a finger on any one of them, she'd clean his clock.

Islamic culture is not monolithic, any more than Christian culture is.

[rampancy]

"I've been fortunate enough in my life to have three female friends who are devout Muslims. If a man laid a finger on any one of them, she'd clean his clock."

Damn straight. I had a lot of devoutly Muslim female friends in high school and in my undergrad, and if you crossed them, look out. They were unbelievably kind and gentle when around people who treated them the same, but they didn't take any crap from anyone, not the least of which being Muslim men...or poor Christian guys like myself.

[rampancy]

Wow, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought that "Homeland" sounded way too close to Nazi Germany's "Fatherland".

Oh, and "Islamofascist" is so 1990's. "PWRSVWPWCO9-11A" FTW!

[Steve]

I think one of the things I want to add here is: when we make domestic violence out to be completely evil, sometimes we hinder people from getting the help they need.

For example, when an addict seeks help and realizes that their addiction is common and many people share the same struggle, the shame, which is an integral part of addiction, starts to fade...though they still have a lot of work to do.

If admitting you are an abuser means you are now a monster, you may be hestitant to "come out" and get the help you need...you may just try to fight it on your own and continue to fail. On the other hand, if you can recognize you really need help with managing your anger, and your actions in moment of anger, and learn that others struggle just like you, it might free you to get help. (Of course, I'm talking here about abusers who acknowledge they have a problem and want to change.)

[damnedyankee]

Lawyer's Guns and Money seems to have their own model of ScottBot. I shall call him "DarkFred".

Erick: You seem to be operating under the Limbaughian model (more of a cartoon, really) of a feminist: "Man-hating bitch on wheels who wants all men to suffer while getting special treatment for women". Like most such stereotypes, it is, to steal a line from H. L. Mencken, "neat, plausible, and wrong."

Feminism is based on one guiding principle: The uncontroversial notion that women are human beings too, and have the same inalienable rights as men.

[Tonio]

"I know many people that believe in male headship in marriage that would never condone domestic violence. They view it like the man is the 'boss' of the family. Simply having a boss at work and acknowledging he has certain authority over you, wouldn't give him a right to hit you (or sexually harrass you for that matter)."

I disagree with their belief, but for other reasons. Employment is a formalized relationship of reciprocity between employer and employee - exchanging time and labor for a certain degree of financial security. The employee willingly accepts the authority of the employer as part of the reciprocity.

But marriage is (ideally) a lifelong commitment between two people who love each other, at least outside the legal context. That commitment requies that both spouses have equal authority. Apply the employing concept of authority to marriage destroys the idea of commitment. It reduces marriage to an emotionless exchange, where the woman gives sex and obedience in exchange for money and shelter.

"It can also be about having an anger problem and lashing out inappropriately in the heat of the moment."

Absolutely. My point was that the notion of male headship frames that anger and allows it to flourish. A husband who believes God has given him authority over his wife, and who also has anger issues, would feel doubly threatened when his wife is insufficiently obedient.

[damnedyankee]

"When it comes to proofreading, the red penis your friend."

I'm detecting the need for an extra tap of the ol' space bar somwhere in here, Fred...

[cjmr]

Yeah, damnedyankee, that's the point of the article.

[Tonio]

Damnedyankee,

Fred was referring to Ron Jeremy's new superhero movie...

[Geds]

It's useful to watch the YouTube video in the link...

[Cat]

Useful? I'm thinking of making compulsory for my tutorials in September.

[Brandi]

A true pessimist would realize that there is, in fact, an infinite supply of bad luck. And it's all yours!

Actually, I think that would be a futilitarian.

[emjaybee]

The comments that Erick threw out are a kind that seem to pop up whenever a blog post on domestic violence makes its way into the blogosphere. Groups that call themselves men's rights' activists seem to be the main sources for these posts, made up of individuals very concerned that the judicial system is far too partial to women in issues of child custody and divorce...and then there is a somewhat strange leap into the issue of whether men are also beaten, and if so, why they should be allowed into women's domestic violence shelters.

When it is (often) suggested by fellow commenters that these groups should raise money for building separate men's shelters, since putting men in with women beaten by men is inherently problematic, a strange silence seems to occur. No Eureka moment, no links to men's-shelter fundraising sites and initiatives. No engagement or follow up at all.

Which, put all together, is just..odd. Almost as if this particular group of men were, in fact, abusers or sympathetic to abusers, and wanted to deny women the right to divorce, get child custody, or seek shelter from abusing/controlling partners.

Abuse of male partners undoubtedly happens. Bad results in divorce/custody cases for a male partner undoubtedly happen. But this deep-seated rage and assertions of some sort of conspiracy to deny men their rights (rights to control, as far as I can make out, everything their ex-partner does), combined with constant efforts to defund or allow male access to shelters for battered women, in the name of some sort of "parity" just doesn't smell right, at all. It smells very bad, indeed.

[Tonio]

Emjaybee,

I've noticed that phenomenon as well, and I absolutely agree that it smells very bad. Peeling back the layers of the onion, perhaps these men are deeply, almost pathologically insecure about their position in society, and feel threatened by anything that appears to reward women. (In another thread, I suggested that this was a very common mindset among poor white men in the South after the civil rights and women's rights movements.)

[damnedyankee]

Yeah, damnedyankee, that's the point of the article.

Okay, my bad. Didn't follow the link (and it sounds NSFW, so that's probably a good thing in the final analysis).

So, um... LOOK! CORNBREAD!

(Runs away as heads turn in the other direction.)

[wintermute]

Re. "wife-beating": I've always wanted to know why me hitting her is horrible, wrong, reprehensible, and More Evol Even Than The Left Behind Writers' Prose Style---while her hitting me is, for all intents and purposes, not treated nearly so seriously---even when she did real damage. Of course, in my experience, feminists want equality with men only insofar as that refers to the good parts---when it comes down to taking equal responsibility for doing bad things, they rush back to the old ways at a speed that makes light look crippled and slow. For what it's worth, I've never hit a woman, but if shanghaiing was still practiced, I know quite a few who'd have found themselves involuntary crewhands on a windjammer. "Ahhhrr, welcome aboard the Sea Witch! I'm yer captain, 'Bully' Waterman, the toughest sea-dog on the seven seas! We'll be arrivin' in our port of call in oh, six months---evil spirits and monsters permitting."

Pointless anecdote time:

My mother is a marriage guidance counsellor (and a supervisor and trainer of counsellors) for Relate. She once told me about a supervision session she was in with a half-dozen or so other counsellors, when one of them mentioned the time that, during a counselling session, Mrs X had hit her husband several times with an umbrella. Everyone in the room chuckled at the story. My mother, so I am told, then said "Hang on; how would you feel if it was the husband who had done that?", and everyone went very quiet...

I agree that female-instigated spousal abuse is treated less seriously than male-instigated spousal abuse, even by those people who really ought to know better, and others have provided excellent reasons why this is the case (but no-one's yet mentioned the fact that men are less likely to report spousal abuse, as they believe it makes them appear less masculine). But it seems to be becoming a more visible issue, and in time I hope it will be treated exactly as seriously as an equivilent wife-beating.

[damnedyankee]

1) he [Dobson] has a phd in child psych. As such he should know a thing or two about mental disorders

To paraphrase James Randi, having a degree doesn't necessarily mean that you know better, just that you should. Dobson, in particular, is sort of a never-ending fountain of, erm, interesting ideas related to his field, the most notorious being that sons should shower with their fathers for the express purpose of getting a good look at Dad's member... which will keep Junior from becoming a homosexual, somehow.

[Angelika]

Tonio Apply the employing concept of authority to marriage destroys the idea of commitment. It reduces marriage to an emotionless exchange, where the woman gives sex and obedience in exchange for money and shelter.

Well, in many cultures for most of human history marriage was just that. In many cultures, even today, husband and wife hardly know each other before they get married. Working lifelong alliances between equal partners usually require a strong mutual liking, similar interests and priorities. The likelihood of finding this with a stranger is minute. (In fact, the high divorce rates in our culture indicate, that even two partners who already love and know each other often don't turn out sufficiently compatible for a union of equal partners.) I doubt that most arranged marriaged between strangers would work at all, if they weren't based on such a kind of work-relationship.

[Jesurgislac]

wintermute: But it seems to be becoming a more visible issue, and in time I hope it will be treated exactly as seriously as an equivilent wife-beating.

If it is, it will be because feminism has made it less important to men that they should be perceived as "masculine", and readier to say that it's OK to admit that his wife/girlfriend hits him. Patriarchal values really are bad for men, too, just like we're always telling you...

[LMM]

if "Billy Broderick" had killed his high-flying ex-wife and her new boy-toy husband after getting into a house that had been locked against him, by shooting them when they were helpless in their bed, his chances of staying off Death Row would be about as good as the chances of Left Behind getting the Pulitzer Prize for Literature.

*cough* OJ Simpson *cough*

And he was black, too.

[Tonio]

"Well, in many cultures for most of human history marriage was just that. In many cultures, even today, husband and wife hardly know each other before they get married."

I knew that when I typed my post. I regard arranged marriages as oppressive for both men and women, although typically it's worse for the women because of the patriarchal nature of those societies.

[cjmr's husband]

And he was black, too.

And rich and famous. Not a very good counterexample, I'm afraid.

[straight outta compton]

I am far more amused than I should be by the two trolls jumping on this topic straight-away. It's a delightful example of an accidental intersection of two vile agendas. To wit:

Mr. Clark talks about a figure with religious influence in a Christian community speaking from religious authority to his audience about wife-beating being justified.

An ambitious young AIPAC e-commissar - whose website is evidently devoted to helping Jews defuse anti-Semite Christian apologists (a noble aim, I will admit) - immediately jumps in to defend Reverend Dr. Wife-Beater; American lunatic evangelicals are evidently morally justified in beating their wives because somewhere a Muslim is doing it too. (And that somewhere... could be THE WEST!!! IMMIGRATION STRIKES AGAIN!!!)

Meanwhile, a young man whose thirst for equality and justice know no bounds - who, in the words of a French wit whose name I forget, would forbid the poor and the rich alike to steal bread and sleep under bridges - mutters about Fred's sudden concern for women whose husbands are being encouraged to physically abuse them by a tremendous culture of misogny. After all, men and women alike are beaten; while the number of men being physically abused by women is several orders of magnitude smaller than the number of women being physically abused by men, and several more if one only considers cases where the abused is economically or sociologically dependent on the abuser, the millions of battered women and the hundreds of battered men clearly deserve equal time. If anything, the battered men should have more attention lavished on them, because the feminists who run society hate them - being men and all. And that's why no-fault divorce is worse than the Nuremburg Codes.

At the end of the day, people address these complaints in a civil fashion even though they are direct rebuttals of a criticism of physical abuse. Termagant-Man and the Masculist Kid aren't actually here to do anything except squat on trigger phrases, forcing their issues to take center-stage. Of the two of them, I can't tell which I like less: the one trying to undermine sympathy with God-damned battered women or the one whose cultural and political fetishes demand that a small, socially disadvantaged minority be excoriated by association at every turn.

Muslim wife-beaters are jerks, and so are husband-beaters. But there are so few of them in the West compared to Christian wife-beaters that paying that much attention to them makes you look like a transparent fraud to anyone who cares. Try to be more subtle next time.

[wintermute]

And he was black, too. And rich and famous. Not a very good counterexample, I'm afraid.

And, I believe, innocent. Though the only people who seem to share that opinion with me are the jury.

[straight outta compton]

Once a black celebrity is brought to trial, nobody will ever think of them as innocent ever again.

People still go on about Michael Jackson and children even though he was acquitted twice. Gary Glitter has been repeatedly friggin' convicted on multifarious pedophilia-related charges, and yet his songs still get played at football games.

Of course, Gary Glitter was born white as the driven snow. But what can you do?

[Jesurgislac]

And, I believe, innocent.

Michael Jackson or O. J. Simpson?

[damnedyankee]

Ugh. Gary Glitter. I can't even listen to my Doctorin' the TARDIS 12" single anymore thansk to that creep.

And don't get me started on Do Ya Wanna Touch Me.

They still play his songs at football games? Urrgh.

[Jesurgislac]

straight outta compton: I think I should introduce you to the aunursa Responders Anonymous. We get together in a virtual kind of way and try to resist getting into repetitive arguments. (I sometimes think there might be a JesRA that meets on a different night and has an overlapping membership, but that might just be the paranoia talking. Stick around for an abortion thread and you'll see what I mean...) There's another regular you may not have met yet called Scott who shows up once in a while with autolibertarian comments, but we've about got ourselves out of the habit of responding to him.

Other than people who have a RA society dedicated to them, this blog has a tradition of civil, polite, and crushing rebuttals, which I put down to Fred's excellent example.

[LMM]

And rich and famous. Not a very good counterexample, I'm afraid.

Perhaps, but it's a blatantly obvious one -- so obvious that I wouldn't have posed the situation to begin with.

Besides, would anyone have *heard* of it if he weren't famous? (I'm sure there's a term for that kind of bias, but it's too much time to look it up on Wikipedia.)

[LMM]

And rich and famous. Not a very good counterexample, I'm afraid.

Perhaps, but it's a blatantly obvious one -- so obvious that I wouldn't have posed the situation to begin with.

Besides, would anyone have *heard* of it if he weren't famous? (I'm sure there's a term for that kind of bias, but it's too much time to look it up on Wikipedia.)

[LMM]

Ack -- sorry, typepad gave me mixed messages.

[Steve]

My point was that the notion of male headship frames that anger and allows it to flourish.

I definitely agree this mindset can contribute to domestic violence in many cases. I was critiquing your use of absolute statements, ala "any doctrine of female submission implicitly endorses wife-beating" and "female submission is the whole basis for domestic violence against women." (emphasis mine)

[Steve]

Something about this thread reminds me of the white, wealthy guy at my church that, whenever racism comes up, claims he is discriminated against as a white male.

[Tonio]

"I was critiquing your use of absolute statements."

Valid point, Steve. I wasn't trying to ignore out the role of unresolved anger. I was saying that wife-beating requires both that anger and the notion of female submission. Plus, the word "submission" means being under the absolute authority of someone else. I don't see how such total authority would NOT involve physical or emotional abuse.

[Steve]

I was saying that wife-beating requires both that anger and the notion of female submission.

And I'm saying wife beating can still occur even when there is no notion of female submission.

[emjaybee]

"I was critiquing your use of absolute statements, ala 'any doctrine of female submission implicitly endorses wife-beating' and 'female submission is the whole basis for domestic violence against women.' "

Hmm. I think the separation, however strongly insisted upon in theory, will always be extremely thin in practice. I do not believe it is possible to endorse a theory that demands one group of humans submit to another group based on something arbitrary/unchangeable (like gender, or skin color), without creating an atmosphere that will breed oppression. It is the "power corrupts" principle x10.

Any principle of female submission is based on a belief in female inferiority (otherwise, why would they need to submit? Only a inferior being needs a superior one to control it). I would argue that such an assumption is inherently violent, in that it creates a category of sub-humans, i.e., women. Because if human=man, and women are inferior to men, then they are not quite human. Being stripped of your status in society as a full human being is an act of violence. And is always the first step taken by one group wishing to abuse and oppress another group. It removes your protections, blocks your access to power, and isolates you from the rest of society, making abuse inevitable.