Seriously, I don't understand where Butch gets off thinking he can criticize anyone for their choice about anything. Looking at his hair, he obviously is not the arbiter of good ideas. It's kind of insane that someone as insensitive and illogical as Butch could have fathered someone like Tyler, who seems wise beyond his years.


Meanwhile, Amber's car broke down, and she had to wait at her father's studio apartment for her boyfriend to pick her up. When he finally appeared after several hours, she and her father both gave him attitude, which caused him to snap at them. Amber then grabbed him by the neck, slammed him against the wall, and slapped him across the face—all in front of their baby.

The story you told was literally arresting - I felt like I could not pull my eyes away from the screen. How did you discover the Maldonado story, and why did you think this would be a good documentary?

The thing is I was looking to make a very personal film that dealt with someone having a finite amount of time. One subject that has always interested me was the idea of a person being sentenced to prison. I figured if I could manage to find someone that was out on bail and had a few days left before they turned themselves in, there might be something in there. So I just started reading the papers and searching the web. At one point I was all set up to head out to Florida to film this guy and he changed his mind, which was understandable - so I had to scramble a bit. I remember doing another Google search and reading about a woman that killed her husband. The subject seemed sensational but I knew I wouldn't make that type of film, so I thought let's see what happens if I fly up there and call up her attorney.

When I got to Oregon I drove to her attorney's office and he gave Wendy a call. Wendy and her family got some info about my last film, Mojados, and they figured they would at least meet with me. We met a few hours later at a diner in Grants Pass and I started filming the next morning.

What led you to use so much home video footage in your work?

Sincerity, pretty much. In HBO's version there are lot of home videos are included and I think it works really well. In the theatrical version there are less home videos and it works well there too.

The strong thing about these home videos is that there is no filter on them. It's not some staged interview nor is it a conversation that's being manipulated. They are 5, 10 or 15 years old and they add a great deal of sincerity to both versions.

In another interview, you mention that you noticed the home videos were tightly edited [mostly by Aaron] to remove any overt reference to violence. But what did you see in the videos that tipped you off to the edits?

Oh, it was just that you would see a scene with one of the kids and they would not be smiling and off camera you'd hear Aaron tell the kid (or Wendy) to smile. All of a sudden the camera would get shut off for a moment and when the picture turned back on everyone would be standing in the same place, but with smiles on their faces.

I called the family and asked about it and they kind of nonchalantly said, yeah that's how it was, just re shoot the scene so everyone looks happy.

The other thing is these home videos are incredibly well done. I mean they were lit properly, framed really well.

Did you have a chance to reach out to Aaron Maldonado's side of the family? Only Aaron's brother appears in the film. What was their reaction to the proceedings?

I reached out to them and the police. The police declined and I never heard back from Aaron's family. You have to respect that - they're entitled to their privacy.

That said, I tried to keep the film tightly focused on Wendy and her last five days. I reluctantly included the neighbors because Wendy referred to them in a casual conversation. It helped the story flow to include their interviews. I wasn't out to make a film defending her or examining the case. I wanted to make a personal film about her and I wanted to do it in an oblique sort of way.

Did you notice a difference in reactions when you screen the film? Do women react to the documentary differently than men?

Women can handle it - they don't blink. Generally, the men tend to look away.

What did you think of the statement of the judge who looked as if he was handing down a decision he did not accept? Do you think the governor could (or should) have pardoned Wendy and Randy?

The judge was just being a judge. He had the power to help enforce the laws, not make them. But he was still out there saying that people can look into getting these laws changed.

You mentioned in an interview that you did not want to intrude upon the lives of the Maldonados further, after they had already opened up to you for the film. Do you still keep in contact with them? Would Wendi appreciate letters? (Many of our readers wanted to write to her.) How are the other three Maldonado boys?

Well interviews and Q&A's are kind of strange in that people like to ask about things - about the family - things outside of the film. But looking at it, the family gave me five days and I made a film out of that and I don't feel right talking about how they're doing now or what they're up to.

There will be an announcement soon on Quintomalo.com and Oneminutetonine.com about a fund being established for Wendy's sons.

Tommy Davis [Official Site]
Mojados: Through the Night [Official Site]
SXSW 2008: Tommy Davis, One Minute to Nine [Spout]
Quinto Malo Productions [Official Site]
One Minute to Nine [Official Site]

Earlier: Every F-ing Day Of My Life: One Day Of Violence Is One Day Too Many

According to the Dayton Daily News, Henry got into a fight last night with fiancée Loleini Tonga while they were visiting her parents and Charlotte. She got into a pickup truck and tried to drive away; he jumped in the back and, at some point, fell out. The Daily News reports that "he was found lying in the roadway a half-mile from the house with a serious head injury." Unsubstantiated reports of Henry's death are flying around the Internet, but the latest news from Fox Sports is that he is on life support and his situation is "dire." A reporter from Fox News in Cincinnati Tweeted just a few minutes ago, "The latest we know on Chris Henry: he is on life support. Our sister station in Charlotte says he took a turn for the worse overnight." TMZ is now reporting that he is dead.

As Tom Archdeacon of the Dayton Daily News points out, Henry's death is especially sad because he recently seems to be turning his life and career around. Archdeacon writes,

In April of 2008, he was finally released by the Bengals after his fifth arrest in 28 months. His rap sheet was gaudier than his stat sheet: drug charges, gun charges, DUI, drinking with underage girls in a hotel room.

But the Bengals took Henry back a few months later, and until a forearm injury that left him out for the season, he seemed to be doing better. According to the AP's Mike Cranston, he "credited his fiancee for helping him straighten out his life." He once said,

She's been a big help. She's been right here with me and going through things and helping out on my side. We have the kids, and she has my back with everything I've needed.

Charlotte police said no charges would be filed Wednesday in relation to the domestic dispute on the accident, and it's not clear whether Tonga was responsible for Henry's fall from the truck. But at least one source says police are beginning a homicide investigation, apparently assuming Henry won't make it. And fans are angry. ShawnieceQB tweets, "Chris Henry was FOUND in the road after falling out of the bed of a truck...does that mean the fiancee left him there?" And soodanym says, "Why isn't Chris Henry's fiance under arrest? She wasn't even on the scene when they found dude!"

It's not clear from the AP coverage whether Tonga was in fact on the scene. What is clear is that Henry is the second male athlete in a month to be injured in the course of a domestic dispute. And while Tiger Woods's injuries were relatively minor, it appears Henry's were fatal. It's too early to blame Tonga for Henry's death — but if anything good comes of these two incidents, maybe it will be that male victims of domestic violence feel more able to come forward, since two very high-profile men have shown that domestic disputes can harm anyone.

Agent: Bengals WR Henry "Battling For Life" [AP]
Chris Henry - NFL's Turn-Around Story Becomes Tragic Tale [Dayton Daily News]

The film, which premiered on HBO last night - full schedule here - is a horrifying depiction of how domestic violence (check out Michelle Cottle's take on the term) took root in one family, and how the situation escalated for years. Wendy Maldonado was young when the relationship began: she was fifteen, and the man who would become her husband, Aaron, was sixteen. They were wed by the time she seventeen. This segment seen above reveals the depressing juxtaposition of home videos detailing a happy Wendy on her wedding day mashed together with her husband playing with a dead deer and Wendy's narration of how her husband dreamed of being a serial killer. (Warning: the clip is upsetting and has disturbing visuals.)

As the documentary goes on, the extent of the violence Wendy suffered is made painfully clear. Her son, Randy, and various neighbors all testify to the fact that it is amazing that she didn't die from all the abuse Aaron inflicted on her.

When conversations of domestic violence surface, people tend to wonder why women don't just leave. But as is made clear in the above clip, Aaron Maldonado made it clear that if Wendy ever left, he would begin to kill her family members, one by one, until he found her or until she returned. Donna, Wendy's mom, reveals that she was also in a abusive relationship and understood some of the dynamics at play. However, Donna says she was able to escape because most of her family was dead, and she felt she could flee her abuser without retribution. In Wendy's case, four small children, friends, and family kept her tethered.

The attacks on Wendy Maldonado were ferocious and brutal. Outside of what the children and neighbors describe, the Maldonado home was full of holes, holes made by Aaron ramming his wife into walls and doors. When he was gone, she would cover the damage with pictures that the children drew.

As the violence escalated, Aaron Maldonado would often refer to killing Wendy casually, one day even taking her to a designated "killing spot," a place high up on the Oregon trails near their home, where he began to strangle her. Wendy recounts that he stopped and fled before finishing the deed; she hypothesizes that Aaron stopped only because the crime would have been traceable - it's hard to point to a stranger abduction when a victim has month-old bruises and scars from beatings.

According to the resource guide included on the HBO site:

*On average more than three women a day are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in the United States.

* Nearly one in four women in the United States reports experiencing violence by a current or former spouse or boyfriend at some point in her life.

* Women are much more likely than men to be victimized by a current or former intimate partner.

It is obvious that the Maldonado's children were irrevocably scarred by the violence - one of the children testifies at his mother's sentencing hearing that he knew everything started before he went to preschool, because he told his preschool teacher when he grew up, he wanted to kill his dad. Despite the children often being open to others about their suffering, little was done to stop it. Some family members testified Wendy herself hid the violence from them; her friends said they knew about the violence, but did not want to involve the police, since they knew Aaron would make good on his murderous threats. The neighbors recounted how police would stop by, but leave the house without going inside. When the neighbors chased down the cop car, and explained that they had heard what was going on in the house, the police officers merely said to call them back if anything happened...and drove away.

Randy Maldonado's testimony about police involvement was heartbreaking - in recounting how he and his mother actually decided to kill Aaron, he mentioned that in a last desperate plea for help, he called the police while his father was outside chasing his mother. The documentary provides the recording of this 911 call: in it, Randy hurriedly whispers his location three times into the phone to a less than responsive dispatcher before hanging up out of fear. Miraculously, the police did arrive, but Aaron told Randy and Wendy to "get rid of them," reminding them that the other three kids were with him in the house. After law enforcement left, a desperate plan was hatched and conceived in two minutes; Randy and his mother grabbed a hatchet and a hammer, and attacked Aaron while he slept.

Wendy and Randy seemed resigned to their fates after the murder. Both accepted a plea deal which guaranteed 10 years in prison. (When the sentencing judge opined that no jury would have convicted them, Wendy replied that her son was facing 25 to life, and she couldn't gamble that kind of time on a group of strangers.) Wendy, in particular, seemed almost carefree as the day of her imprisonment approached, baking cookies for the three remaining boys (Randy was already serving his time) and hugging and kissing them often. As she said at one point, "I know they will be safe."

Every F—-ing Day of My Life [HBO]
Every F—-ing Day Of My Life - Full Schedule [HBO]

Related: "Domestic" Is For House Cats [TNR}

In yet another softball interview regarding Brown's brutal attack on ex-girlfriend Rihanna earlier this year, Robin Roberts sat down with the oh-so-redeemed R&B star to discuss the abuse, the fallout from the abuse, how he made Rihanna cry with a song she claims she's never heard before, and and perhaps most importantly, to promote his new album and show off his dope sneaker collection. Isn't he the coolest, you guys?!

Brown seems to take a great deal of pride in the fact that he made Rihanna cry with the song he wrote for her, as if it's some great accomplishment on his part that he was able to evoke an emotional response from a woman he beat horribly just months earlier. Whether or not Rihanna has heard the song is unclear, but the point is that she said she didn't, and Brown still insists on undermining her interview in order to promote himself as some romantic savior with magical songwriting healing powers.

It is a quality in Brown that seems to come out in every interview he gives on the issue: he's sorry for "what happened" or "what went down" (he never seems to actually say, "I'm sorry for beating/physically assaulting my ex-girlfriend") and plays himself up as some angelic changed man who should be commended for writing apologetic love songs and going through mandatory community service and domestic violence classes. As Chris Richards of the Washington Post writes, since the assault, "the 20-year-old Brown has shown various faces to the media — flip, contrite, smug, confused — apologizing at every turn while still seeming not to fully grasp the severity of his misdeeds."

But why shouldn't Chris Brown be smug? Why shouldn't he sit there in that chair and gleefully report that he made Rihanna cry with his song? With networks continually giving him and his album a promotional faux-contrition platform, why shouldn't Brown seize the spotlight and play the role he seems best at playing as of late: the brand new man, who surely has, as Roberts breathlessly adds in a post-interview voiceover as his new video plays in the background, become someone whose lyrics show "lessons learned and love lost." Ah yes, lessons learned and love lost. For what truly sums up the effects and fall out of domestic violence, not only on those involved but on society as a whole as well as "love lost," right?

We are all supposed to forgive Brown: he has paid his dues and given his apologies. Even Rihanna wants to move on at this point. But none of this makes it okay for networks to continually hand Brown a platform to show the world what a super guy he is and how his new album is going to wash away his sins. The message everyone is sending is that it's perfectly okay to beat the living hell out of someone and return to glory less than a year later, thanks to a few classes, a few half-ass apologies, and a song or two. It isn't a new message: we've seen it before and surely we'll see it again. Could Brown really be sorry? Could he really have changed? Perhaps. Forgiveness and change exist, but they're a tough sell when promoting your new record seems to be the push behind them, an lately it seems that everyone is giving him a spotlight and an invitation to return before he's shown any honest signs of deserving it.

Onstage, At Least, Chris Brown Has Nothing To Apologize For [WashingtonPost]

It feels like everyone has covered the controversy - including an intrepid Chinese news network that used the Sims (or another simulator) to do a dual scenario re-enactment.

But it's analyses of the events, published this morning, that are most intriguing, as they reveal the issues we have discussing female-on-male domestic violence.

Wendy Muphy, writing for the Daily Beast, puts forth a compelling argument that if Woods was in fact a victim of domestic violence, Nordegren Woods should be prosecuted and jailed:

Even if the couple wants it all to go away, the secrecy alone will keep the matter alive in the court of public opinion as we all speculate about whether a seemingly sweet mother of two babies beat up her mega-athlete husband. [...]

It's an odd scenario, but not impossible to imagine. Jackie Fryar infamously stabbed her husband, New England Patriots football star Irving Fryar, during a domestic incident in the 1980s. And while famous male athletes are rarely in the news for being victims of abuse, research shows that at least 10 percent of domestic violence is perpetrated by women against men. One controversial study even purports to prove that women are just as violent as men are-though the study is widely criticized for failing to consider that men's violence is usually far more harmful.

Murphy also points out that Woods was likely to defend his wife - after all, we've seen this script before:

Imagine reading a story about a man who found out that his wife was cheating on him, and he responded by hitting her in the face and tearing up her favorite dress. Would the police shrug it off as "private"? No, he'd be treated the way cops handled Jim Brown in 1999 when the NFL Hall-of-Famer was accused of smashing his wife's car windows and threatening to kill her. Brown's wife called 911 to report the crimes, then recanted and begged prosecutors to drop the charges. Like Tiger Woods, Brown's wife claimed the allegations were false and that Brown had done nothing wrong.

Cops and prosecutors hear these excuses all the time from battered women, but they ignore them because victims often lie to protect their abusers-which is why, in Brown's case, authorities rightly refused to back down. A jury acquitted Brown on the threat charges, but found him guilty of destroying his wife's car. He was sentenced to jail for 180 days after refusing to participate in a batterers' counseling program.[...]

Of course, even if it turns out to be a case of domestic abuse, criminal prosecution is unlikely in a case of female violence against a male, particularly when the male is Tiger Woods. If we cared a little more about spousal abuse and a little less about celebrity, such a hypothetical would be resolved fairly and openly. But we don't-so it likely won't, especially since the incident occurred amid accusations of infidelity. When the public sympathizes with an offender, there's less political will to file charges.

Still, the whole world is watching, and if law enforcement tanks the case to protect the interests of Tiger Woods, the public will yet again be forced to confront a legal system that, despite claims of "blind" and "equal" justice, seems designed to punish only certain "types" while protecting the powerful.

An interesting analysis comes by way of Elie Mystal at True/Slant, who proposes that Tiger Woods is getting the short end of the stick due to his gender:

In the wall-to-wall coverage of Tiger Woods and the incredibly slow moving traffic accident, one rumor is getting lost. Obviously, we don't have nearly all the facts.

But so long as we are slinging unfounded rumors around about Tiger's alleged tryst with Rachel Uchitel, can we also stop for a moment and reflect on the allegation that Woods was a victim of domestic violence? If some reports are to be believed, Elin Nordegren went after her husband with a golf club. A golf club. With that - serious - allegation out there, shouldn't this story be covered in completely different way?

Mystal then takes the opportunity to point out how the double standards in this situation are completely informed by a sexist view of men and women:

For some reason certain people think that affairs give them the right to go to town on their cheating significant other. When these people are men, we call them "criminal assholes" and sincerely hope that they go to jail. When the female victims claim that they "fell down the stairs" and try to prevent criminal prosecutions of their attackers, we (or at least I) get very angry at the system and the society that lets these scumbag wifebeaters off the hook.

But when it is women accused of committing the violence, we treat it entirely differently. I know that, biologically, men tend to be bigger than women, but the whole "opposable thumb" evolution can really level that playing field. When a woman picks up a knife or a gun or a freaking professional golf club, they are significantly more dangerous than a man who spends his life watching precisely how the grass grows around a little cup. If a woman as famous as Tiger was in this situation, her Nordic husband would be in jail already pending further investigation.

At least many people (including myself) would argue that the man should be. But with Tiger, where is the outrage at his alleged attacker?

Why the double standard? Well, it's not really sexism against men. It's sexism against women that has been taken so far and is so socially ingrained that it comes back around to stab men in the ass in the woman-on-man domestic violence situation:

Sexist premise A: Women are weak, fundamentally irrational, and prone to emotional outbursts.
Sexist premise B: Any "real man" can defend himself against an emotional, weak woman.
Conclusion: It's no big deal when a woman strikes a man for cheating. She's just a girl, what else was she going to do?

And that is BS. We don't accept it when a man abuses an allegedly cheating woman. And we shouldn't accept it in the reverse because women are more than capable of exercising rational self-restraint. When women don't, they are just as dangerous as any guy you know. Newsflash: women do know how to kill. Suggest otherwise at your peril.

Unfortunately, this point was lost on another columnist over at the Daily Beast. Rebecca Dana seems to be under the impression that if Elin Nordegren Woods was really wielding a golf club with malicious intent, it's was all part of a big girl power pop culture meme!

Even before Tiger Woods' wife, Elin Nordegren, took a golf club to his Escalade on Friday, 2009 was already shaping up to be the Year of Women Not Taking Shit.

Gone, for the moment at least, are the tearful press conferences where a puffy-eyed political wife stares at her feet while her husband confesses his carnal sins. Gone are the cheerful sham marriages held up as totems for the rest of us to emulate. Gone is the nobility of quietly carrying on. We are now fully in the season of not standing by your man.

Whether you should throw a nine iron at him-if, in fact, that's what the delicate Mrs. Woods did-is not the question. As with all things, there are good, bad, and potentially dangerous and illegal ways of fighting back. The point is: Women are fighting back.

To prove her point, Dana brings up Betty Draper leaving Don on Mad Men, Jenny Sanford refusing to play politics, Taylor Swift carrying Joe Jonas in a song, Hillary Clinton kirking out after receiving a question that asked about Bill, Kate Gosselin turning down John's flowers at a court hearing, and Bristol Palin passing on Levi. (She also says Taylor Swift "stood down bullying" from Kanye when Beyonce saved the day, but I don't remember it happening quite like that.) What do all these women have in common?

None of them were accused of coming after their husbands with golf clubs. But that's a minor detail - see, this is really a big plus since women are exerting power.

At a time when every inchoate raving that tumbles forth from Sarah Palin is taken as a referendum on the progress of the women's movement, it's nice to see some prominent women refusing to play to type: the teenage pro-lifer staring down single parenthood; the pretty, press-shy athlete's wife just maybe, possibly, not being pacified by a "Kobe special"-some fat bauble the size of her head. The thing about feminism is that it's not about equal outcome but equal opportunity: the chance to make a graceful exit from a bad relationship or to smash the holy hell out of a cheating husband's shiny Cadillac.

"I think real feminism is women's recognizing their own ability," says Nan Talese, senior vice president of Doubleday and, for 50 years, the wife of journalist Gay Talese, author of the classic infidelity tome Thy Neighbor's Wife. "And also, very importantly, without taking away from other members of their family, it is about women being able to pursue their own goals."

Amen, sister. And if that fails, pass the nine iron.

WTF?

Outside of forgetting to mention the "Kobe special" had a bit more significance than adultery (try, "Thanks for not leaving me while I'm on trial for sexual assault") Dana's glib rationalization reminds me of something I tend to hate.

Equal opportunity oppression is not equal to liberation, and hailing a person under suspicion for domestic violence as some sort of feminist icon has got to be the dumbest shit I've read this week. Women whipping ass in a fit of rage is not progress. It's not advancing the cause. It's not even a new concept.

Post press conference, we now know that the State of Florida is uninterested in perusing the matter further. However, considering that this incident has emboldened other women to step forward about their alleged affairs with Woods, this conversation will probably resurface faster than we think.

Authorities Discuss Wood's Car Crash [MSNBC]
Was Tiger a Victim? [Daily Beast]
Tiger Learns Domestic Violence Only Counts If You're A Woman [True/Slant]
The Year of Women Fighting Back [The Daily Beast]
Tiger Woods — New Woman Surfaces [TMZ]

In Edward and Bella's relationship, he's controlling, he threatens to commit suicide, he throws her through a glass table, he's jealous of her outside relationships and sometimes loses his temper and damages property when angry. Romantic! But what about stories like Romeo & Juliet? Or Beauty And The Beast? Suicide, violence and death are often at the core of great love stories.

While it makes for glorious, romantic subject matter, all-consuming, obsessive love is, in itself, "unhealthy." Telling someone that you can't live without her sounds romantic, but any therapist would probably diagnose that kind of talk as dysfunctional and codependent. Yet love stories are full of characters — Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights; Satine in Moulin Rouge; the couple in Pretty Woman — who are often liars, cads or ne'er do wells with psychological issues (fear of commitment, etc).

The thing about teenage love, especially, is that it feels like life or death even when vampires are not involved. The characters in flicks like Sixteen Candles, 10 Things I Hate About You and Say Anything take love so seriously that they could also be deemed "unhealthy," with the right diagnosis. In New Moon, Bella is thrown into truly dangerous situations — where her life is actually in peril — and it only functions to make the movie more romantic. He saves her, he represses the urge to bite her, he'd go to Italy and stand in the sun and kill himself if she ever died. Falling for someone — and being vulnerable — is already dangerous, in a way; love stories often just ramp up the drama with peril. While it's not cool that Edward is controlling of Bella, it seems like we, as a culture, love questionable romantic heroes and rebels without causes. Would we even know it was love if there was no danger? Edward and Bella may be in an emotionally abusive relationship, but she's not the first — and we, as an audience, seem to like it that way.

What Do You See In Him Again? [Captain's Log]
Official: Twilight's Bella & Edward Are In An Abusive Relationship [ONTD]
Official: Twilight's Bella & Edward Are In An Abusive Relationship [io9]

Earlier: I Have An Abusive Boyfriend, And He's Coming Home At 8

The classes were inspired by research that shows one in four teenage girls are hurt by a partner, and a third of girls in relationships are victims of unwanted sexual activity. Despite these statistics, only half of girls receive any sort of education about domestic violence. To remedy this, beginning in 2011 schools will teach students about healthy relationships and the unacceptability of abuse. An unnamed contributor to the plan says that the classes would be separate from sex education:

It's nothing to do with teaching them how to put a condom on. It's about teaching boys not to be violent and girls that being a sex object isn't the only way to be validated.

Schools minister Vernon Coaker says the classes will be "age appropriate." Rather than being taught about romantic relationships, younger children might learn not to bully or call names. Christine Barter, a researcher in the area of teen violence, says what's especially scary is that teenage girls keep this violence to themselves. Classes starting at a young age might encourage them to seek help when they need it — and might teach them that violence is unacceptable and should be reported. But not all parents are behind the measure.

Margaret Morrissey, of the group Parents Outloud, says, "This political correctness is turning our children into confused mini-adults from the age of five to nine." Nick Seaton, of the Campaign for Real Education, concurs:

Youngsters should naturally know not to do these sort of things and must be called to account if they do. But teachers have enough to do in teaching English, maths and science to a reasonable level without addressing issues that parents should be dealing with.

Teaching young girls to report abuse and rape — and teaching boys not to commit these acts — is hardly mere "political correctness." But Seaton's criticism echoes an age-old debate about education that goes beyond "English, maths and science" — what should schools teach, and what is the province of parents? In this case, it's unfortunately untrue that "youngsters naturally know" not to abuse each other. And since violence is still so widespread, it doesn't appear that parents "naturally know" how to deal with it either. Parent-child relationships are complicated by a lot of emotions and expectations — parents may feel, for instance, that their son would never hurt a girl, or that their daughter would never stay in an abusive relationship. Teachers may be able to take a more dispassionate approach, especially since they will undergo special training before teaching the new classes. Ideally, all parents would teach their kids never to commit domestic violence, and to speak out immediately if they suffer it. But teenagers aren't getting this message, and school may be a good place to fix that.

Classroom Drive To Curb Violence In Relationships [Guardian]
School Lessons To Tackle Domestic Violence Outlined [BBC News]
Lessons On Equality And Domestic Abuse For Children Of Five [Daily Mail]

Economists Gordon Dahl and David Card looked at twelve years of football upsets — losses by teams predicted to win by three or more points. They found that during the regular season, such losses were correlated with an 8% increase in male-initiated partner violence in the hours immediately after the game. Female-on-male violence and child abuse were both unaffected by football losses, but violence against friends and neighbors increased by about the same percentage partner violence did. So essentially, men who just watched their team lose are more likely to beat up lovers and friends.

Catherine Rampell points out on the New York Times Economix blog that other surprising factors contribute to domestic violence, including holidays — partner violence rises 22% on Thanksgiving. And Slate's Ray Fisman cautions that football may not actually cause abuse:

[W]hile a tough loss for the home team may touch off abuse, that doesn't mean football is the root cause of postgame violence. More likely, the loss merely serves to set off an attack that was already waiting to happen. In a world without football, acts of abuse might merely get postponed, only to be brought on later by some other source of anger. In the long term, rather than blaming football, we may be best off focusing on addressing the more fundamental problems underlying abusive relationships.

Mentally healthy people in stable relationships probably don't suddenly assault their spouses because the Steelers lost. But it's worth examining the possible external triggers for abuse — triggers that have nothing to do with a woman being "difficult" or "asking for it." It's also worth noting that for everything that's great about sports fandom — a shared narrative, a sense of camaraderie, just plain fun — athletic culture can sometimes have an element of violence. Anyone who went to a Big Ten school has probably seen a drunken postgame brawl between pissed-off fans, and while this doesn't mean we should condemn football, we might do well to be a little more aware of its after-effects. Part of this awareness might involve encouraging some moderation in tailgating — coverage of Card and Dahl's research doesn't mention it, but I have to wonder if the increased abuse doesn't have something to do with fans getting drunk at 11 a.m. And of course, men and women alike need to speak out against domestic violence — as a group of Australian men are doing tomorrow in honor of the UN Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. But perhaps in addition to all this, some sports fans need an extra reminder that, as Fisman says, "it's only a game."

Football Upsets Increase Domestic Violence, Study Finds [NYT Economix Blog]
Illegal Contact [Slate]
Males Asked To Speak Out Against Violence [News.com.au]

In the first part of Sawyer's interview with Rihanna, the singer admits that she and Brown "fell really fast" in love and that "the more in love we became, the more dangerous we became for each other. Equally as dangerous...because, it was a bit of an obsession." The picture of Rihanna's battered face is shown; Rihanna admits that she feels "embarrassed, angry, and humiliated" every time she sees it.

Brown, meanwhile, says he doesn't know what he was thinking when the attack occurred, and he consistently speaks of the future and "moving past this." He claims that he wants to turn the situation into something positive and to "become the kind of person" he wants to be. He also claims to be "confused" about the public perception. "I mean, I'm human," he explains, saying it hurts when people say negative things about him. He actually seems surprised that people are calling him a "woman beater" and telling him they don't like him. When he apologizes publicly, he says, it's for the fans...and the sponsors.


Sawyer then asked Rihanna if Brown had hit her before that now-infamous night; Rihanna's answer is a bit disturbing, as she admits that yes, Brown shoved her into a wall, but she downplays the act, noting "It wasn't a fight." She also admits that her mother was beaten often by her father. "Domestic violence is not something that people want anybody to know, so, she would just hide it in the house," Rihanna explains, before admitting that she "always said" she'd never date anyone like her father. She also explains why she felt the need to protect Brown after the media explosion, why she temporarily went back to him, and why she eventually left, stating that when she "realized that my selfish decision for love could result into some girl getting killed...I could not, I could not be easy with that part. I couldn't be held responsible for telling them 'go back.' Chris—even if Chris never hit me again—who's to say that their boyfriends won't? Who's to say that they won't kill these girls? These are, these are young girls. I cannot—I just didn't realize how much of an impact I had on these girls' lives until that happen. That was a wake-up call. That was a wake-up call for me, big time."

Brown says that "anger" triggered him to beat Rihanna, and that he's come to terms with what he's done. "I don't want to be that person," he says. He claims that he "enjoys" his domestic violence classes and that he's learning about making better choices and controlling his anger. "It actually helps you go into dissecting what went wrong," he says.

After noting that he's received support from several celebrities, Brown notes that his classes have put his "head into perspective and put my head on straight about who I am as a man and who I'm gonna be." Brown's answers are all the same; he's constantly repeating the same sentence, with the words flipped. He focuses everything on himself and his career (he rarely even mentions Rihanna's name) and seems to want to spin things toward the public's inability to forgive him, as if the real tragedy at this point is that people won't move on, even though he has. He fails to recognize, I suppose, that he does not get to decide how the public feels about him at this point, and this actions have consequences that he's still going to have to deal with, whether he wants to or not.


Rihanna claims that she's never listened to the apology song Brown wrote for her, and that Brown's apologies sound like "he's been reading off of a teleprompter." She ends by stating, "I am strong. This happened to me. I didn't cause this. I didn't do it. This happened to me, and it can happen to anybody. And I'm glad it happened to me, 'cause now I can help young girls who are going through it. Don't react off of love. Eff love. Come out of the situation and look at it third-person and for what it really is and then make a decision, because love is so blind."

As in the first part, Sawyer is in full portentousness mode, and Rihanna herself seems to be struggling to keep her emotions in check. Though she doesn''t blame herself for the attack, she does seem to think that she and Brown were both contributors to a toxic relationship. She says, "the more in love we became, the more dangerous we became for each other — equally as dangerous, because it was a bit of an obsession, almost." She also casts herself as an equal partner in the argument that preceded the abuse, saying, "I couldn't take that he kept lying to me and he couldn't take that I wouldn't drop it." And when she describes the actual violence, she speaks almost as though Brown was possessed by some other entity. "He had no soul in his eyes," she says, and "he was clearly blacked-out."

It may be true that Brown entered some sort of blackout when he began attacking Rihanna, but thinking of it in this way also probably helps her to forgive him — something she seems to have done. When Sawyer asks if she hates him, she replied,

I don't hate him at all, I actually love and care about him and [...] I want him to do well, have a great career, have a great life, and grow up, and just take this as something you had to go through to grow up and learn.

It's a generous statement, coming from someone who was not only abused but then forced to deal publicly with the aftermath of that abuse. It's also a morally complicated one — because abuse is so often trivialized and abusers often excused, it's tempting to cast them as wholly evil people who cannot be redeemed. Rihanna is clearly unwilling to do this — she says Brown was once her "best friend," and clearly she still wants to see some good in him. In a way it's disturbing to see this, because Rihanna doesn't have any responsibility to forgive or think well of Brown. At the same time, it can be hard to hate someone you used to love, and Rihanna's expressing emotions that many other abuse victims have probably felt.

More upsetting is her assessment of the "danger" they posed one another. She may be right that the intensity of their relationship was bad for both of them, but an overly intense relationship doesn't cause abuse. And while she's kind to say that "this" — presumably, the attack and its aftermath — is something Brown "had to go through to grow up," beating someone isn't just a learning experience. It's a crime, and while it's possible that Brown will never hit another woman again, he still deserves more criticism for his act than Rihanna seems willing to give. Again, it's not her job to criticize him for our benefit. But if anything good comes from the public nature of Rihanna's pain, maybe it will be that viewers supply the judgment that Rihanna is unwilling to deliver, and recognize that neither "obsession" nor "black-out" is an excuse for violence.

This is the pop singer's first big TV interview since the domestic violence episode she very publicly suffered. Sawyer was sympathetic regarding Rihanna's initial decision to go back to Chris Brown, pointing out that it takes a woman an average of seven attempts to leave an abusive partner, to which Rihanna responded "eight or nine actually." One of the saddest parts of the interview was the singer's admission that she still feels ashamed of the violence she suffered. She says, "I fell in love with that person. That's embarrassing. That's embarrassing that that's the type of person that I fell in love with, so far in love, so unconditionally that I went back." And even though she adds that, "It's completely normal to go back. You start lying to yourself," she says she feels guilty about the message her return to Brown sent to her fans.

This is a difficult part of the interview to watch, because Rihanna seems to authentically reproach herself for somehow being a "bad" role model. She says, "I realize that my selfish decision for love could result in some young girl getting killed." It's a big burden to shoulder, especially for someone still recovering from a trauma, and especially for someone who is herself so young. Yet alongside all the people who blamed Rihanna for her own abuse (whom she addresses when she tells Sawyer, "I didn't cause this") were people who demanded that Rihanna stand up as an example of domestic violence victims everywhere and essentially show them what to do. It's a challenge she appears to have taken up, as when she tells young victims "eff love," but it may not be a particularly fair one.

Rihanna got some flack for her recent single "Russian Roulette," which some people feel glorifies violence, and it's clear that, at least for a while to come, she'll be viewed as a Singer Who Is Also an Abuse Victim. It's admirable that she's chosen to turn the violation of her privacy (she talks ruefully about how she felt when her infamous post-abuse photo was released) into an opportunity to help other women, but it doesn't seem entirely just that she's forced to be a role model — and it's especially unfair that she has to feel guilty about what is, as Sawyer points out, sadly normal conduct, just because it took place in the public eye. The job of preventing future domestic violence should fall to law enforcement, to social workers, to trained anti-domestic violence educators, and to parents, who need to raise children to know that abuse is never acceptable. It shouldn't fall to the victims themselves, no matter how famous they are. And while perhaps Rihanna can derive some peace from helping other women, she shouldn't have to struggle with guilt on top of everything else she's been through.

Rihanna Speaks Out In Exclusive Interview [ABC]

The Times explains:

After 14 years of legal indecision, during which several immigration courts and three attorneys general considered Ms. Alvarado's case, the Department of Homeland Security cleared the way for her in a one-paragraph document filed late Wednesday in immigration court in San Francisco. Ms. Alvarado, the department found, "is eligible for asylum and merits a grant of asylum as a matter of discretion."

One of the issues at play in the case was about how we define persecution:

The large legal question in the case is whether women who suffer domestic abuse are part of a "particular social group" that has faced persecution, one criteria for asylum claims. In a separate asylum case in April, the Department of Homeland Security pointed to some specific ways that battered women could meet this standard.

In a recent filing, Ms. Alvarado's lawyers argued that her circumstances met the requirements that the department had outlined in April. Now the department has agreed, in practice making the case a model for other asylum claims.

However, Alvarado was able to strengthen her case by pointing to the environment facing women in Guatemala:

In a declaration filed recently to bolster Ms. Alvarado's argument that she was part of a persecuted group in Guatemala, an expert witness, Claudia Paz y Paz Bailey, reported that more than 4,000 women had been killed in domestic violence there in the last decade. These killings, only 2 percent of which have been solved, were so frequent that they earned their own legal term, "femicide," said Ms. Paz y Paz Bailey, a Guatemalan lawyer. In 2004 Guatemala enacted a law establishing special sanctions for the crime.

"Many times," she said, violence against Guatemalan women "is not even identified as violence, is not perceived as strange or unusual."

Opening up claims for asylum to situations like domestic violence and femicide would be a huge boon to women in conflict situations around the world. In addition to providing a path for women to exit a country when the local authorities fails to rectify widespread violence against women (like the situations in Juarez, Mexico and Guatemala City), it also increases the chances for females fleeing violent situations to be able to make a complete break with their pasts and start over.

Though the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department warn that they will look at domestic violence claims on a case by case basis, it's still a major step forward.

U.S. May Be Open To Asylum For Spouse Abuse [NY Times]
In Ciudad Juarez, Young Women Are Vanishing [LA Times]
The Price Of Life [Guernica]

Earlier: Obama Adminstration Opening Doors For Women Fleeing Abuse

In the clip above, from last night's Larry King Live, Murphy describes her husband's controlling behavior, which escalated into battery and rape over the course of their nine-year marriage, and the disappointment she felt when her father failed to step in and defend her. She says when the police first came to her home and her husband refused to let them talk to her — he said, "no, that's my wife" — she realized the abuse was something "he felt like he was entitled to." For years, she adds, "I did just tuck it away and just buried it and went on with my life and I thought that, you know, I could leave it there and I wanted to leave it there." On her father's deathbed, they "came to terms," but she decided to go public, she says, only when "I saw Rihanna's face and seeing that just brought it all up."

Rihanna's case is different from Murphy's in one key respect: we don't know Murphy's abuser. In photos on Larry King, his face is blurred out, and she never identifies him by name. He did agree to speak to the show off the air, saying that he "never harmed her," and that her allegations might be motivated by "fame or sympathy." Since he isn't a US citizen, he adds, "If all of these allegations are true, she could have had me deported." However, on Ellen yesterday, Murphy explained that she was afraid to leave the marriage even during periods when her husband was abroad, and that she felt like "an electric fence" was keeping her in his power. She told Us Weekly that she finally decided to leave only when she found out he had proposed to another woman on a Middle East trip, and that "I faced him one more time to sign the papers, and then I never heard from him again."

Since Murphy's ex-husband isn't a public figure, we are unlikely to hear from him again either, and we certainly won't get the public apology-fest we got from Chris Brown. Murphy's story highlights a major distinction between public abuse cases in which the abuser is anonymous, and those where he's someone we know and, possibly, like. As soon as the story of Brown's assault on Rihanna broke, Brown's fans — including women and girls — were claiming Rihanna must've done something to deserve it. But nobody has any stake in the innocence of a nameless ex-husband, and YouTube commenters (not known for their good behavior or respect for women) are overwhelmingly supportive of Murphy. Commenting on the video of Murphy's Ellen appearance, one says, "More power to Mary and others who break the silence about this despicable treatment of women." Another: "It takes a lot of courage and strength to talk about something that affected your life for that many years. Thank you for uploading this." And a third, rather disturbingly: "was this guy african or arab? she said he'd go back on vacation to 'his country'. those cultures are very barbaric towards women especially their family and their wives must worse." The US Weekly commenters have a similar racist bent, and some criticize Murphy for not leaving sooner, but there's no "she asked for it" rhetoric in evidence.

Attitudes toward celebrity abuse may highlight one of the obstacles non-celebrity women (i.e. the rest of us) face in reporting domestic violence. When an abuser is someone we don't know, we tend to sympathize with the victim; when we do know the abuser — whether he's Chris Brown or a personal friend or loved one — we suddenly get more skeptical. Murphy tells Ellen that her husband was "very charming" and that "you would love him if you met him," and many abusers have a far different persona with friends than with their victims. Even Murphy's parents seem to have been taken in, at least enough that they told her, "you've got to make this marriage work, you are a married woman now." The fact that nobody believes a "nice guy" could be an abuser likely keeps many women silent — including "college-educated," successful women like Murphy.

Of course, not being a celebrity also means Murphy's ex-husband has less of a public platform from which to defend himself — and it's true that none of us were there to witness the abuse. But Murphy doesn't seem to have much to gain from lying (she's not, for the cynics out there, promoting a book). And while alleged abusers shouldn't be presumed guilty until proven innocent, Murphy's ex doesn't seem to be facing criminal charges, nor is his name being dragged through the mud. On balance, it's a good thing that viewers are rushing to support her — they may be more willing to hear women in their own lives who come to them with similar scenarios.

LKL: Mary Murphy [CNN]
'Dance' Judge Murphy Says She Was Abused Wife [CNN]
Abuse And Raping In Her Marriage || Mary Murphy [SYTYCD] On Ellen DeGeneres Show [YouTube]
Exclusive: SYTYCD's Mary Murphy Reveals Shocking Story Of Abuse [US Weekly]

8 Cervarix is only $5 cheaper than Gardasil, but unlike Merck's vaccine, it doesn't prevent two other types of HPV that cause genital warts. The committee decided not to endorse one vaccine over the other, and the CDC still has to adopt the committee's recommendation for it to be approved for widespread use. • The Oklahoma law that would require the collection and anonymous public sharing of abortion patients' personal data will not go into effect as scheduled on November 1, due to some legal wrangling and highly unusual judicial decisions. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a suit requesting a temporary restraining order to prevent the law from going into effect on behalf of two local women. The judge recused herself from the case and the new judge, Twyla Mason Gray, has ignored the request but granted the state's request for an extension, moving the hearing to December 4. Gray set the bond for the temporary restraining order request at $25,000, which is an uncommonly large sum for such cases. Oklahoma Representative Wanda Jo Stapleton says so much personal information would be made public by the law that, "Women in small towns can be identified by nosy neighbors or, equally important, they can be misidentified when the guessing games start." • Megan Williams of West Virginia is now says she was lying when she reported that she was assaulted by a group of white men. She accused the men of keeping her in a trailer for several days, beating and stabbing her, and forcing her to eat animal feces. Seven men plead guilty and were convicted, but now her lawyer says she made up the story to get revenge on one of the men she was having a relationship with. Prosecutor Brian Abraham says the men were convicted on physical evidence and their own statements. • In only the second known case of a sperm donor passing on a genetic disease, a donor has given the heart condition hypertrophic cardiomyopathy to nine of his 24 children. One died at age 2 and two of the children, who are now teenagers, are at risk for sudden cardiac death. • Dr. Marci Bowers, who herself underwent a sex-change operation, now performs "female circumcision reversals" that can restore sexual pleasure in 80% of genital mutilation victims. One patient says she's looking forward to "a romance with my husband." • Israeli researchers say people who are violent with their partners are usually in control with their friends and bosses. They say the abuser usually goes through a calculated decision-making process and their behavior often escalates from verbal aggression, to threats of physical aggression, then moderate physical aggression, and severe physical aggression. • Six women are accused of posing as victims of domestic violence to jump to the top of the New York City Housing Authority's waiting list for subsidized apartments. A manager noticed there were similarities in some of the women's police reports and other documents. If convicted of forging court documents, the women could each face seven years in prison. • 53-year-old John Marshall of California has been charged with drugging and raping an acquaintance then shaving off all of his victim's hair. There are at least two other complaints from men and boys who say he drugged and raped them but he hasn't been charged with those crimes and is currently out on bail. • Kuwait's highest court has granted women the right to obtain a passport without their husband's approval. Thousands of women have been petitioning the courts to overturn the 1962 law requiring their husbands' signatures for a passport. Women in Kuwait can vote, serve in parliament, and drive, unlike women in some neighboring countries. • Researchers from Yale University and the VA Connecticut Healthcare System asked 18,481 female and 134,731 male veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom if they are in pain since coming home. Only 38 percent of female veterans compared to 44 percent of the men said they experienced any pain, and women were more likely to report moderate-severe pain but less likely to report persistent pain. "We were surprised by the lower pain prevalence in women Veterans which is contrary to studies conducted in civilian populations," said Dr. Sally Haskell. The discrepancy could be due to the fact that women do not serve in direct combat roles, or women being reluctant to seek treatment and admit they're in pain. • A 50 year-old Russian coal miner is trying to sell a signed photograph of Brigitte Bardot to pay for a $2,090 operation to treat his lung disease. • The one day suspension of a Springfield, Illinois bus driver who wore a pink tie to support breast cancer awareness has been rescinded. Springfield Mass Transit District managing director Linda Tisdale wrote in a newspaper editorial, "Unfortunately, my decision has left the mistaken impression that the SMTD and I do not support the Breast Cancer Awareness Campaign and, even more regrettably, has hurt and insulted the many families who have had to deal with this horrible disease." • A Florida judge says he will not dismiss a civil lawsuit against Casey Anthony, charged with killing her daughter Caylee. The girl's former nanny Zenaida Gonzales is suing Anthony because she says she damaged her reputation by naming her as a suspect in Caylee's death. • A recent study found that adults who are childhood cancer survivors are 20 to 25 percent less likely to marry compared with their siblings and the American population. Sometimes cancer treatment can lead to fertility or developmental problems and survivors may suffer from ongoing medical issues. • Hahnium Goren, the mother of a 15-year-old girl believed to be murdered by her father in an "honor killing," testified against her husband Mamet Goren in a London court today. While on the stand she screamed at him, "Look at my face. What did you do to Tu lay?" He's accused of killing their daughter in 1999 because she was dating a boy he didn't approve of. • The British news program More4 News will feature actors playing Jane Austen, Samuel Johnson, and John Ruskin "reporting" on the societal changes since their time. The Jane Austen character will discuss modern courtship and the waning popularity of marriage and observe a speed-dating session where "you can encounter dozens of potential partners in one evening, with no obligations." • Some extremely serious runners have their toenails surgically removed to make 50 or 100-mile races less painful. Nails are removed by pouring acid on the nail bed. A podiatrist who treats runners says, "Even within the ultra community, less than 10 percent or maybe even 5 percent are permanently removing their toenails." •

As some have pointed out, the song itself kind of sucks. My main problem with it is that it's boring — I found it tedious to listen multiple times in order to decipher the lyrics. When I did — with help from Alyssa Rosenberg and Just Jared, I was a little disturbed.

The song basically describes a woman playing Russian roulette with a man who's apparently an old hand at the game and eggs her on. Rihanna sings,

And you can see my heart beating
You can see it through my chest
And I'm terrified but I'm not leaving
Know that I must pass this test
So just pull the trigger

Say a prayer to yourself
He says close your eyes
Sometimes it helps
And then I get a scary thought
That he's here means he's never lost

Another creepy couplet goes like this:

So many won't get the chance to say goodbye
But it's too late too pick up the value of my life

Rosenberg was just as creeped out as I was, if not more so. She writes, "the lyrics literally are about the singer undervaluing her own life, and treating the terror she's experiencing as a test she has to pass, presumably to win the love of the guy she's playing with." She adds,

I do understand that it's extremely difficult to leave an abusive relationship, and I respect that. But I thought it would have been terrific for someone to overcome such a relationship in public. Instead, Rihanna is using a song about embracing being terrorized as her comeback single.

I agree that this doesn't seem like the best choice for Rihanna's comeback. As Perez Hilton points out (I think that's the first time I've used that phrase), she didn't write or produce the single, but she did approve it, as she presumably approved the off-putting barbed-wire-wrapped image of her that accompanies it. And it's a little upsetting that, given her history, she'd decide to sing about a woman who risks death — with someone who, the song implies, has killed before and will again — in order to "pass a test."

On the other hand, "Russian Roulette" doesn't excuse violence so much as it portrays someone who feels she can't escape it. And, as Rosenberg points out, this feeling is a reality for many abuse victims. This doesn't makes it less creepy, and the song isn't one I'd want my kids singing in the car, if I had kids or a car. At the same time, lots of female artists sing about bad men, fucked-up situations, and doing things that put them in danger. Rihanna's very public assault shouldn't force her to choose only the most empowering topics, and it's not her responsibility as a pop star to discourage abuse. What I'm actually most worried about is her label's thinking on this song. If she truly had free choice that's one thing — but if anyone pushed a domestic violence victim to record a comeback song about gunplay, that's something to get angry about.

Image via Just Jared.

Rihanna Underwhelms With New "Comeback" Single! [Perez Hilton]
Is Rihanna's New Single A Defense Of Staying In A Violent Relationship? [Alyssa Rosenberg]
Rihanna - ‘Russian Roulette' Lyrics [Just Jared]

Sara Olkon of the LA Times tells the story of Kathy Cleaves-Milan, who called the police when her boyfriend threatened her and her daughter with a gun. Soon she'd been evicted from her Chicago apartment because a crime was committed there, even though she was the victim and not the perpetrator. She's now suing Aimco, the company that owned her complex, for discrimination. Aimco spokeswoman Cindy Duffy says, "As the safety of our residents is our top priority, we have a zero-tolerance policy for any criminal activity at our communities." She adds that "if there is an arrest or a violation, all of the occupants on that lease are subject to eviction," and that "the basis for that eviction was the fact the violence had occurred." But, somewhat inconsistently, she also claims that the reason Cleaves-Milan left was that she couldn't pay her rent without her boyfriend's help, an allegation Cleaves-Milan denies. Duffy said, "it certainly wasn't our attempt to penalize her in any way for her situation," but that's exactly what the company did.

According to Olkon, federal law protects public housing residents from being evicted because of violence, and some states have enacted laws to protect the housing of domestic abuse victims, but no across-the-board protection for these victims exists — yet another reason for them not to speak out. Complicating the abuse picture further is the status of people who know about it but don't speak up. Feministe pointed us to the story of Fannie Schwartz, an Amish woman charged with failing to report her husband Johnny's sexual abuse of two teenage girls. Coverage of the case is a little confusing — prosecutor Danette Padgett says that though Schwartz didn't go to the police, she "did, at different points in time, report it to the church and the church took care of that situation, in their opinion." But according to another statement in the case, she "said it wasn't bothering her like it should have been." If convicted, she could serve several years in prison.

Feministe links Schwartz's case to a recent Times article on sexual abuse within Orthodox Jewish communities. In that article, some members of these communities expressed the fear that trying to handle abuse accusations internally protected criminals and allowed them to hurt more victims. And the fact that Fannie Schwartz had to go to church elders "at different points in time" suggests that they weren't effective at stopping the abuse the first time. Clearly religious communities aren't always capable of protecting their own, and those who conceal an abuser's actions deserve to face consequences. But Jill of Feministe handily sums up the complexities of Schwartz's case:

[I]t's rare to see criminal charges brought against non-abusers who knew about the abuse and didn't interfere. Again, I don't think it's wrong to prosecute those who aid and abet abuse; I just wonder where we draw the line when it comes to knowing about and ignoring abuse, and how much we factor in obligation to the abused (i.e., in my opinion, it matters more if the person doing the ignoring had some degree of responsibility for the abused - a teacher, a doctor, a parent, etc), and the relative power of the abuser over the person who knew and did nothing.

The power of the abuser is an important concern here — someone who molests two teenage girls might well be capable of severely threatening his wife. And, says Sheriff Roye Cole, there are cultural issues at play in cases of abuse within the Amish community:

Do they even know they need to report it? Who's going to report it? And how do they report it? I don't think the Amish community's going to have a list of phone numbers so they know to call the hotline. They need to know how to help children when they need it.

This last line applies not just to the Amish, but to Orthodox Jewish communities as well, and really to anyone who's in a position to learn about child and domestic abuse. Both Schwartz's story and the Times piece reveal the need for better relationships between law enforcement and religious groups, and for these groups to create an atmosphere where it's easier for victims and those who know about abuse to come forward. As Cleaves-Milan's case makes clear, this remains difficult, whether you're a member of a religious minority or not. Many obstacles remain between reporting abuse and actually getting justice, and if our legal system is serious about reducing domestic violence and sexual assault, it needs to eliminate these obstacles.

Image via LA Times.

Domestic-Abuse Victim Says She Was Evicted For Reporting Crime [LA Times]
Amish Wife Is Accused Of Not Reporting Husband's Sexual Abuse Of Girls [KY3.com]
Amish Wife Accused Of Not Reporting Sex Abuse [Feministe]
Orthodox Jews Rely More On Sex Abuse Prosecution [NYT]