Er, didn't Tiger Woods get his nickname because of his violence and temper? Also, power dynamics, Whoopi. But aside from that, I don't feel comfortable about all this speculation in this circumstance.
I don't like the way people are sort of implying that since there might have been infidelity, she pretty much had the right to be violent with him, if that is indeed what happened. If she doesn't like what he is doing, get a divorce, not a golf club. And this is a good example of how the patriarchy hurts men, too- he can't go out and publicly talk about this (if it is true) because it would hurt his masculine image. That's why no one wants to talk about it- it seems better for him that way.
I find it odd that based on a broken back window, this whole scenario of an abusive Elin Woods has been created in the public mind. People at my job are talking about her like she clearly must be a batterer, which is really unfair. It's not as if the cops rang the doorbell and found Tiger with facial wounds. He had just been dragged unconscious from a crashed car. Why are people so eager to heap blame on his wife?
@Pantra: Since I didn't say it was Jezebel commenters, there is reason to believe that wasnt what I was saying. A quick jaunt around the internet will find you any number of people who say he deserved it.
I'm really tired of domestic violence and particularly Rhianna/Chris Brown being brought up. We don't really know what happened. There aren't any photos of a bruised and battered Tiger Woods. Maybe Elin hit him, maybe she broke the windows when he wasn't in the car, maybe she really went after him. We don't know.
Its pretty obvious that tiger woods was the victim of a violent assault which could have easily killed him. Its not him that should be investigated, but his wife. This is no different than what Chris Brown did to Rhianna except that it is female on male violence. Tiger Woods is keeping quiet to protect his wife. but if she is indeed prone to acts of violence than Tiger is not the upstanding man many are making him out to be. Why? Because someone else could be next if his wife doesn't bear responsibility for her actions and seek help.
I understand them not wanting to get into the story because it hasn't been confirmed and they don't want to work off rumors but can i just say how much i hate this "it's his business", "it's between them" defense. It's very I can hear my neighbor beating up his wife and her screaming but it doesnt concern me so i'm going to stay out of it. Then when tragedy strikes all of a sudden people come forward with stories how they heard/saw abuse....so why didn't you do anything? This kind of bystander behavior just allows abuse to foster.
@Eric Northman is mine: This is EXACTLY what I was thinking. I shuttered at "...he shouldn't have to explain anything because married people get into arguments." Does someone have to end up dead for it to be "our business."
@JinxyMcDeath: In my experience, cops are usually much lazier than they're being in this case. My car was parked on the street in an upscale, gated community, and somebody totaled it and drove off. They left some of their paint and tail lights embedded in my car and the cops basically shrugged and said, "Hope you have insurance." They didn't even intend to keep an eye out for a smashed up car driving around without tail lights, or check surveilance footage of cars leaving the community. I can't believe the cops in Tiger's neighborhood are so vigilant.
@Gumbina80: This is an entirely different situation. You're asking them to find a car/someone using CSI technology (test the paint? run it through the system?) as opposed to them merely following up on a car accident with an interview to ensure that there wasn't some sort of underlying cause. One is a lot more difficult than the other. And in my experience as a recovered Floridian, the cops are not that bad.
@JinxyMcDeath: Really? You think seeing a red car driving around a gated community with visible damage is crazy CSI-level investigation? Or checking surveilance footage from the entry/exit gate? To see if somebody drove a red vehicle with extensive damage out of the gate between a certain timeframe?
@clevernamehere: He's past Tiffany's, why would he mention a shitty mall jewelry store? Nothing says "I'm sorry for cheating" like a $199 lab-created emerald pendant.
Also privacy is to me an inherently misogynist concept. I mean, sure, I think people are entitled not to be chased around by paparazzi. But this idea that we all should stay out of each others' business, well, that gets you Jaycee Dugard in a backyard for twenty years. I think there are ways to talk about these things that are respectful, and I think it's important to engage them, and not be scared off by claims to "privacy."
@PilgrimSoul: Hold on, PSoul. The Right to Privacy in your medical activities is why the Supreme Court passed Roe v Wade. I think there is an extent to which privacy is a helpful thing.
@PilgrimSoul: fantastic point. It never quire works to say "if the situation were reversed," because you'd have to reverse the direction of misogyny and patriarchal values as well. Which you simply can't.
On the flipside, domestic violence in which the woman is the aggressor is a real thing, too. And, in fact, the same societal values that make it "easier" to discuss male violence against women, make it relatively "difficult" to talk about female aggressors. (Hence the awkwardness above.)
@PilgrimSoul: ....what?? I've read this three or four times and it still makes no earthly sense. Privacy is the cornerstone of most women's rights, and privacy has *nothing* to do with probation officers not doing their damn job.
@small-fox: Umm, I see where pilgrimSoul is going, though I don't agree with it. Or rather, this is what I thought PS was trying to say: Privacy and silence by others is a way for abusers to control others (looking back to Patrick Stewart's article) . By not butting in, we're allowing the abusers to further victimize the persons.
Maybe I'm off track, but that's what I thought PS was trying to say. But I don't agree that privacy is inherently misogynistic, just that we shouldn't allow abusers to pull their victims in to a web of secrecy and shame.
@badmutha: Well, I don't mean to be sarcastic or condescending and sorry this is going to sound so, but not everyone is American so I'm not really talking about that here, and anyway a lot of legal theorists actually think a much better basis for abortion is in equality rights. Privacy wasn't the only option, nor was it the best one, which, sadly, is why the Supreme Court has to chip around it at times. Women should be able to have abortions because they are people entitled to sovereignty over their bodies, just like men are, in this culture.
Anyway, in the abstract, I don't like privacy because I find that it constructs a curtain around individuals that isn't usually helpful. Privacy usually implies secrecy or shame, and, to take your abortion example, I don't think that abortions ought to be secret or shameful, and I think so long as they remain within some kind of "private" sphere they will remain so.
So the problem I have with privacy generally is that it casts certain behaviors out of the realm of discussion, and I do find it inherently misogynistic because what has traditionally been defined as the private sphere - i.e. choices about reproduction and interpersonal relationships - has kept certain phenomena (abuse, etc) out of the light, and more importantly, somewhat outside of critique.
This gets into a lot of more complicated issues about the degree to which feminism can or should depend on individualism and whatnot but maybe I'll stop here for the moment since I seem to have freaked everyone out.
@badmutha: Thanks, sometimes I sort of dash these comments off rather quickly and then I come back to, "YOU HAVE 12 TRILLION REPLIES" and I'm all, uh oh.
I don't think she allegedly caused the lacerations with the golf club.
As for the domestic violence issue, well, here's the thing. People shouldn't be violent to anyone, full stop. But I do get tired hearing about "double standards." Domestic violence against women often isn't taken very seriously either - witness the general "I'm sure Chris Brown didn't mean it, let's not rush to judgment" reaction from peer celebrities. I can't remember what the View people said about that incident - I hate the View - but why is there always this handwringing about how "violence against men" isn't, in particular, taken seriously?
@PilgrimSoul: I think we live in a culture that glamourizes violence in general, making it damn near impossible for it to be taken seriously at all.
I think there needs to be more public discourse about "Wow, doesn't it suck that after all these millions of years, this is still how so many of us choose to respond to our anger and frustration? Why is this still acceptable? Why is it so hard for us to break these patterns? What is it in our culture that allows this behavior to be, if publicly demonized, still somewhat latently acceptable?"
@PilgrimSoul: Stereotypes. Men are supposed to be strong and tough, women are supposed to be docile and forgiving. So woman-on-man violence kind of spins people out. I can see how men in those situations would find it hard to disclose and might not get good support.
@BetteD: I'd add to that: Why is it still somehow more acceptable to beat on family members in private in ways you'd go to jail for if you did it to a stranger on the street?
@PilgrimSoul: Honestly? It's because conservatives have largely succeeded in their grand project to historically de-contextualize. Violence against men and violence against women must be taken as individual instances. Screw a broader social and historical context -- the fact that domestic violence is usually directed at women, the fact that said women are largely marginalized legally and financially -- that's not important. Same thing with race. Obama and Skip Gates are racists, and the mediocre white students who lose law school places to mediocre black students are the aggrieved party. Frankly, same thing with rape. Remember the Duke case, and how it "proved" that women making shit up was just as prevalent as men raping women? The annoying thing is, many liberals have fallen into the trap of being "neutral." This is one of those instances.
@BetteD: I think your barking up the wrong tree here. These behaviors aren't cultural; there seems to be something in us that causes this. Maybe something to do with our flight/fight response maybe? And these responses aren't even latently acceptable.
@Stirge: Of course it is in our animal nature to harm someone who has wronged us. Culture comes into the picture by either re-inforcing a so-called "natural" behavior or deeming it as deviant. My point being: we don't do enough as a culture to demonize violence. It is too much an accepted part of our nature.
It is also in our nature to shit on the front lawn and run around naked, and I think that those two acts elicit more universal derision than domestic violence, which is sadly seen as commonplace. I find that more than a little fucked-up.
@PilgrimSoul: my concern with violence against men in this case is that it's excusal, the idea that violence perpetrated by women should be less harshly judged because they are women, begins us in the direction of sexism and bias against women. that tiger's wife may have hit him upon discovering he had a lover which people seem to be excusing allows for the idea that women are irrational, will have inappropriate emotional reactions to certain situations, and that contributes to our culture of sexism.
once some have rationalized that women can hit men after discovering infidelities (or that violence against men by women is less important an issue), then some will rationalize that men are to hit women if a woman hits her man first (the CB defense people seem to have taken) and well, u've got a whole mess.
Sure, Palin will do a talk show, then break her contract and quit right before she announces her candidacy for President. Her followers will consider this to be incredibly brave and iconoclastic, and volunteer for her campaign in droves, hoping to be close to her very special magic.
I am really hating on people who are OUTRAGED about the terrorists getting a civilian trial in NYC. First of all, I live in NYC and I'm fine with it. Most of the people bitching and moaning about it...are not. Second of all, Timothy McVeigh was the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack on the USA before 9/11 and he was tried and convicted in a civilian court. If you are arrested for a crime in the US, you are provided with rights whether you are a citizen or not. I find it outrageous that these people are claiming that this is some liberal pussified reaction to terrorists, when in reality it is consistent with our justice system.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed (aka Ron Jeremy's doppelganger) will be convicted, terrorists are not going to bomb the courts, secretive information that would effect our troops will not be publicized, and everyone needs to shut the fuck up.
@JinxyMcDeath: AND - it's really not like this bunch of wackadoos has any appreciation for the health and general safety of their various members - obviously.
@JinxyMcDeath: hear hear
the fact is, though, that people are more easily scared of people that happen to look different than us (imo, any way) and other people like to take advantage of that to stir the pot.
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
I find it odd that based on a broken back window, this whole scenario of an abusive Elin Woods has been created in the public mind. People at my job are talking about her like she clearly must be a batterer, which is really unfair. It's not as if the cops rang the doorbell and found Tiger with facial wounds. He had just been dragged unconscious from a crashed car. Why are people so eager to heap blame on his wife?
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
Then I remembered it's also a shitty person. :-/
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
Someone needs to 'Shop this onto an ad stat.
11/30/09
"Who is that awful blond woman? Why are they talking in veiled metaphors? I'm switching to QVC."
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
On the flipside, domestic violence in which the woman is the aggressor is a real thing, too. And, in fact, the same societal values that make it "easier" to discuss male violence against women, make it relatively "difficult" to talk about female aggressors. (Hence the awkwardness above.)
Patriarchy. It's not just bad for women.
11/30/09
11/30/09
Maybe I'm off track, but that's what I thought PS was trying to say. But I don't agree that privacy is inherently misogynistic, just that we shouldn't allow abusers to pull their victims in to a web of secrecy and shame.
11/30/09
Anyway, in the abstract, I don't like privacy because I find that it constructs a curtain around individuals that isn't usually helpful. Privacy usually implies secrecy or shame, and, to take your abortion example, I don't think that abortions ought to be secret or shameful, and I think so long as they remain within some kind of "private" sphere they will remain so.
So the problem I have with privacy generally is that it casts certain behaviors out of the realm of discussion, and I do find it inherently misogynistic because what has traditionally been defined as the private sphere - i.e. choices about reproduction and interpersonal relationships - has kept certain phenomena (abuse, etc) out of the light, and more importantly, somewhat outside of critique.
This gets into a lot of more complicated issues about the degree to which feminism can or should depend on individualism and whatnot but maybe I'll stop here for the moment since I seem to have freaked everyone out.
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
As for the domestic violence issue, well, here's the thing. People shouldn't be violent to anyone, full stop. But I do get tired hearing about "double standards." Domestic violence against women often isn't taken very seriously either - witness the general "I'm sure Chris Brown didn't mean it, let's not rush to judgment" reaction from peer celebrities. I can't remember what the View people said about that incident - I hate the View - but why is there always this handwringing about how "violence against men" isn't, in particular, taken seriously?
11/30/09
I think there needs to be more public discourse about "Wow, doesn't it suck that after all these millions of years, this is still how so many of us choose to respond to our anger and frustration? Why is this still acceptable? Why is it so hard for us to break these patterns? What is it in our culture that allows this behavior to be, if publicly demonized, still somewhat latently acceptable?"
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
It is also in our nature to shit on the front lawn and run around naked, and I think that those two acts elicit more universal derision than domestic violence, which is sadly seen as commonplace. I find that more than a little fucked-up.
11/30/09
once some have rationalized that women can hit men after discovering infidelities (or that violence against men by women is less important an issue), then some will rationalize that men are to hit women if a woman hits her man first (the CB defense people seem to have taken) and well, u've got a whole mess.
11/30/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
Khalid Sheik Mohammed (aka Ron Jeremy's doppelganger) will be convicted, terrorists are not going to bomb the courts, secretive information that would effect our troops will not be publicized, and everyone needs to shut the fuck up.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
the fact is, though, that people are more easily scared of people that happen to look different than us (imo, any way) and other people like to take advantage of that to stir the pot.
11/25/09
11/25/09