At What Point Do They Call The McNair Murder "Domestic Violence"?
Carey Roberts has a point:
A July 6 article in the New York Times conjectured the incident may have been a "double homicide or part of a murder-suicide." But no mention of domestic violence.A July 8 story from ESPN relied on artful phrasing to sidestep the dreaded "DV" words. Police "waited for further tests and the revelations about Kazemi's personal problems before concluding that she pulled the trigger," ESPN explained.
Excuse me, but what do revelations about someone's personal life have to do with figuring out whether she pulled the trigger?
By the following day, the rehabilitation of Ms. Kazemi had shifted into high gear. An article in the Washington Post was crafted to evoke the reader's sympathy, informing us she was "increasingly tormented by a rush of personal problems" and "her life was falling apart."
...Domestic violence workers will insist until they're blue in the face that domestic violence is the consequence of patriarchal oppression. As such, women are constitutionally indisposed to resort to such nefarious actions, they claim.
So when women deep-six their boyfriends and husbands, their apologists turn to the thread-bare excuse that she was only acting in self-defense. But in this case the self-defense ploy doesn't fit. Kazemi had bought the gun two days before, she pursued her prey to his apartment, and he was aslumber when she squeezed the trigger.
If the self-defense argument doesn't fly, then go to Plan B -- the "he had it coming" excuse. While I certainly don't condone infidelity, there are lots of women I know who have strayed from the straight and narrow. Somehow I don't remember anyone insulting their memory with a "she had it coming" comment.
McNair threw for 174 touchdowns and more than 31,000 yards. His extraordinary skill and exuberant passion for the sport inspired a generation. So let's take a collective deep breath and utter these mournful words: "Former NFL star Steve McNair was a victim of domestic violence, killed at the hand of a spiteful girlfriend."
Cosh wrote a very similar column which I highly recommend, he gets off some good one-liners, kinda Steyn-like.
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 15, 2009 12:11 AM
Amy, as Rush notes, the sports press is just as liberal as the rest of the industry.
Which is why ESPN will happily go along with the party line.
When a man kills a woman, it's an atrocity.
When a woman kills a man, it's a statistic.
brian at July 15, 2009 4:16 AM
...utter these mournful words: "Former NFL star Steve McNair was a victim of domestic violence, killed at the hand of a spiteful girlfriend."
"mournful words" my fat white ass. How convenient that they leave out the effect of the whole thing on the wife and children of the deceased, who were victims too. Bastard was cheating on his wife, bitch girlfriend was tired of waiting for the divorce that would never happen, and then found out about and was jealous of the new girlfriend. People are fucked up, man, I swear to gods.
o.O
Flynne at July 15, 2009 5:37 AM
Feminists want to keep the monopoly on domestic violence as a man on woman only issue.
Anyone not going along with this, whether they be courts, press, etc... can expect disfavor from them.
If you control the language you control the issue.
Even though women commit domestic violence at a slightly higher rate than men (see cdc and domestic violence) it is verboten to talk about or for the most part openly say this.
When a woman commits a horrendous crime she is almost immediately labeled as a victim of abuse, mental illness, etc... A man is just simply labeled a bastard that deserves no sympathy.
David M. at July 15, 2009 6:08 AM
That's as may be, Flynne, but you and I both know what would be said had the genders been reversed.
When a man kills a woman, he's a monster. When a woman kills a man, she's a victim.
Either way, nobody seems to give a fuck about the human wreckage just beyond the crime scene tape.
brian at July 15, 2009 6:26 AM
I am continually astounded that women and men expect their married boyfriend or girlfriend to be faithful to them. If they were faithful, they wouldn't be with you, they'd be with their spouse.
Pseudonym at July 15, 2009 6:28 AM
I was surprised at the police taking so long to state that she killed McNair. She obviously had a few screws loose. I can't see how his wife or anyone else was surprised that he was cheating. He certainly did not seem to be going to any lengths to hide this affair. I disagree though with the fact that anyone in the press is sympathizing with her or saying he got what he deserved. Everything I've read still talks about what a compassionate and giving person he was. Him cheating doesn't change all of the good he did and certainly was not a reason for anyone to kill him.
Kristen at July 15, 2009 6:48 AM
Good catch on that. I missed it and I usually pay attention to stuff like that. A few years back there was a guy who shot his wife's divorce lawyer(a man) on the street in Boston. The radio station I was listening to was reporting it as "an act of domestic violence". I swear I'm not making that up. I called and complained and they removed that wording from the next newscast.
Unbelievable though.
And don't forget that ESPN is owned by Disney. Any "reporting" they do gets judged by their Disney bosses.
sean at July 15, 2009 7:08 AM
Everything I've read still talks about what a compassionate and giving person he was. Him cheating doesn't change all of the good he did and certainly was not a reason for anyone to kill him.
If he was so "compassionate and giving", why the fuck was he cheating on his wife and children in the first place? His cheating may not "change all of the good he did" but don't you think his family should have been the first recipients of all that "good" compassion and giving? And that maybe a little loyalty to them could have gone a long way towards him still be alive today?
Flynne at July 15, 2009 7:25 AM
...still BEING alive...
sorry. And Brian, yes, we know what would have been said had the genders been reversed. But that doesn't change the fact that if he had kept it in his pants, or at least been a little more circumspect, he'd still be alive today, no?
Flynne at July 15, 2009 7:29 AM
Okay, so the spiteful girlfriend killed her married boyfriend and caused immense pain to his wife and kids.
Yes, he was cheating on his wife. That happens sometimes. Women cheat, too. That doesn't somehow make the cheater to blame for being killed. At worst, maybe he was cheating with someone he should have realized was crazy - there's still the simple fact that she killed him. And the fact that mainstream reporting treats murders of men by women differently from murders of women by men.
jen at July 15, 2009 7:39 AM
I disagree though with the fact that anyone in the press is sympathizing with her or saying he got what he deserved - kristen
Please reread the following two paragraphs from the exerpt
A July 8 story from ESPN relied on artful phrasing to sidestep the dreaded "DV" words. Police "waited for further tests and the revelations about Kazemi's personal problems before concluding that she pulled the trigger," ESPN explained.
&
By the following day, the rehabilitation of Ms. Kazemi had shifted into high gear. An article in the Washington Post was crafted to evoke the reader's sympathy, informing us she was "increasingly tormented by a rush of personal problems" and "her life was falling apart."
lujlp at July 15, 2009 7:46 AM
Or, Kristen read Flynne comment
that doesn't change the fact that if he had kept it in his pants, or at least been a little more circumspect, he'd still be alive today, no?
lujlp at July 15, 2009 7:48 AM
Bottom line is, she killed him because he was cheating on her with yet another woman. If he had just kept it in his pants, that wouldn't have happened, now would it? Why don't people get it - if he does it WITH you, he'll do it TO you. Whether mainstream reporting treats it any differently because of the genders being reversed really doesn't make the least bit of difference; it won't bring the deceased back, no matter what the gender. Calling McNair a "victim of domestic violence" doesn't help one whit, really. While it may bring attention to the fact the women are just as diabolical as men, if he hadn't cheated to begin with, he'd still be alive.
Flynne at July 15, 2009 7:51 AM
Come on, Amy. You yourself say if you walk down a dark alley at night and get mugged, it's because you were stupid. Doesn't excuse the mugger, but you have blame too. Same thing here. Doesn't excuse her, but he put himself in that situation. No tears for him.
momof4 at July 15, 2009 7:52 AM
> that doesn't change the fact that if
> he had kept it in his pants, or at
> least been a little more
> circumspect, he'd still be alive
> today, no?
Wow... Turns out, Loojy's a big fan of religious payback after all!
We all knew it, anyway
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 15, 2009 7:52 AM
lol, now crid has to admit he made a mistake.
Isnt life grand? Sorry crid, I was quoting Flynne
And Flynne the point in calling it DV is to show that men can be victims of it as well as women. The point is to show it isnt a gender specific crime as some would have the world belive.
'
The point is to shine a light on a problem that will never be resoveld until it is acknowledged
lujlp at July 15, 2009 8:07 AM
I hate to try and speak for Amy but I don't think her post had anything to do with McNair or his family or his GF(s).
It was about how the Media categorizes crime based on gender. Specifically "Domestic Violence".
Whether Mcnair would still be alive if he kept it in his pants or whether his GF was a wack job is irrelevant to this topic.
sean at July 15, 2009 8:08 AM
Was it domestic violence? Sure.
Do the police need to find out "about Kazemi's personal problems before concluding that she pulled the trigger"?
Having read too many mysteries, spy novels, and other thrillers, I don't have a problem with their wanting to know more about her motives. The mystery novel problem is usually that the cops assume the spouse or lover did it.
/going back to my book reading now
jerry at July 15, 2009 8:10 AM
The point is to shine a light on a problem that will never be resoveld until it is acknowledged
Loojy, sweetheart, I know that. I was just trying to point out that calling McNair's murder "Domestic violence" isn't something that will be acknowledged all that easily, just because of the sympathy factor that the press is trying to procure for the murderer. The fact remains that his family is devestated, and if he hadn't cheated to begin with, there wouldn't have been any call for the domestic violence angle.
Whether Mcnair would still be alive if he kept it in his pants or whether his GF was a wack job is irrelevant to this topic.
Okay, but still. Whether it's a man or a woman who does the killing or the beating or whatever, it IS domestic violence, and people with common sense would know that. The fact remains that male on female domestic violence is still touted as worse than the reverse, simply because men have always been thought to be phyiscally stronger than women. That this is acccepted as the norm is what the problem is. (Personally, I think women are stronger. If the male of the species were the ones who had to give birth, we'd be almost extinct by now! o.O Kidding!)
Flynne at July 15, 2009 8:20 AM
What sean said. And it happened again over the weekend... Arturo Gatti, the boxer, was (allegedly) killed by his wife. It'll be interesting to see how that story plays out, and what excuses are made for the woman.
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/news/story?id=4326698
ahw at July 15, 2009 8:21 AM
Actually, I'm not sure "domestic violence" is the right word. The scene of the crime was a love nest, not a domicile.
Has the term "crime of passion" become obsolete or something?
Axman at July 15, 2009 8:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/15/at_what_point_d_1.html#comment-1658456">comment from seanWhether Mcnair would still be alive if he kept it in his pants or whether his GF was a wack job is irrelevant to this topic.
Utterly irrelevant.
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2009 8:25 AM
By not "keeping it in his pants" he earned a messy divorce, a large alimony bill, and society's disapprobation for being a philanderer. He didn't "earn" two bullets to the head while he slept.
Conan the Grammarian at July 15, 2009 8:35 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/15/at_what_point_d_1.html#comment-1658460">comment from Conan the GrammarianExactly, Conan.
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2009 8:43 AM
"mournful words" my fat white ass. How convenient that they leave out the effect of the whole thing on the wife and children of the deceased, who were victims too."
"why the fuck was he cheating on his wife and children in the first place? "
Flyne, Flynne, Flynne....
He was cheating on his wife, not on his children. His relationship with his children was between him and them. The wife is a side issue. Are you seriously trying to say that his relationship with his children depends on his relationship with his wife? Would you say there relationship with them depend on keeping their father happy?
As for victimizing those kids - who victimized them more, the father that cheated on their mother, or the women who came in and killed their father?
"That this is acccepted as the norm is what the problem is. "
OK. You get it.
"Whether it's a man or a woman who does the killing or the beating or whatever, it IS domestic violence, and people with common sense would know that."
Well that kind of sense isn't very common. That's the problem.
Jim at July 15, 2009 8:50 AM
> now crid has to admit he made a mistake.
THat's what I get for speed reading
Crid at July 15, 2009 9:17 AM
'my fat white ass.'
Why does that not surprise me.
sean at July 15, 2009 9:34 AM
I am amazed at your comments, Flynne. Nobody is defending him cheating, but I cannot really say that I am surprised that a pro football quarterback had a mistress or even two or three. A marriage license is not an owner's contract and just as his wife had no right to kill him for cheating, his mistress did not either. To say he'd still be alive if he'd kept it in his pants is blaming the victim and you are proving the point of everyone saying that men are treated differently in these cases. DV is about control and this nutjob was out of control. Her life was spiraling out of control. Putting four bullets in her lover was her throwing a fit saying if I can't have you nobody can. When a man does that we don't look at the reasons. We say he's a sick fuck. Steve McNair is human like the rest of us. He cheated on his wife. It does not take away from all of the things he did for his community and it certainly does not mean he deserved to be killed by a deranged lover.
Kristen at July 15, 2009 9:42 AM
I'm not sure where people get the idea that feminists say that DV is only male-on-female. At the feminist womens' college I attended, we had to go to workshops about DV (and other subjects), and they talked about male on female, male on male, female on female, and female on male. At NOW meetings, too. Granted this was more than a decade ago, but...
I bet you if you were looking to start a program to help male victims of DV, you could partner up with NOW or a similar organization.
NicoleK at July 15, 2009 9:54 AM
Kristen, all I was saying is that if the man had NOT been engaged in extramarital affairs, he'd still be alive. I never said he deserved to get shot for being an asshole. One would think he would have exercised a little bit of discretion when stepping out on his wife and family. Of course domestic violence is out of control. It's perpetrated by sick people who believe that they have all the rights and no one else does.
Flynne at July 15, 2009 9:55 AM
vlad at July 15, 2009 11:00 AM
Okay, point taken, looj, but he COULD still actually be alive if he hadn't messed around. Crazy can do a lot of damage before it's gotten under control, but the whole thing could have been avoided. A little discretion is all it would have taken.
Flynne at July 15, 2009 11:10 AM
Oooops! Sorry, vlad.
o.O
Flynne at July 15, 2009 11:10 AM
"Crimes of passion" tend to get lower sentences in general, don't they?
I dunno, if I had an affair and my husband killed me, I wouldn't be terribly surprised by it. He's not a violent person, but people tend to snap when it comes to affairs of the heart.
Yes, one tends to not feel quite as sorry when assholes get killed than when nice folks do, but a murder's still a murder.
NicoleK at July 15, 2009 11:20 AM
vlad at July 15, 2009 11:33 AM
Oh, I don't think he would... he's more of a cold angry person than a hot one.
I'm not sure why you think hurting her as much as possible is much more merciful than killing her in a fit of rage, though. You're pretty much backing up my point... adultery makes people act in horrible ways. Your horrible response might be less horrible than someone else's, but you would still be spurred into horrible behavior.
My point isn't that everyone would kill their spouse, just that it isn't surprising if they do. There is a reason so many cultures make adultery illegal (of course, who they apply the laws to tends to differ). Blind rage is a pretty universal reaction to being cheated on. It's a primal response. Yes, most of us can control it due to social and nurture checks, but it's still a primal and natural response.
Which isn't to say he isn't a victim of domestic violence. He is... although is it still domestic violence if you don't share a domicile? In any case, she should and probably will go to prison.
NicoleK at July 15, 2009 12:15 PM
NicoleK, if you want to know where the absurd notion that DV is strictly male on female may be coming from, I suggest you read Glenn Sacks as he has a series of posts on that specific issue and on the "suppression" of alternate points of view.
To start, though, just google domestic violence wheel and see what comes through.
jerry at July 15, 2009 12:35 PM
"He was cheating on his wife, not on his children. His relationship with his children was between him and them."
Sorry Jim, in a complete aside I'm going to have to disagree. If you act in a way that you know will destroy your children's family and home, then you are in fact cheating on them and just plain cheating them out of the childhood you owe them by virtue of having had them.
But it's no murdering offense, obviously.
JulieA at July 15, 2009 12:39 PM
I'm not asking where the idea that DV is always male on female is coming from, Jerry, just stating that in my anecdotal experience, it ain't the feminists pushing that idea. In my anecdotal evidence, feminists often talk about male victims. This experience comes from experience with NOW and workshops at a womens' college in the late 90s. As I said, anecdotal.
Again, though, if one wants to raise awareness of this issue and provide help, one should. I give a lot of time and money to various causes. If this is one of your pet causes, be prepared to give time and/or money to it.
I'm off to google "domestic violence wheel"
NicoleK at July 15, 2009 1:12 PM
Googled it. And yes, they use "her" as the victim.
So, I guess the question is, how would a "Wheel of Domestic Violence against Male Victims" differ from one against female victims? Other than pronouns, what else would you change, or would you leave it the same?
NicoleK at July 15, 2009 1:25 PM
"Okay, point taken, looj, but he COULD still actually be alive if he hadn't messed around."
I agree with you on that actually. But to do the old gender-reverse thing, it's politically incorrect to point out to a streetwalker who has been raped that her chances of being raped again will, statisically, lesson significantly if she finds some other line of work. In every case of rape (male-on-female rape, that is), it's 100% the man's fault, regardless of what the woman may have done to place herself in danger.
And you know what? I agree with that. People who commit felonies should not be able to get off the hook by claiming that the victim, somehow or other, did something to invite it. But that's exactly what's happening in this case. I guarantee you that every aspect of McNair's infidelity will be brought up by Kazemi's defense, both directly in court, and in the press in order to influence potential jurors. There will be a pretty large group backing Kazemi's defense, and I absolutely guarantee you that a significant element of that defense will be that McNair "needed killin'". In fact, depending on how his wife feels about the revelations of the infidelity, I could see her taking the stand for the defense if she is of that frame of mind. That despite the fact that, as far as we know, her testimony will not in any way be material to the case. Again, reverse the genders: if he had shot her, would he be permitted to introduce evidence that she was cheating on her fiance? There is no judge anywhere in the United States that would permit him to pursue that line of defense.
The upshot is, this isn't just a media double standard that we are protesting here. It's a legal double standard. The "husband/boyfriend was cheating" defense is a legal defense that is available to women only. And in several recent cases, it's been pretty successful. No one with any sense of fair play can state that this doesn't make a mockery of the concept of equal protection under the law.
I'm curious to see how the Arturio Gotti thing plays out, since is far as we know, he hadn't done anything to "deserve it". Unless that changes, my guess is that the American media is going to quietly ignore the story.
Cousin Dave at July 15, 2009 1:31 PM
"His relationship with his children was between him and them. The wife is a side issue."
Hardly. In general the best thing you can do for your kids is love their mother (or father) and treat them right. Kids are going to have some serious hate for people can't do that, even if they eventually work through it.
momof4 at July 15, 2009 1:46 PM
NicoleK,
I suggest you visit Glenn Sacks' blog and look for DV posts. He has written and discussed the issue many times.
You can find his posts about DV here: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?cat=6
Yes, I do find the wheel problematic in much the same way that feminist deconstructions find the use of language to be anchoring and framing.
Even when we say "oh, anyone can be a victim", when the primary tool is always a he vs. she tool, and there is great resistance to changing that tool, it speaks a great deal as to what is really going on.
And it goes on from there to findings that women on women dv is rarely addressed, that women on men dv is rarely addressed, or funded, and that dv shelters rarely treat men, treat men wholly differently (and not even equally), and that the whole paradigm of one victim and one abuser is wrong and doesn't examine codependencies and similar issues.
jerry at July 15, 2009 1:50 PM
vlad at July 15, 2009 1:55 PM
NicoleK, just visit NOW's website and search for Domestic Violence, and tell me what results you see.
http://www.now.org/search.html?q=+domestic+violence
jerry at July 15, 2009 1:56 PM
Amy, a post of mine apparently has gone out askew on the treadle, and I didn't see anything about it being stuck in the spam filter. It was a good comment too, before it went beep beep beep, and if you could rescue it, I know we would all be heartily enlightened.
(It concerned the results of when NOW's website is searched for domestic violence.)
jerry at July 15, 2009 2:02 PM
Oh sure, now it shows up. (Stupid git.)
jerry at July 15, 2009 2:03 PM
"Dead people tend not to need defense attorneys. "
Er, um... okay, that was my screwup for the day. Of course, there will be no trial, given that as far as we know, there was only one perp and that person was dead. I guess I was thinking about Jean-Claude Killy.
Cousin Dave at July 15, 2009 2:18 PM
When will McNair's murder be termed DV? After he gets a posthumous sex-change operation.
Feminists often discuss female on male DV? Yes, and a pig just flew out of my ass.
Yeah, we've heard it: "The poor little thing had to defend herself ... with a shotgun ... while he slept..."
Jay R at July 15, 2009 2:28 PM
Here's some food for thought: if Monica Lewinsky killed Bill Clinton, who do you think the press would have demonized?
Karen at July 15, 2009 2:50 PM
>>if Monica Lewinsky killed Bill Clinton, who do you think the press would have demonized?
Hillary!
Jody Tresidder at July 15, 2009 3:10 PM
I'm still annoyed with Jody, but that's her second score today
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 15, 2009 3:16 PM
"He was cheating on his wife, not on his children. His relationship with his children was between him and them."
Sorry Jim, in a complete aside I'm going to have to disagree. "
My point was that the mother is not some kind of gate that he has to go through to have a relationship with his children, and any reasonable person is going to agree with that. An offense aagnst the mother is not directly an offense against them; they are separate people. That's all. Of course most people are going to take an offense against one of their parents as a pretty big deal.
But as to breaking up the home, that is one whoever decides to start the divorce. infielity is horrible, but it doesn't justify breaking up someone's childhood. What kind of selfish monster puts his or her hurt romantic feelings ahead of their children's childhoods? And in this case, it's not like he was going to come home pregnant and foist off someone else's child on her.
My second point is that the person initiating the divorce and break up of the home is the one
Jim at July 15, 2009 3:16 PM
>>I'm still annoyed with Jody, but that's her second score today.
And that's twice you've been gallant today, Crid.
So I forgive you for not apologizing for warning me to avoid cuntlike comments.
(That's my best final offer. Really.)
Jody Tresidder at July 15, 2009 3:37 PM
Kudos to both of you for handling that so well.
And reference my comment above, I don't mean to downplay the severity of having a 20-y/o mistress while your wife is off in some other city. That is skanky, horrible behavior. I just mean that it's not sufficient reason to break up a home when the choice is still up to you.
Jim at July 15, 2009 3:58 PM
I think when Daddy makes Mommy cry like that, his offense to the children is pretty "direct".
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 15, 2009 4:24 PM
I didn't see any articles on the NOW website saying that DV was always male on female.
Yes, they are more concerned with violence against women... they are, after all, the National Organization for WOMEN. Getting upset that they focus on violence against women is a bit like getting upset that the ASPCA focuses on abused animals and not starving children in Rwanda. But nowhere do they say on the NOW website that DV cannot be female-on-male. Or if they did, I missed it. My experience with NOW is that the people at the meetings tend to be welcoming of gender neutral language, and tend to agree with your point of view that abused people need help.
I agree that the gendered language in the wheel is problematic. Why don't you make a website and post a gender neutral, or male-specific Domestic Violence wheel?
I also agree that NOW is unlikely to mount a campaign specifically targetted at violence against men... NOT because most of the members think it isn't an issue, but because it is outside the scope of the organization.
I volunteer at a civil liberties org, and got a call about a child who was being molested and abused. I gave them a referral, NOT because we don't care about molested kids, but because as a civil liberties org we don't deal with criminal cases. Non-profits tend to have very focused scopes... they are too small to handle every possible problem.
I think you could certainly work with and get help and advice from existant DV shelters. If you wanted to found one for men, I think it would be useful to go chat with the head of a shelter or other org for battered women.
Seriously. I think there's an underserved population that you could do something for. I don't think getting mad at non-profits who don't serve the underserved population is useful.
I would totally donate to a battered men's shelter. I don't think I would volunteer, though, because there might be a problem because of my gender.
NicoleK at July 15, 2009 5:12 PM
Jim -
Let me get this straight: He cheats. And cheats and cheats. And it's HER fault if she files for divorce because she can't live with a serial cheater? So she should just give up sex rather than risk it with a man who sneaks out on her and brings home who knows what? So let's say he beats her and she decides not to be beaten any more. The divorce is her fault then, too?
You have got to be kidding me. That's the most twisted woman-hating logic I have heard in a long time.
JulieA at July 15, 2009 6:10 PM
So then the guy should give up sex if his wife doesnt want to do it Julie?
Which is worse cheating via infedelidy or withholding
lujlp at July 15, 2009 7:08 PM
Lujlp -
Not surprised you found a way to make this about a woman doing a man wrong.
How about both scenarios suck and are unfair? But in all of the cases of cheating I've known about -- among both male and female cheaters -- I've only known withholding (or low sex drive) to be the reason (excuse) in two case, one each for the guys and gals.
Seriously, do you honestly believe like Jim that the one who cheats for no other reason than he or she is a cheater is off the hook for the divorce if they aren't the one who files? So you can treat another person like crap but. . .as long as you don't file for divorce you can claim the high road? That's just. . .idiocy.
JulieA at July 15, 2009 7:39 PM
Not surprised you found a way to make this about a woman doing a man wrong.
Now, now, to be fair the post did start with a woman murdering a man.
But if you're willin to say both situations are equally unfair I'm satisfied.
Also Jims argument is a valid one, but then again one could just as easily agrue its just as selfish to cheat on ones partner without trying to work on the relationship first
lujlp at July 15, 2009 7:48 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/15/at_what_point_d_1.html#comment-1658574">comment from jerryAmy, a post of mine apparently has gone out askew on the treadle, and I didn't see anything about it being stuck in the spam filter.
Jerry, I happen to have spotted this comment, but if you want to be sure I will, please e-mail me.
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2009 8:46 PM
Loojy, Jody says if you make a sincere effort to improve your clarity via spelling and punctuation (avoiding calamities like what happened this morning), she'll send you fifty dollars for Christmas!
No lie!
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 15, 2009 9:38 PM
I wouldn't call this domestic violence but maybe that's just semantics. To me, the charge of domestic violence implies a less severe crime than murder; Kazemi shooting McNair isn't the same as Kazemi punching him in the face. I'd call the latter domestic violence and the former murder.
That being said, I am completely appalled by the suggestions that McNair brought his death upon himself by cheating. I've cheated on boyfriends before, and I sure as hell don't think I deserve to be shot. Last time I checked, infidelity wasn't a crime. I agree totally with Cousin Dave on this one. And I don't think that Kazemi's defense should have a leg to stand on, considering that SHE was the homewrecker. Maybe if the long-suffering wife had picked up the gun, but the other woman? No way.
Shannon at July 15, 2009 10:05 PM
Jim said: "But as to breaking up the home, that is one whoever decides to start the divorce. infielity is horrible, but it doesn't justify breaking up someone's childhood. What kind of selfish monster puts his or her hurt romantic feelings ahead of their children's childhoods? And in this case, it's not like he was going to come home pregnant and foist off someone else's child on her."
I agree with you to a point. I agree that kids don't give a rat's ass whether or not their parents are sexually and romantically fulfilled, and are generally going to be much happier in an intact home. If the parents can work out a discreet agreement in which one or both parties engage in extramarital affairs without the children's knowledge, and the parents are visibly happier because of this arrangement, then sure home life is going to be better. If Mommy is holding out on Daddy, the kids are better off if Daddy discreetly gets some on the side but is still a loving and engaged parent figure than if Daddy moves out--as long as they don't have to know about it!
The problem is, if the cheater's spouse is made miserable by the cheating, or the cheater is constantly MIA, or the parents are constantly fighting, then the kids are going to pick up on it. That's not a dynamic that you can hide, and that's not a dynamic that makes for a happy childhood-or a healthy model of relationships. And no, Daddy can't come home pregnant, but he CAN get one (or more!) of his girlfriends pregnant and be forced to empty his kids' college funds to pay child support. Or he could, y'know, end up cheating with some psycho who puts a bullet in his brain after he moves onto the next woman--now THAT'S bound to affect the home life.
Shannon at July 15, 2009 10:47 PM
> if the cheater's spouse is made
> miserable by the cheating, or
> the cheater is constantly MIA,
> or the parents are constantly
> fighting, then the kids are
> going to pick up on it.
While having no expertise or relevant experience... I'd bet kids will always pick up on the fact that their parents have other sex relationship going on... If nothing else, they'll calibrate their understanding of adult love by a union that has no sexual voltage. That's (usually) preferable to a family where Mommy or (more likely) Daddy doesn't care enough to stick around... But I still have big, big problems with it. Such a parent is "MIA" in some very important ways.
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 15, 2009 11:21 PM
"infidelity is horrible, but it doesn't justify breaking up someone's childhood. What kind of selfish monster puts his or her hurt romantic feelings ahead of their children's childhoods?"
Let me fix that: lack of sex at home or boredom is horrible, but it doesn't justify breaking up someone's childhood. What kind of selfish monster puts his or her sexual gratification ahead of their' children's childhoods?
There. Much better.
momof4 at July 16, 2009 5:31 AM
" If the parents can work out a discreet agreement in which one or both parties engage in extramarital affairs without the children's knowledge"
No such thing. Ever. Kids ALWAYS know. ANd it twists their worldview.
momof4 at July 16, 2009 5:34 AM
> it doesn't justify breaking up
> someone's childhood
Lileks concurs.
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 16, 2009 6:35 AM
There is no limit to the incompetence and selfishness people will bring to reproduction.
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 16, 2009 6:44 AM
"No such thing. Ever. Kids ALWAYS know. And it twists their worldview."
You are correct, momof4. But divorce does too. Crid's speculation is correct; when the relationship goes sour, kids older than about 5 will pick up on that no matter what. (I've got first-hand experience.) The only lesson I can offer (and it would be no help in a McNair-like situation) is that before you impregnate or get impregnated, make darn sure that's the person you want to spend the next 20 years with.
Cousin Dave at July 16, 2009 6:51 AM
Agreed, COusin Dave. My parents were unhappily married, and in our case it was my dad's fault. I knew he was cheating on my mom from the time I was 7 or so. I have major man-trusting issues I had to work on as a result. It wasn't a great family situation, but they divorced when I went to college, and that's not great either. Really, it's annoying to have to visit 4 places every holiday (my 2 divorced parents, and DH's 2). And at some point my kids will want to know why my mom and dad aren't married. They'll get the truth and life will go on, but it's annoying.
momof4 at July 16, 2009 7:44 AM
"Let me get this straight: He cheats. And cheats and cheats. And it's HER fault if she files for divorce because she can't live with a serial cheater? So she should just give up sex rather than risk it with a man who sneaks out on her and brings home who knows what?"
She should go on living on the money he prvoides, like she has been happy to do all these years.
"So let's say he beats her and she decides not to be beaten any more. The divorce is her fault then, too?"
No let's not say that, because it is a dishonest analogy, m'kay? total bullshit exaggeration, isn't it? You knew it was at the time though, didn't you?
"You have got to be kidding me. That's the most twisted woman-hating logic I have heard in a long time."
Oh waaaaaah. This exactly what men are told ALL THE TIME. Suck it up, be a man, be a father to your children - can't you keep your woman? And if you don't just stay there and take it, you get to subsidize her with a house you used to own, and cash payments for years and years and years. So now a woman is expected to suck it up and keep the family together and it's suddenly a big deal to you.
Some advice for you, Julie - you need to man up. A lot.
"Let me fix that: lack of sex at home or boredom is horrible, but it doesn't justify breaking up someone's childhood. "
Actually, momof4, that was something Mrs. McNair should have fixed - all along.
There. Much better.
"The problem is, if the cheater's spouse is made miserable by the cheating, or the cheater is constantly MIA, or the parents are constantly fighting, then the kids are going to pick up on it. That's not a dynamic that you can hide, and that's not a dynamic that makes for a happy childhood-or a healthy model of relationships. And no, Daddy can't come home pregnant, but he CAN get one (or more!) of his girlfriends pregnant and be forced to empty his kids' college funds to pay child support. Or he could, y'know, end up cheating with some psycho who puts a bullet in his brain after he moves onto the next woman--now THAT'S bound to affect the home life."
Broadly agree, with some reservations:
"if the cheater's spouse is made miserable by the cheating,"
Why is someone else's mental state the responsibility of another person? Does a wife have any right to think she owns her husband's dick? How much does a husband have the right to think he owns his wife's uterus, or what she deiceds or doesn't decide to do with it? That answer is very clear and the laws are very clear - he has no right at all. Doe s any of you disagre with that? See the item above about a man being imprisoned for failure to pay child support for a child determined in the end not to be his. He has no right over her reproduction, and in fact has to subsidize it regardless.
But now somehow the wife gets to get all pissy over a much smaller matter. Pathetic hypocrisy.
Jim at July 16, 2009 9:12 AM
Does a wife have any right to think she owns her husband's dick?
No, but she does have a right to at least expect a little loyalty when it comes to that dick, especially if HE was the one who PROPOSED to HER.
And in fact, if a man and a woman agree to get married, doesn't that little thing in the vows about "forsaking all others" come into play? For the BOTH of them? Unless, of course, they have an "open marriage" agreement. In which case, why bother with the formality of marriage?
Flynne at July 16, 2009 10:49 AM
Flynne -
You're never going to get some people to accept that they need to grow the fuck up. A good number of people in our age range were raised with the idea that sex is something you simply get to have whenever you want with whomever you want, and there can be no judgment allowed.
Which is why marriage is the farce that it is.
brian at July 16, 2009 11:11 AM
Jim is off the reservation. No need to attempt more interaction there. Bitter much?
momof4 at July 16, 2009 12:07 PM
"Which is why marriage is the farce that it is."
No-fault dirce is the reason mariage is the farce it is, but then again momof4 is from a state with one of the highest divirce rates in the country, so that can't ever be the reason by her lights.
And momof4, it's a little rich for you to call anyone else bitter, conidering the man-hatred you casually drip around here.
"You're never going to get some people to accept that they need to grow the fuck up. "
Classic man-hating Shaming Tactic, the accusation of immaturity - Code Green. http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/2007/03/01/the-anti-male-shaming-tactics-catalog/
God save your husband and more to the point, any little boys that coem under your power. I hope yopu don't have any sons, or that the state takes them.
Follow your own advice, you ill-mannered, and presumptuous little girl. You'd have a lot more credibility if you were actually self-supporting like a real adult. Get a job.
Jim at July 16, 2009 12:48 PM
I have a job, ass-hat. It's called raising the next generation to not be like you. Did you seriously site a link to a website called dump-your-wife-now, and expect people to take you seriously? Your hatred of women is pathological, and you need help. Really. You've obviously had some shitty experiences in life, and I feel sorry for you. Doesn't excuse your assholishness, but you do have my pity.
BTW, I agree no fault divorce is bad when kids are involved. I think who fucks up the marriage should be assigned blame. You are aware that fault divorces included alimony, right? Back when wives more commonly stayed home with the kids? In fact, failure to provide adequate financial support was an accepted reason for a fault divorce.
You obviously don't know shit, and you saying I drip man-hatred shows a real lack of reading comprehension. I am quite fine with men that aren't assholes who cheat or beat or try to blame women for everything wrong in their lives.
"Actually, momof4, that was something Mrs. McNair should have fixed - all along"
You have any proof-ANY AT ALL_other than her being a cheated on wife, that she DIDN"T put out enough? Hmmm? Cause men NEVER cheat unless "forced" into it, right? Shit-for-brains.
momof4 at July 16, 2009 1:11 PM
God save your husband and more to the point, any little boys that coem under your power. I hope yopu don't have any sons, or that the state takes them.
Follow your own advice, you ill-mannered, and presumptuous little girl. You'd have a lot more credibility if you were actually self-supporting like a real adult. Get a job.
Got some sand in your vag, Jim?
I'm getting married in April. While I don't own my fiance's dick, I do, in fact, have a say in what he does with it, and he has a say in what I do with my girly parts, too, since part of the terms of our marriage are that we stay physically faithful to each other and try to have a child. If he no longer wants to be faithful, he gets to leave, not violate the terms of our agreement.
MonicaP at July 16, 2009 1:15 PM
Does a wife have any right to think she owns her husband's dick?
Posted by: Jim
No, but she does have a right to at least expect a little loyalty when it comes to that dick, especially if HE was the one who PROPOSED to HER.
Posted by: Flynne
It depends on the situation. If they guy proposed to a 5'4" 118lb nympho who waked around in nothing but pigtails and an unbuttoned dress shirt asking to be puunished for being a bad girl(too fruedian?)
Who is more in the wrong when the guy starts cheating on the 180lb buzz cropped hippo wearing jogging suits who bitches about him masterbating in the bathroom that she morphed into?
As I said depends on the situation. Did the guy try talking when the process first started, why did she start withholding, where was the breakdown.
In this case does anyone even know if McNairs wife had cut him off? I'm sure his best freind knows but do we? And if she did she as culpable in his death as he is himself. If she wasnt holding out then why was he cheating anyone know the whole situation?
lujlp at July 16, 2009 1:24 PM
>>Who is more in the wrong when the guy starts cheating on the 180lb buzz cropped hippo wearing jogging suits who bitches about him masterbating in the bathroom that she morphed into?
I do agree, lujlp.
When your wife morphs into a bathroom, it's definitely time for no more Mr Nice Guy!
Jody Tresidder at July 16, 2009 1:54 PM
my comma button doesnt seem to be working
so I'll use slashes
Who is more in the wrong when the guy starts cheating on the
180lb /
buzz cropped /
hippo wearing jogging suits who /
bitches about him masterbating in the bathroom /
that she morphed into?
lujlp at July 16, 2009 5:37 PM
My goodness it got dramatic! Leave the computer for a few hours, and whoa!!!
But I think we can all agree that people who refuse sex with their spouses, and people who cheat on their spouses, are all assholes?
NicoleK at July 16, 2009 6:59 PM
Barring some medical or other dramatic issue, of cours.
NicoleK at July 16, 2009 6:59 PM
Of course,
Although, (yea commas are working again)
Ever notice the people who claim they are fine not having sex with their partners are upset that their partners had sex with someone else?
lujlp at July 16, 2009 7:18 PM
"Got some sand in your vag, Jim? "
MonicaP, is that a misogynist commnet aimed at me? :p
Well, i'm not going to take the insunation that I have a vag as a bad thing, because it's not at all a bad thing, and apparently I do.
I don't appreciate people who find ways to blame men for getting killed. I don't appreciiate people who think duty is some kind of anachronism, on either side of a marriage. I don't appreciate people half my age presuming to lecture me on maturity. I don't appreciate people inflicting copies of themselves on the resource base acting like their doing the world some kind of favor. Other than that, I'm serene
Jim at July 17, 2009 7:57 AM
Might want to work on your use of they're, their, and there, Jim.
I'd say your apparently very advanced age probably has a lot to do with your very backwards woman-hating view. Thanks for letting us know you're old.
I don't appreciate people putting themselves in stupid fucking situations and then taking no responsibility for the shitty outcomes, personally.
momof4 at July 17, 2009 12:59 PM
Leave a comment