In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Blame Feminism

We really get everything laid on us, don’t we?

Officers from the Peru, Ind., police department had made an unsolicited visit to the Hammon couple (presumably after a call from a neighbor). Finding that the Hammons’ argument had ended, but broken glass and a broken gas heater in the house, the policeman asked both husband and wife what happened. Each said the argument was over and everything was fine.

Unwilling to accept the couple’s own resolution of the dispute, a policeman interrogated the Amy Hammon separately to get her side of the argument. This time, she informed the officer that she and her husband had indeed had an argument. Unlike her husband, Amy Hammon claimed it was violent – culminating with Hershel Hammon shoving her head into a gas heater, breaking its glass, and punching her in the chest. At the officer’s request, the wife completed a battery affidavit conveying these allegations.

The wife did not press charges and never showed up in court. Undeterred, without ever putting the wife on the witness stand, the prosecutor obtained a battery conviction of the husband based on the signed legal paper.

Hershel Hammon received a one-year prison sentence, for which he spent 20 days in jail. His home was ruined and, with this serious conviction on his record, his ability to support his family was substantially diminished.

Poor Hershel Hammon. The feminists ruined his home! It wasn’t, you know, smashing his wife’s face into a gas heater that diminished his ability to care for his family. It was the selfish, self-serving women who worked really hard to make that type of behavior illegal. In the good old days, he would have been able to do whatever he pleased with his property.

I love this argument, I really do — especially when it comes from “personal responsibility” conservatives. We can’t hold Mr. Hammon accountable for the consequences that come from beating up his wife. We can’t even blame the prosecutor, who’s the one trying to put him in jail. We have to fault feminists for … well, not for doing anything specifically in this case, but for their agenda.

States have also passed laws that require prosecution even if the woman does not want to prosecute or testify. Unwanted and unnecessary arrests and prosecutions obviously prevent reconciliation and private resolution of family disputes.

Because beating the shit out of your partner — shoving her head into a gas heater, punching her — is a “private issue.” Now, if you had done this to a stranger, we would all agree that it’s quite a public issue, because as part of our commonly understood rights and duties to each other, we don’t do violence to other people, at least under most circumstances. Basic social contract. If Mr. Hammon had walked up to Phyllis on the street and punched her twice in the chest, I really don’t think we’d be hearing her say that it’s a private matter. But because it happened in the home, and because it happened to his wife, Schlafley will justify it.

I bring up the home and the fact that it’s his wife because we do regulate violence in the home, with relatively little conservative hemming and hawing. Abusive parents have (or can have) their children taken away. Now, there are certainly some conservatives who complain about this too, but not nearly as many as complain about laws against spousal/partner abuse. My point isn’t the infer that women should be treated like children — they shouldn’t — but simply to point out that the idea of violence in the home being private and therefore unregulatable is something that we have a fairly universal agreement on (as in, we don’t agree with that premise).

Now, I’m not going to get into the details of the 9-1-1 case that Schlafly has taken on here, because I’ve done it before and I’m still mulling it over. But her positioning of domestic violence as a “private” issue and her claims that feminists ruined this man’s life are quite telling, and worth noting.


43 thoughts on Blame Feminism

  1. I love this argument, I really do — especially when it comes from “personal responsibility” conservatives. We can’t hold Mr. Hammon accountable for the consequences that come from beating up his wife.

    This is not the argument that Schlafly made.

    Schlafly’s argument is precisely the one you say you’re “still mulling over.” Namely, can we hold Mr. Hammon accountable for the beating up of his wife without affording him the right to confront witnesses against him?

  2. Next week, at Townhall: Phyllis Schlafly details how lesbian separatists abduct of Republican babies so they can be ground up and made into “nutloaf” for ritual consumption during lesbian orgies. Peaceable vegan landdykes? Think again!

    But her positioning of domestic violence as a “private” issue and her claims that feminists ruined this man’s life are quite telling, and worth noting.

    Not to mention the way she presents the decision to press charges absent the approval of the victim without the context of decades of terrified domestic violence victims. Of course a woman doesn’t want to testify against her abuser!

  3. Schlafly’s argument is precisely the one you say you’re “still mulling over.” Namely, can we hold Mr. Hammon accountable for the beating up of his wife without affording him the right to confront witnesses against him?

    He’s been confronting her for all the years they were married. This policy acknowledges that abusers embark on a campaign of brutal intimidation against the women they become involved with precisely so that these women will not fight the abuse.

  4. This is not the argument that Schlafly made.

    Schlafly’s argument is precisely the one you say you’re “still mulling over.” Namely, can we hold Mr. Hammon accountable for the beating up of his wife without affording him the right to confront witnesses against him?

    That is her primary argument, but she made several secondary arguments to support that point. Those arguments are what I’m going after. For example:

    Unwanted and unnecessary arrests and prosecutions obviously prevent reconciliation and private resolution of family disputes.

    That statement is an argument. It might not be her thesis, but it’s an argument worth critiquing nonetheless.

  5. Good lord, does Schlafly hate women or what?

    The comments are especially scary.

    Feminists are anti-family

    Though I don’t entirely agree with everything in the article it is true that women have more rights(specials rights) than men. Feminists often screech about equality yet seldom apply that courtesy others. Feminists don’t allow anyone to disagree with them especially women. Feminists promote the myth that men are potentially violent and hate women. Bullshit I think the Feminists are misanthropic and bigoted. Women are just if not more violent than men. Case in point abortion.

    head, meet desk.

  6. Jill, (I think) I see what you’re saying. Some of these other arguments would be the one you listed above (“Unwanted and unnecessary arrests…”) and the one you were going for originally when I commented (“Hammon cannot be held accountable since the wife has not chosen–by exercise of her personal responsibility–to accuse him”).

  7. As a (former! yea me!) victim of spousal abuse, I will tell you that three things that keep someone from reporting abuse: the threat of your partner’s retribution, the look of disgust or dismissive disbelief you get from some of the folks in the very agencies that are supposed to help you and even from your family and friends; and the financial/logistical ability to get out. You can’t just “get out” (especially if you have kids), you have to “go somewhere else”. Abusive home to no home is no solution.

    While I am sure there are some people out there who use false allegations of abuse to victimize their partners, I would venture that this is the exception and not the rule. So, when allegations of abuse are made, chances are there is some level of substance to them and quite likely they have come to light after many prior unreported incidents.

    If someone has finally gotten the gumption to report the abuse, it should not be dismissed as “family disputes” that need “private resolution”. I mean, really, the abuse itself is the abuser’s own special method of “private resolution”. You’re not dealing with reasonable, functional people who can rationally come to a resolution when you deal with abusers, so you cannot rely on this method.

    While of course everyone has the right to a constitutional process to determine guilt or innocence, those in power need to have some common sense here to protect the victims.

    Just my two cents…

  8. “Unwanted and unnecessary arrests and prosecutions obviously prevent reconciliation and private resolution of family disputes.”

    First I wonder what police reports or studies she has been reading that there are any unwanted and unnecessary arrests and prosecutions in domestic violence situations? I am sure there are but I doubt that many reach trial.

    Second, she seems to be implying that cops and prosecutors’ lack the judgment to sort out domestic disputes or prosecute them. I suppose that this too is the fault of the “feminists”.

    Third, arrest and prosecution of alleged criminals is a function of society for society as well as for the vicitms of crime. So as Jill said above there is little that is private about it.

    Fourth, arresting and punishing a criminal does nothing to prevent reconciliation. While it may impede it or delay it, it does not necessarily stop a couple from reconciling. Even if Earl the beater does time in the county slam that does not mean she will not be waiting for him at the jail doors.

    Fifth, “private resolution”? what the hell does even mean by that? I suspect that she means Earl the beater pleading, crying, begging forgiveness, and assurances that it will not happen again when it obvious to anyone with any exposure to domestic violence that there is a cycle of behavior involved here that is not broken without counseling. I seriously doubt that Phyll the Fly means to promote government programs for counseling. Perhaps she is thinking of faith-based counseling with Dr. Phil or the Dobster.

    Finally, as I recall, there is often court ordered counseling as part of the sentencing or probation that Earl the beater would not get if it was kept private.

    What an inordinately ignorant woman.

  9. So, Jill, do you believe that there should be an exception to the right of the defendant to be confronted by his/her accusers in cases involving domestic abuse? If so, only for women or should men be allowed an exception as well?

  10. Ha ha, Phyllis Schlafly.

    Two-time failed congressioncal candidate, author of half a dozen failed far right-wing books from the movement that inspired Dr. Strangelove, who had her 15 minutes of fame in 1964 with her screed against Nelson Rockefeller, but destined to fade into obscurity as just another hopeless scribbler of the John Birch era.

    Then came the movement–feminism– that catapaulted her into that revered seat of Queen of the New Right, the benefits of which she has been feeding on hungrily ever since. It’s nice to know that she is still going strong, biting the hand that feeds her, that made her, feeding on the trough of feminism.

  11. the real interesting problem, of course missed by schlafly, is the wife’s decision not to go to court.

    if such abuse occurred in a home that cares for adults with disabilities that preclude him or her from speaking about it, it would be downright shameful for a prosecutor to just drop it.

    it is the same with abused women who won’t testify. an abused woman who doesn’t know her options’ disability is this: if she maintains the charges, she is homeless. just like that. she loses everything, including her children, which is understandably more important than the ongoing structural integrity of her face.

    rather than offer solutions to women in dire circumstances (like this prosecutor did), schlafly suggests that feminists are assholes because they consider people who have their faces smashed into household appliances “victims” who ought to be protected by the law, whether they are able to testify or not.

  12. Shorter DG: Men are abused too!

    Sure, but that’s not what we’re talking about. Get your own blog — there’s plenty of internet to go around.

  13. Perhaps I’m just being simple minded about this but when does the right to confront his accuser ever mean the difference between a conviction and acquittal in a domestic abuse case? If the prosecution can secure a conviction based on the physical evidence, what purpose does the confrontation serve except to intimidate the victim?

  14. Medicine Man, I agree with you that the victim need not testify in many cases where the physical evidence, or other witnesses are sufficient to prove guilt. I would not have a problem if this man was convicted without his wife’s statement to police being used against him. But if it was used, doesn’t the man have the constitutional guarantee to cross examine her in court?

    And if you feel he shouldn’t have that right, should that be the case for all domestic abuse cases, regardless of the gender of the victim? Or only when men are the perps?

  15. “The prosecutor obtained a conviction of the Adrian Martell Davis…”

    She did it twice!

  16. Raging Moderate, he did get a reply, abeit a terse one (“Sure”)

    The more interesting here is that Lauren & Co. seem to think feminism is nothing more than women getting together and talking about womens’ problems. From their perspective if you have a uterus your problems are “legitimate” under feminism, if you don’t have one, then they aren’t. Maybe they should ask Phyllis Schlafly what her problems are, since Phyllis is obviously one of them.

    Once upon a time, feminism was a political doctrine grounded in the affirmation of equal human dignity…

  17. Sure, if a man were being abused by his partner (male or female), I would extend the same protection to him as well. Although the details would differ, I suspect the pathology of dependency and guilt would be similar.

    Female on male violent physical abuse is much less common though, at least between two adults, so I don’t know how often this would come up.

  18. @Raging Moderate

    We cross posted, so if you scroll down a bit you can see my opinion about abuse cases where the victim is male.

    Good point about a defendant’s right to rebut or challenge a written statement. If the woman’s statement is used against him, I suppose that a man does have the constitutional guarantee to challenge it. If intimidation is an issue, I would suggest that it be left up to his advocate though, with him being elsewhere.

  19. Medicine Man,

    I like your proposal; the victim testifies and is cross examined in front of the judge and jury, but the alleged perp is not in court for it.

    But what if the alleged perp is dumb enough to act as his/her own lawyer, as is his/her right also?

  20. Require him to have an advocate? He’s probably going to hang himself if he decides to act as his own defence, either making total bollocks of his case, or revealing himself to be a bully to the court.

    What if the defendant were a lawyer though?

  21. Well, instead of relying on Schlafly’s characterization of the law, you could always.. I don’t know.. read the decision in Hammon. In essence, an excited utterance concerning physical condition is an exception to the hearsay rule and is not a testimonial statement, therefore the Confrontation Clause did not apply. Such a ruling would obviously apply to other crimes, not just husband-on-wife domestic abuse.

    Any further talk on the issue will probably have little to do with the actual case and only feed into Schlafly’s “feminism is destroying the planet” paranoia.

  22. bob, that’s trolling. If this were my blog, I’d toss you for boilerplate attacks on feminism, which do nothing to foster discussion of the actual issue.

    Now, to discuss the actual issue.

    I have not read the briefing (because I work for a living). However, the Confrontation Clause is not absolute. It is essentially a constitutionalization of a core traditional hearsay exclusion. There are exceptions; generally the deeply rooted hearsay exceptions. Out-of-court accounts by a witness not available for cross that are statements against interest, for example. There are also statements admissible because the specific circumstances of the statement indicate reliability. I’m no maven on Con Clause jurisprudence, but the rule isn’t as ironclad as, “no cross, no statement.” Much of the jurisprudence turns on the availability of the witness — there is a much narrower set of exceptions (like dying declarations) admissible where a witness is available but is not produced.

    Also, it seems to me that much of this could come in over the objection of the complainant. If the prosecution had the guts (and I’m not fan of prosecutors; they rarely seem to have the guts to put on any story that does not have fairy-tale simplicity with perfect complainants and evil defendants) they could put on the complainant, get her to deny the events or testify that she does not recall, then cross her with her prior statements (which come in not just for impeachment, but for the truth of the matter asserted).

    I’m not an evidence wizard. Some people probably know this area of the law better than I do. Anyone want to chime in?

  23. Medicine Man et. al re: right to confront witnesses.

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    From the Bill of Rights. I found it here:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

  24. “Any further talk on the issue will probably have little to do with the actual case and only feed into Schlafly’s “feminism is destroying the planet” paranoia.”

    I agree. But it is not without merit. If you support the decision to not let this man have the right to cross-examine his accuser in court, it is reasonable (in fact necessary) to consider how this will be applied in future cases (isn’t that what they call legal precedent?). If you decide to take away someone’s legal rights in one case, it can continue on in other cases.

    I always try to look at an issue like this as if I were the person that is affected. If you were accused of a crime, would you then think it’s a good idea to strip you of the right to confront and cross examine your accuser?

  25. “He’s been confronting her for all the years they were married. This policy acknowledges that abusers embark on a campaign of brutal intimidation against the women they become involved with precisely so that these women will not fight the abuse.”

    Yes, but it also seems to acknowledge that any woman who accuses a man of domestic violence must always be telling the truth, as this policy says that we have no need to let the accused cross examine her to determine her credibility.

  26. So, Jill, do you believe that there should be an exception to the right of the defendant to be confronted by his/her accusers in cases involving domestic abuse? If so, only for women or should men be allowed an exception as well?

    I think I addressed this in the post when I wrote:

    Now, I’m not going to get into the details of the 9-1-1 case that Schlafly has taken on here, because I’ve done it before and I’m still mulling it over.

    I’m still thinking about it, and parsing through the implications of whichever standard we apply to the facts of this case (that is, allowing a tape of a 911 call to be introduced without requiring the victim to testify). I see that you all want hard and fast yes-or-no answers to whether or not I think this case is “right.” I’ve written about this case before. I’ll probably write about it again. Right now, I’m focusing on the arguments Schlafly employs to make her greater point. So let’s stay on those, please.

  27. Jill, this your site and your post, but what is the point of debating an issue when everybody agrees with you (such as Schlafly’s nonsensical opinons)? While it might help us feel good, what kind of progress can be achieved like that?

    When I read this article, I thought to myself “Well, Schlafly certainly is a nut, but she raises an interesting question regarding whether or not we should have the right to confront our accusers in court, regardless how horrible we find his/her alleged behavior to be.

    I’ve been visiting this site for a few months now, and the posters generally take the time to blast people for the stupid things people say, while ignoring any valid or debateable points they raise.

    Perhaps I should search for different sites that engage in debate, rather than sites where posters shoot the messenger and ignore the message.

  28. Raging Moderate-

    I’ve posted on the 9-1-1 case two times before this, so the accusation that the issue hasn’t been put up for debate is just silly.

    And the purpose of this blog isn’t for the lefties to debate the righties. It’s for people to engage in conversation on many levels. Sometimes that means debate; sometimes not. There’s a lot to what Schlafley is saying, and not everyone agrees that she’s crazy. Plenty of people out there think that the “feminist agenda” is destroying the family, and that domestic disputes should be left in the private sphere. Apart from that, there are lots of other issues raised by Schlafley’s arguments, and fresh eyes are probably able to point out things that I missed.

    That said, if people want to use this thread to debate the 9-1-1 case, that’s fine. I’m just saying, to those who have demanded answers from me, that I don’t have them yet and that wasn’t the purpose of this post.

    And if people are here strictly to debate and not to engage and discuss, then yeah, you’re probably in the wrong place. I’m happy to debate when appropriate, but there are more ways to dissect issues than simple confrontation.

  29. What’s with the sudden troll explosion around here? There seem to be far more than usual…

  30. Phyllis Schlafly is indeed the Queen of the Nutbags and I am ashamed to say that she harkens from my hometown.

    Her arguments about mandatory arrest without due process seem a bit skewed. I was aware that in the eighties, domestic violence laws made arrest and conviction without the accuser being questioned mandatory. At least around here, more analysis is allowed to bear before a man or women, for that matter is locked away with a conviction.

    I actually know a man who, a victim of abuse all his life, married a very unstable and violent woman (typical of victims to carry the pattern throughout their lives if there is no intervention). She learned the routine of being able to accuse abuse in order to get him arrested just when his paycheck would arrive in the mail. He had allowed her as signatory. Extremely withdrawn socially, partially hearing impaired and unaware of his rights of due process and appointed apathetic public defenders, he was always put in jail. This went on repeatedly over nearly a fifteen year period without any intervention by any case workers or others who one might think would say, “Hey something isn’t working here.” I only hope that his case was an isolated abherration.

    What it points up to me though is that still, with all the ‘education’ about abuse, those who are trained be able to identify the signs of abuse or further, serious emotional/psychological disturbance due to years of victimization, cannot see it when stares them right in the face.

    This doesn’t bode well for women or men.

    And Schafly is damn wrong to make such errors an excuse to trumpet her bizzarre hatred of justice and social progression.

    Oh and yes, when I saw Schafly sitting on the Donahue show in the seventies lambasting women for working outside the home, I couldn’t believe that people would actually agree with this lying, foolish hypocrite. Shut up Phyllis! Go home and bake cookies for your husband damn it, show us how you value your own family!

  31. I’m no maven on Con Clause jurisprudence, but the rule isn’t as ironclad as, “no cross, no statement.” Much of the jurisprudence turns on the availability of the witness — there is a much narrower set of exceptions (like dying declarations) admissible where a witness is available but is not produced.

    THank you Thomas, a point I clumsily tried to make. Most often his case was dismissed and after a weekend in jail, he was released and allowed to go home. But, as he was extremely dependent and passive, he went home, nothing changed and he simply allowed the system to roll over him time and again.

  32. Once again, everybody, this case has absolutely nothing to do with the crime charged, and everything to do with well-established hearsay exceptions and instances where statements are not testimonial. Debating on Schlafly’s terms only leads to fighting strawmen such as “Do you think this OUTRAGEOUS violation of CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS should be condoned JUST BECAUSE it’s a domestic abuse case?”

    Put another way, if I was roughed up by a complete stranger, my excited utterance to a cop/EMS worker could be used against him/her without my needing to be cross-examined, and that person could theoretically be convicted.

  33. I once woke up to the sound of my upstairs neighbor presumably beating his wife. It was loud enough that the screams penetrated the concrete flooring, and so I called the Military Police. It was a decision I made in conjunction with my wife.

    Three days later, though, a sergeant who was friends with the neighbor in question confronted me, in uniform, and demanded to know if I had been the one who’d made the call. I confirmed it, at which point he preceded to berate me about staying out of other people’s business. When I respectfully reminded him that it had been a joint decision with my spouse, he had snarled “F*** your wife. I don’t have to deal with her.” He told me that next time I got involved like that, he’d give me a counseling statement.

    As it turned out, however, my wife was the co-leader of the local Family Readiness Group. She had weekly meetings with the commander, and when this incident came to his attention, it turned out that the sergeant did, indeed have to deal with my wife. In the end, the sergeant was punished for intervening, but it just goes to show how sometimes men tend to circle their wagons, so to speak, in order to cover things up. Men like that should not be used to qualify our entire gender, but it’s important to note that such men are indeed out there. Feminism be damned, spouse abuse is spouse abuse. And it should never be tolerated.

  34. The Court of Appeals opinion Norbiz linked is really helpful. The specific facts of the case (the woman’s demeanor, etc.) showed that she was still in the immediate stress of the altercation. Like Norbizness said, under those circumstances, the “excited utterance” exception is a well-grounded one. It would apply to someone who was mugged on the street by a stranger as well as someone who was a DV victim. And from a policy standpoint, if the rule is “statements to the cops in the immediate aftermath of a struggle are excited utterances,” than it allows most of the no-cooperation prosecutions that go on today.

  35. Jill.

    OK Thanks.

    Lauren.

    I don’t think you are representing my questions in a fair manner. Are you suggesting that I just go away? I will, if that is what you are asking.

  36. Blah, blah, blah, Constitutional Rights, blah, blah, blah. Of course, when the Constitution was written, women, people of color and Native Americans weren’t considered human, had no voice or say-so in any of it, and need not apply.

    The Constitution and The Bill of Rights, like all laws written by white men, are self masturbatory, and designed to grant white men power they’re not entitled to and take what doesn’t belong to them.

    Talk about special rights for a specific group of people! Who now rant and rave and whine when people that aren’t male or white now want to be heard and have their say-so which was previously denied to them.. That’s because the white man’s special rights are all in place and the last thing he wants is to give up that privilege, advantage and edge.

    The Bill of Rights reflects all of this. When it says a man has the right to face his accuser, it considered that both parties were on a level playing field. IOWs, they would both be white males. Because no other group could bring charges against or accuse a white man of anything. The Bill of Rights never considered the disasterous results that would occur when the law was applied equally to unequals.

    Just think of a grotesquely lopsided scale. What happens when equal weight is applied to both sides of the scale? It remains qrotesquely lopsided of course. And that is what is currently occurring in our legal system. The white boys are having a field day with this grotesquely lopsided scale and trying to innocently proclaim, “But equal weight was applied, it’s fair.” Yeah, that’s like running a 10 mile race and giving white boys a 9 mile head start and claiming it’s fair cuz everyone starts running at the same time at the sound of the gun.

    Until you zero out those scales, white boys, and re-write those laws — this time with people of color, Native Americans and women having say-so in the matter — don’t even start waving your Bill of Special White Boy Rights in our faces. Which were created and designed to privilege and favor no one other than YOU.

  37. P.S. I realize the Bill of Rights was created to protect us against the tyranny of the government, not from each other.

    So for example, the 1st amendment gave us the right to speak out against the government. It did not give us the right to say whatever the hell we damn well pleased to each other.

    The 2nd amendment gave us the right to bear arms to protect ourselves against the tyranny of the government. Not to protect ourselves against burglars, crack dealers or our neighbors.

    If you go down the list, you’ll see that all the amendments have to do with protecting us against a tyrannical government.

    Amendment IV, which the amendment in question here, is again designed to protect us against a tyrannical government. So that the government can’t just act like some nameless entity and toss us in jail, deny us legal counsel and forget to give us a trial for 20 years.

    Unfortunately, the purpose of the Bill of Rights seems to have been lost over the years. We’re not using it for the purpose it was designed for, we’re using it on each other! The Patriot Act all but does away with the Bill of Rights altogether. So that we have… voila! The very thing the Bill of Rights tried to protect us from. A fascist, tyrannical government!

    This does not negate anything I’ve just said. Laws were always created and designed by white men for white men in this country. They didn’t consider anyone else human. Everyone else was considered property. *His* property to own and do with as he pleased.

    The very concept of “property” is his creation and design. How can he own what doesn’t belong to him in the first place? But that’s part of the religion of patriarchy. The concept of property and ownership. And his laws are delirious with this religious concept and designed to make it a reality. Thousands of years of oppression of others are the result. All in the name of owning the resources. That were never his to take to begin with.

Comments are currently closed.