Last week's cover piece on domestic violence by Stacy J. Willis elicited these mixed responses:
Stacy J. Willis' article "Love Will Tear Us Apart" was excellent in most respects; it was sad and shocking, but also necessary and eye-opening. I hope everyone reads it, understands the horror of domestic abuse, and successfully escapes or evades relationships that are harmful or even lethal.
Unfortunately, the article also has some tragic flaws. First, the "Resources" section only lists four hotlines to call. (The message seems to be "Don't fight back, CALL somebody!") All good resources, to be sure, but there are so many others Willis ignored. First and foremost is Gavin DeBecker's excellent book The Gift of Fear, which contains the most comprehensive counter-stalking strategies ever written. The article also leaves out any information on evasion, self-defense, assertiveness training, privacy and identity protection, home security ... crucial data that domestic violence victims need when 'the system' fails them—and it will. Our police are not personal bodyguards, and a restraining order does not have the stopping power of a Taser.
Secondly, the excuses don't wash. "They stay in it because ... (this/that)." And it's all tripe. Any woman with half a brain would leave an abuser (not MAN, mind you; real men don't abuse women) the first time he struck her. Ms. Willis' piece reports that the average "woman" puts up with seven to 14 beatings before calling for help the first time. Why?! The first time a woman is abused, she's a victim. All other times, she's a volunteer. There is NO excuse for remaining in an abusive relationship. There are more social services available to women in America than there are for men.
Finally, the article paints all men as perpetrators and women as victims, as usual. Abuse by women goes unreported, because men don't think it's "manly" to report it. Well, I'll let you in on a secret: The reason I came to Las Vegas is because an unstable woman threatened to kill one of my ex-girlfriends who relocated here ... after "Ms. Unstable" stabbed her ex-husband in the chest.
Editor's note: You oversimplify: The story did not paint all men as perps; it did note that men were the abusers in 85 percent of domestic violence cases, leaving the obvious inference regarding the other 15 percent. Your more egregious oversimplification, though, involves your victims/volunteers dynamic. Human psychology is rarely that straightforward, K.K.—you ignore acres of mental and emotional gray area, context and complicating factors. People frequently fail to act in their own best interests for reasons that can't be dismissed with a flat "there are NO excuses."
I would like to start by thanking you on your article about domestic violence. I currently work for a domestic violence program and know not enough people are aware of services available to victims of domestic violence.
I am also writing to inquiry about why you failed to mention our organization, S.A.F.E. House, as a resource in your article. S.A.F.E. House was founded in 1994 and we currently operate a 54-bed confidential location shelter for victims and their children, as well as providing advocacy, counseling, assistance obtaining protection orders, assisting victims in obtaining food, clothing, or anything else a victim may need to live a life free of violence. Last year, our shelter provided more than 15,000 bed nights to victims and their children.
We applaud Safe Nest for their commitment to victims and for their excellent work. We often work together to ensure that victims are in the safest location. We simply want to ensure that victims are aware of all resources.
Community Education and Outreach Coordinator
S.A.F.E. House
Editor's note: S.A.F.E. House's 24-hour hot line number is 564-3227.
The following notes arrived in response to Richard Abowitz' dispatch from The Amazing Meeting 3 in last week's issue:
I loved your article on the Amazing Meeting. It was very clear and seems to accurately reflect the views of those in attendance (I attended last year, but not this year, regrettably).
I do have one slight correction, but one that Randi makes quite often. You stated that Randi has "... made a life's work of debunking claims of extraordinary or supernatural phenomenon." Actually, he is not a debunker. He just requests that those who make supernatural claims offer proof. And as you accurately pointed out, no one yet has been able to do so. In fact, Bruce L. Flamm, of the University of California, Irvine, has said, "We should remember that no alleged paranormal or supernatural phenomenon of any type has ever been replicated under controlled scientific conditions."
I just read your article that was supposed to be about The Amazing Meeting 3. The article is about you, however. It starts off with you discussing you. It has more about you. Why would anyone interested in skepticism be interested in you? What do we care about your fiancée? Why are you so fascinated with yourself? Why does your editor let you mangle the language?
Maybe some of the readers care about your adventures. I do not. Although I enjoyed The Amazing Meeting 3, your article bit the big one.
Editor's note: As to JC Hrubovcak, we can only say this: Richard is not engaged—the institution of marriage trembles at the mere thought—and we don't feel the piece was overly Richard-centric. First-person reporting is a common technique.
Thanks for Andie Gottfried's letter in the January 20 Weekly responding to John Freeman's article on the TV show 24. I'd like to add a couple of quibbles.
John Freeman sees sinister timing in Jack Bauer's torture of a suspect on the show, asserting that it was timed to coincide with and support the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to attorney general. Gottfried disagrees, but it is hardly surprising that a network's political persuasion might creep into its entertainment shows. Was it a coincidence that in the season after 9/11, Law & Order and Without a Trace featured episodes in which Muslims were either unfairly accused of crimes, committed the crimes but for non-Muslim reasons (for example, because a girl jilted the perp) or were unfairly persecuted?
I'd laud Fox for their restraint in waiting to Season 3 before making Jack Bauer's terrorist nemesis Arab Muslims, the foe we are actually fighting. If current Hollywood ethos had controlled when I was a lad, I would have grown up on movies in which John Wayne and Lee Marvin waged war against evil Venezuelans and South Africans.
I would also presume to answer Freeman's question to Gottfried, namely, "If you don't agree with Fox News policy ... why do you patronize the network at all?" I would answer, "For the same reason I buy CD's by Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, and R.E.M., and watch great movies like Mystic River, featuring Sean Penn and Tim Robbins. Because great art and great politics are far from synonymous, and a fair case can be made, given the aforementioned artists, that great art may be enhanced by dangerous, naive, and thoroughly illogical political views."
What a drab world we'd live in if we didn't patronize artists, or for that matter, grocers, plumbers, or anyone else, because we disagree with them politically. Have fun in your "they better agree with me" cocoon, Mr. Freeman, but it's a sad, and dare I say, undiverse way to live.