Why Feminists Don’t Rob Banks
I join Ron Radosh and Tom Robbins and favor granting leniency to Judith Clark. She has paid for her crime long enough; others whose crimes were far more serious have already been freed — some have never served time at all; and Clark seems to be as “rehabilitated” as a human being can be.
Continuing to imprison her will not bring back the dead. I believe that our civilization must embrace compassion as well as justice, mercy as well as vengeance.
However, neither Ron nor David (Horowitz) nor Tom noted that, had Judith Clark opted to become a feminist, by definition, she would have turned her back on the violence-driven concepts of “Afrikan,” anti-American revolution that drove what became the Weather Underground.
Whether PJM readers are for or against feminism is not the point. Second wave feminists — my cohort — did not espouse the violent overthrow of governments. Contrary to myth, no one espoused the murder of men. Even the anti-pornography and anti-prostitution activists did not kidnap or murder johns, pimps, or traffickers; nor did they blow up the offices of pornography magazines.
Once, a legendary West Coast activist destroyed a copy of a pornography magazine which she had not paid for and she chose to sit in jail “on principle” for a number of days rather than admit guilt or pay a fine.
The only women who were violent were battered wives and girlfriends who finally killed their tormenters in self-defense. They were not feminists. And they were routinely given very long — often life sentences — for the crime of saving their own lives.
Feminists passed legislation, opened shelters for battered women, counseled rape victims, demonstrated, lobbied, exposed issues such as incest, sexual harassment, pornography, prostitution, trafficking, brought lawsuits on behalf of women’s reproductive rights and employment discrimination.
I still find it tragic that someone like Judith Clark and her comrades Kathy Boudin, Bernardine Dohrn, Susan Rosenberg, and Silvia Baraldini all chose a male-dominated, misogynistic Left, and did so even after American feminism was an alternative choice. Second wave feminism was active and visible in America, some say, by 1965, but certainly by 1967. The Chicago Days of Rage at the Democratic Convention took place in 1969. The tragic Brink’s robbery took place in 1981.
The cult these female criminals joined was only one more patriarchal outfit — one, however, that allowed women to do things that middle class, educated women were not supposed to do. Hold up banks. Live communally for a greater cause. Espouse the cause of “the forbidden other” (the black man as revolutionary or psychopath), as opposed to leading a quiet American life or fighting for women’s rights, children’s rights, human rights, as either a left-winger or a right-winger.
Good post about a complex issue. Rereading Ron’s original post (and the comments which followed) I wonder how people would perceive this issue differently if the political dimensions were not present? If Ms. Clark had not been affiliated with Weather Underground but was just a woman who participated in a heinous crime. I suspect that she would have served much less than the 28 year term she has already served. And I agree with your unease over “naming names”. Since when do we demand naming names as a condition of parole? That only further illustrates the fundamentally political nature of Ms. Clark’s continued incarceration.
If Osama bin Laden had just blown up four airliners to collect on the insurance policies of the Muslim men who were flying on them, we wouldn’t have gone to war either. (We didn’t go to war when just such a criminal blew up an airliner in 1954, to collect on the insurance policy of his mother who was flying on it.)
But the “political dimension,” as you call it, made 9-11 and the Brinks robberies into *terrorist* acts. Terrorism isn’t just about murder. It’s about destabilizing an entire society. That means it’s much worse than an ordinary murder.
And that means it should be punished more harshly.
“Continuing to imprison her will not bring back the dead.”
Imprisoning her for even one day wouldn’t bring back the dead either.
Sounds like you’re suggesting that there’s no point in imprisoning people who commit murder at all.
Let’s not talk about anything other than right and wrong. We ALL come from someplace where our viewpoints are shaped to perceive this woman (Clarke) as a victim or as a participant in a heinous crime. To what purpose? To “free AMERIKKA”?
Get over it and get real. These idiots were useful tools of street thugs. No more. No less. And if they chose to involve them selves with killers and thieves who felt the world owed them something, OK. But they got caught and she (Clarke) has a price to pay. Pay it.
You want a discount on the sentence? Allocute.
There are millions of women (and men) black and white living today that saw and lived and suffered with the injustices that occurred back then and damned few volunteered to pick up a gun or be the “wheelman” in a bank robbery AND murders. Nobody gave them (us) a medal.
You want early parole? Allocute.
These were not victimless crimes. And I don’t see Clarke as a victim. She was a perpetrator. No more than that, but certainly not less.
“Free AMERICKKA” my ass.
Freeing her won’t bring back the dead either. If she wants to get out before her sentence runs its course she should be prepared to substantively demonstrate reform and disassociation from the terrorist group she was once a member of. Naming names would be a good start. If she’s not naming names to protect people she hasn’t really reformed. If she’s not naming names because she’s afraid maybe parole isn’t what’s best for her.
“The second wave — my cohort — did not espouse the violent overthrow of governments”
“Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole … patriarch!”–Gloria Steinheim.
Nah, they espoused the overthrow of everything! Peacefully, I’m sure (with the capitalists voluntarily handing over their property to Gloria with a whoop and a holler).
Re: exterminating men…
“Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex” – Valerie Solanas
She wasn’t just kidding around either, she actually opened fire on some guys, and put three bullets into Andy Warhol. Which I guess proves that feminists aren’t ALL bad.
What all this has to do with Judith Clark (oft published in all kinds of whacked out feminist journals/presses, btw, for example her memoirs were published by the Feminist Press of CUNY, which presumably has something to do with feminism) robbing and killing is anybody’s guess.
Wait a minute. I think I’m starting to see the tie in.
Like you, I’ve read some really nasty stuff written by “second wave” feminists, particularly the academic “theorists.” These creatures may not have robbed any banks themselves yet their writings are filled with violent rhetoric calling for OTHER women to rob banks – and worse. Question is, why didn’t anyone follow through? “Radical” feminists are pretty tame compared to the Weather Underground. All talk, no action, evidently. For that reason alone, perhaps Clark would have been safer as a feminist – although I disagree that there is a clear line between feminism and leftism. Have you ever met a leftist who didn’t also claim to be a feminist?
I don’t think Clark as a feminist would have been the person who took the radical line beyond rhetoric to the propaganda of the deed. Like a lot of radicals, she he strikes me as a follower, not a leader.
This sounds so much like an article in Commentary a long while back about how feminism was basically a mid-life crisis of upper-middle-class women (by Mona Charen?).
P.S. So they only battered men indirectly?
1. VAWA, which encouraged unequal treatment of men and women fighting each other.
2. Various changes to rape procedures, which while to some extent ccorrecting other left-wing-caused inuquities (post-Scotsboro) likely increased the number of men falsely jailed for rape.
3. And, of course, the abortion holocaust.
We forget where it started (revolutionary France/Europe), and when (1791)! [Getting inspired by USA Freedom-friendly movement(s).]
From http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/americanstudies/lavender/decwom2.html [I checked few links on Wikipedia about the subject, they are all hijacked by Wikipedia itself],
I past and copy part of the text
[and I admire the courage of those women of the ancient Revolutionary times, who already understood where the human Rights' Violation eventually was, and who did not let themselves get deceived by so called "higher Ideals", but kept very clear in their mind(s) who the final victim was - and would have remained -.
Please feel free to do connect these ancient situation with nowaday's revolutionary times inspired by "higher purposes".
Note that I am not misandric: I just want to denounce females/women's condition, which means not that I forget the miserable condition, in which many HUMAN BEINGS - males included - live, and which must be improved]:
Declaration of the Rights of Woman, 1791
Written by Olympe De Gouges, 1791
(…)
Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen
For the National Assemby to decree in its last sessions, or in those of the next legislature:
Preamble
Mothers, daughters, sisters [and] representatives of the nation demand to be constituted into a national assembly. Believing that ignorance, omission, or scorn for the rights of woman are the only causes of public misfortunes and of the corruption of governments, [the women] have resolved to set forth a solemn declaration the natural, inalienable, and sacred rights of woman in order that this declaration, constantly exposed before all members of the society, will ceaselessly remind them of their rights and duties; in order that the authoritative acts f women and teh athoritative acts of men may be at any moment compared with and respectful of the purpose of all political institutions; and in order that citizens’ demands, henceforth based on simple and incontestable principles, will always support the constitution, good morals, and the happiness of all.
Consequently, the sex that is as superior in beauty as it is in courage during the sufferings of maternity recognizes and declares in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following Rights of WOman and of Female Citizens.
Article I
Woman is born free and lives equal to man in her rights. Social distinctions can be based only on the common utility.
Article II
The purpose of any political association is the conservation of the natural and impresciptible rights of woman and man; these rights are liberty property, security, and especially resistance to oppression.
Article III
The principle of all sovereignty rests essentially with the nation, which is nothing but the union of woman and man; no body and no individual can exercise any authority which does not come expressly from it (the nation).
Article IV
Liberty and justice consist of restoring all that belongs to others; thus, the only limits on the exercise of the natural rights of woman are perpetual male tyranny; these limits are to be reformed by the laws of nature and reason.
Article V
Laws of nature and reason proscibe all acts harmful to society; everything which is not prohibited by these wise and divine laws cannot be prevented, and no one can be constrained to do what they do not command.
Article VI
The law must be the expression of the general will; all female and male citizens must contribute either personally or through their representatives to its formation; it must be the same for all: male and female citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, must be equally admitted to all honors, positions, and public employment according to their capacity and without other distinctions besides those of their virtues and talents.
Article VII
No woman is an exception; she is accused, arrested, and detained in cases determined by law. Women, like men, obey this rigorous law.
Article VIII
The law must establish only those penalties that are strictly and obviously necessary…
Article IX
Once any woman is declared guilty, complete rigor is exercised by law.
Article X
No one is to be disquieted for his very basic opinions; woman has the right to mount the scaffold; she must equally have the right to mount the rostrum, provided that her demonstrations do not disturb the legally established public order.
Article XI
The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of woman, since that liberty assures recognition of children by their fathers. Any female citizen thus may say freely, I am the mother of a child which belongs to you, without being forced by a barbarous prejudice to hide the truth; (an exception may be made) to respond to the abuse of this liberty in cases determined by law.
Article XII
The gaurantee of the rights of woman and the female citizen implies a major benefit; this guarantee must be instituted for the advantage of all, and not for the particular benefit of those to whom it is entrusted.
Article XIII
For the support of the public force and the expenses of administration, the contributions of woman and man are equal; she shares all the duties and all the painful tasks; therefore, whe must have the same share in the distribution of positions, employment, offices, honors, and jobs.
Article XIV
Female and male citizens have the right to verify, either by themselves of through their representatives, the necessity of the public contribution. This can only apply to women if they are granted an equal share, not only of wealth, but also of public administration, and in the determination of the proportion, the base, the collection, and the duration of the tax.
Article XV
The collectivity of women, joined for tax purposes to the aggregate of men, has the right to demand an accounting of his administration from any public agent.
Article XVI
No society has a constitution without the guarantee of rights and the separation of powers; the constitution is null if the majority of individuals comprising the nation have not cooperated in drafting it.
Article XVII
Property belongs to both sexes whether united or separate; for each it is an inviolable and sacred right’ no one can be deprived of it, since it is the true patrimony of natire, unless the legally determined public need obviously dictates it, and then only with a just and prior indemnity.
Postscript
Woman, wake up; the tocsin of reason is being heard throughout the whole universe; discover your rights. The powerful empire of nature is no longer surrounded by prejudice, fanaticism, superstition, and lies. The flame of truth has dispersed all the clouds of folly and usurpation. Enslaved man has multiplied his strength and needs recourse to yours to break his chains. Having become free, he has become unjust to his companion. Oh, women, women! When will you cease to be blind? What advantage have you received from the Revolution? A more pronounced scorn, a more marked disdain. In the centuries of corruption you ruled only over the weakness of men. The reclamation of your patrimony, based on the wise decrees of nature-what have you to dread from such a fine undertaking? The bon mot of the legislator of the marriage of Cana? Do you fear that our French legislators, correctors of that morality, long ensnared by political practices now out of date, will only say again to you: women, what is there in common between you and us? Everything, you will have to answer. If they persist in their weakness in putting this non sequitur in contradiction to their principles, courageously oppose the force of reason to the empty pretentions of superiority; unite yourselves beneath the standards of philosophy; deploy all the energy of your character, and you will soon see these haughty men, not groveling at your feet as servile adorers, but proud to share with you the treasures of the Supreme Being. Regardless of what barriers confront you, it is in your power to free yourselves; you have only to want to….
Marriage is the tomb of trust and love. The married woman can with impunity give bastards to her husband, and also give them the wealth which does not belong to them. The woman who is unmarried has only one feeble right; ancient and inhuman laws refuse to her for her children the right to the name and the wealth of their father; no new laws have been made in this matter. If it is considered a paradox and an impossibility on my part to try to give my sex an honorable and just consistency, I leave it to men to attain glory for dealing with this matter; but while we wait, the way can be prepared through national education, the restoration of morals, and conjugal conventions.
Form for a Social Contract Between Man and Woman
We, _____ and ______, moved by our own will, unite ourselves for the duration of our lives, and for the duration of our mutual inclinations, under the following conditions: We intend and wish to make our wealth communal, meanwhile reserving to ourselves the right to divide it in favor of our children and of those toward whom we might have a particular inclination, mutually recognizing that our property belongs directly to our children, from whatever bed they come, and that all of them without distinction have the right to bear the name of the fathers and mothers who have acknowledged them, and we are charged to subscribe to the law which punishes the renunciation of one’s own blood. We likewise obligate ourselves, in case of separation, to divide our wealth and to set aside in advance the portion the law indicates for our children, and in the event of a perfect union, the one who dies will divest himself of half his property in his children’s favor, and if one dies childless, the survivor will inherit by right, unless the dying person has disposed of half the common property in favor of one whom he judged deserving.
That is approximately the formula for the marriage act I propose for execution. Upon reading this strange document, I see rising up against me the hypocrites, the prudes, the clergy, and the whole infernal sequence. But how it [my proposal] offers to the wise the moral means of achieving the perfection of a happy government! . . .
Moreover, I would like a law which would assist widows and young girls deceived by the false promises of a man to whom they were attached; I would like, I say, this law to force an inconstant man to hold to his obligations or at least [to pay] an indemnity equal to his wealth. Again, I would like this law to be rigorous against women, at least those who have the effrontery to have reCourse to a law which they themselves had violated by their misconduct, if proof of that were given. At the same time, as I showed in Le Bonheur primitit de l’homme, in 1788, that prostitutes should be placed in designated quarters. It is not prostitutes who contribute the most to the depravity of morals, it is the women of’ society. In regenerating the latter, the former are changed. This link of fraternal union will first bring disorder, but in consequence it will produce at the end a perfect harmony.
I offer a foolproof way to elevate the soul of women; it is to join them to all the activities of man; if man persists in finding this way impractical, let him share his fortune with woman, not at his caprice, but by the wisdom of laws. Prejudice falls, morals are purified, and nature regains all her rights. Add to this the marriage of priests and the strengthening of the king on his throne, and the French government cannot fail.
From Darline Gay Levy, Harriet Branson Applewhite, and Mary Durham Johnson, eds., Women in Revolutionary Paris, 1789-1795 (Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1980), pp. 87-96.
I find it incomprehensible that an avowed feminists like Dr. Chesler actually uses misogyny to prove her point. Women are too ignorant to know what they are doing, they fell for the politics, they are too weak emotionally and psychologically to take responsibility for their actions..the men made them do it…baloney. Clark knew exactly what she was dong and made her choices. I have no sympathy for her. Let her serve out her sentence as if she were a man.
Really? You’ve not seen this before? The radical feminist creed is that women are strong — up until the moment they’re held to the same standards as men. Then they become wilting hot-house flowers who must be coddled and defended against the slightest insult.
It stopped being about equality a long, long time ago. Now it’s about power.
It’s always been about power at the leadership level. At the follower level, like most “movements” of the ’60s it was about the ugly, less well-off, and unpopular getting to gether to exclude the wealthy, attractive, and popular people. To this day you’d be hard-pressed to find an attractive female on the left. I sometimes think the Democrats have a factory where they make sharp-featured, short-haired brunettes with the dispostion of a stepped on cat.
I never thought of it that way before but you are so right.
actually, i marched, handed out leaflets, attended meetings, etc for left-wing candidates and causes because of foolish crushes on some very attractive young ladies. [ps: i was the same age].
i don’t know if this is still true or not, but the left in the 1980′s had one heckuva lot of bright, attractive and charming women.
Once again, the women haters are out in force. So afraid a female might actually expect to be treated as a full human being. Personally, I don’t understand any female who ISN’T a feminist. A feminist is a human being who’s on their own side, if they’re female, and on the side of their mothers, sisters and female friends. They believe females are born free, with all their rights inherent, and that the fight is to stop the denial of the exercise of those rights, to be acknowledged as a complete human being in her own right, not as merely an appendage of males. Why so many men can’t handle that, I will never understand.
Blackgriffin, I’m not afraid of women being treated as a full human beings. I am all in favor of them being 50% of the broken and wounded in Vet’s Hospitals. It is the women themselves who insist on a protected status that sets them apart.
” Personally, I don’t understand any female who ISN’T a feminist.”
Really?
Have you paid attention to what feminists have been doing since, say, 1960 or so? It’s not been about equality for a long, long time. For example, the lies about the “wage gap”.
Blackgriffin,
I did not realise that ‘wanting to hold women equally accountable to men’ is ‘hatred of women’.
So, to not hate women, we must hold women to a lesser moral standard – is that what you are saying?
Blackgriffin, you have hit the nail on the head. Feminism is as you say, about them selves, as is bank robbery, and divorce. And that is the problem with the world, it is about themselves. Self, self, self. Doesn’t matter what the sin or ism is, self is the motivator. Goes for men as well as women. For kids as well as adults and on and on.
True. In the military, where women have equal pay, jobs and rank, they are held to (coddled with) different performance standards (too weak for male physical fitness) and uniform standards (too beautiful to not wear makeup, hairstyles and dresses).
Just for all you persons out there…I am female not male. Not a woman hater and quite frankly an old died in the wool woman’s right activist but NOT a feminist. I happen to take responsibility for my own choices in life. It is the ultimate act of being a grown-up and a full human being to not blame others for your mistakes and malfeasance.
I personally am tired of those who think they score points for women’s right by turning them into inadequate and ineffectual human beings in the face of horrible “male thought or attitudes.” The woman in this case was not beaten, raped or abused into doing something against her will. She made her choice…now she has to live with it.
Was there a point here?
I believe the point is that former radical/revolutionaries are now seeking absolution of their past actions through the pardoning/release of their currently incarcerated comrades.
Do you ever feel like identifying as Jewish is just selling out to another patriarchy? I “returned” a few years ago, I knew what I was getting into. I knew religious JEws oppose”feminism” with vehemence. But I had hope in G-d. I really thought that G-d would save the Jewish people from another holocaust and that G-d would save women from rising religious fundementalism especially the Islamic kind. THat G-d would save women from genital mutilations rapes sex trafficking forced pregnancies forced abortions honor killings etc etc etc and that G-d would save girls from female infanticide and female feticide. I figured I would just go to the top and talk to The Boss. After all who am I going to kvetch to if not G-d? SO I became “observant”. I willingly joined a religion that has prayers for sons but not for daughters. In a world with female infanticide is it so terrible to have little social conscience and just pray for healthy happy holy children? Meanwhile I have seen women PROUDLY walk to the back of the bus, certain of their modesty and moral superiority. But hey, I’m no one to judge I have a rag on my head and I sit at the back of the shul if there is enough room for me to sit. Sigh. What a fool am I. ANyway I have no idea who Judith Clark is.
I willingly joined a religion that has prayers for sons but not for daughters.
Then you did not “join” Judaism, for Judaism has prayers for both. What you did actually “join” is anyone’s guess.
The problem is not with Torah, but with the Pharisees’ misunderstanding of Torah. All the Orthodox Rabbis today are spiritual and academic descendants of the Pharisees. Plain sense dictates that the blind cannot lead the blind, nor can the ignorant teach, so when men who did not understand the Torah and the Prophets attempted to teach on them both, the students understood even less than the teachers, though they had convinced themselves they were wise.
When the Prophet Daniel prophesied the very year the Messiah would come, most of the Jews weren’t paying attention when the year came upon them. That Passover the Lamb of God was slain for the sins of the world, while most of the Jews remained ignorant (of course, the Gentiles were nearly all ignorant as well). They were incredulous when His tomb was found empty and His disciples began proclaiming He had risen from the dead, fulfilling the words prophesied by Isaiah, “Who has believed our report?”
Now if what I am saying is not true- if Jesus of Nazareth is not the Messiah and did not rise from the dead, then what I have told you is meaningless folly. If, however, I am speaking the truth, then the tenants of Judaism say that you must follow Him. He is, after all, the Messiah you are commanded to yearn for. So examine the evidence for yourself, and see if what I have told you is true.
what I have told you is meaningless folly
Yes, it is—starting with your ignoring that Jesus was a Pharisee himself, since only Pharisees went around as rabbis expounding on variant interpretations of Torah law.
You know very well what I meant, so don’t feign ignorance. There was indeed a faithful remnant among the Jews- they became Christians, some during the ministry of Jesus, some on Pentecost, and some afterward. They heeded the warnings and repented, as did many Gentiles. However, do not pretend not to understand the rebuke of the hypocrites who “nullified the Law for the sake of their tradition,” and came up with incoherent accusations to dismiss Jesus and John the Baptist when they called them out on their hypocrisy.
Your own man said, “by their fruits shall ye know them”.
The hundreds of thousands of Jews who were burned alive, tortured, raped, looted, and put though every possible assault, injury, and humiliation in the name of Jesus of Nazereth knew what the fruits of his teaching were. Saying they were not “real Christians” is a cop-out; they were still his fruits.
P.S. I do not mean offense to all of the decent Christians out there, only to this sanctimoneous twit.
And the Talmud explicitly condones blasphemy. The Talmud tells people to nullify oaths, contrary to Torah’s command that any oath is binding, and breaking an oath sworn directly or indirectly on the Name of God is taking His Name in vain. So I stand by my Master’s analysis- whitewashed tombs.
And here’s a messianic prophecy no one can explain away: Psalm 102:8 “All day long my enemies taunt me; they use my name as a curse.” The only name that fits is Yeshua, which in Hebrew is spelled Yod-shin-waw. Yod-shin-waw is also an acrostic for “yimmach shemo vezikro” meaning “may his name be blotted out.” Only to Jesus of Nazareth does this verse logically fit, because He has the Name that can be used as a curse AND His enemies used this curse against Him. No hero or villain besides Him fits this.
Judaism is a matriarchy. To be a Jew the mother must be Jewish, except for conversions. In other words, if the father is Jewish, but the mother is not, their children are not Jewish. If the mother is and the father is not, the children will be Jewish.
Listen, you don’t have to live this way if you don’t like it. I’m Chareidi (“ultra-Orthodox”, a nicely prejorative term) myself, but there are many philosophies within traditional Judaism. I’d be happy to put you in touch with some Religious Zionists I know, even “Orthodox feminists” if you like. You can write me at hotmail under my username above.
BTW, these ladies really do not feel they are being discriminated against; they just don’t want to sit with men, particularly in a crowded bus where everyone is pressed agaisnt each other in a country with little idea of “personal space”. (I’ve spoken to a bunch lately.)
And somehow, although my wife is African-American and not even raised Jewish, nor particularly Chareidi, the buses don’t bother her at all, even though if it was done by race you would hear her scream on the other side of the Atlantic. We usually site together in the middle.
Sticking up for members of the Weather Underground, a US terrorist organization that robbed, murdered, and plotted the death of many Americans so they could arrive at their utopia. Never though I’d see the from Dr. Chesler.
Sorry, but she needs to rot in jail for the rest of her life. Susan Rosenberg should be in the cell next to her, but BJ Clinton decided that particular terrorist should be pardoned. And supporters of this piece of filth’s release should be standing in front of the victim’s families and ask them for their permission. Have you done that yet Dr Chesler? Have you said one word to the victim’s families to see what they think? Do you even care?
Non-violence does not equal right or good. Many a thug & tyrant and oppressive, unjust societies have come to about through ‘legal’ means via legislation and elections. The feminist fiction of ‘patriarchy’ is mind numbingly simplistic.
There is such a dilemma, isn’t there? The patriarchy is alive and well everywhere with double standards for all. What is rehabilitation? I remember when my friend Faye was killed when the black revolutionary she represented broke out of jail and killed her and a member of her family. She was vilified for representing him in the first place. She was a good person, a heterosexual, a romantic… I was a radical lesbian feminist who could not understand her fascination with these sick people — why she did not turn her intelligence to our cause. On the other hand, I, like so many feminists was seduced by the amazing opportunity to elect a black man to the presidency and so abandoned Hillary. Sometimes I wonder if we will every learn…
“There is such a dilemma, isn’t there? The patriarchy is alive and well everywhere with double standards for all. What is rehabilitation?”
Yeah tell that to the law lady. We (men)are getting patriarched to death with every divorce and custody battle.
As for rehabilitation you miss the point of prison. It’s punishment. They missused their freedom so now they lose it.
THEY owe US for what they did. They should be thankful they actually recognize the food they get. I’d push a vitamin infused gruel on them and call it fair.
“I, like so many feminists was seduced by the amazing opportunity to elect a black man to the presidency and so abandoned Hillary. Sometimes I wonder if we will every learn…”
If you viewed the last election as “the amazing opportunity to elect a black man to the presidency” then no, you will never learn.
I view that quote as proof that they deserve a KKK hood as much as a white guy who would be entranced at the thought of a white President…
…unless you believe skin color has powers much like Superman benefited from by relocating from Krypton.
“However, neither Ron nor David (Horowitz) nor Tom noted that, had Judith Clark opted to become a feminist, by definition, she would have turned her back on the violence-driven concepts of “Afrikan,” anti-American revolution that drove what became the Weather Underground.”
Oh, brother. Don’t sprain yourself patting yourself on the back, there.
Maybe it is just that femminists don’t like guns. I never met any who did anyway. They are so…phallic and macho brutish. Cant rob a bank by speaking ‘truth to power’.
Are you sure you’re not angry “others whose crimes were far more serious have already been freed — some have never served time at all” rather than clemency for Clark? If this is the case Clark should stay and you should campaign about how what happened to the others was wrong.
I also enjoy this backwards inquiry into the nature of reality by your trying to convince us feminists grant society at large the value of their own clemency by eschewing violence rather than the actual truth which would be that most women scream when they see a bug or even think about a frontline combat unit.
This can be seen by the dearth of feminist rallies insisting on being put in the most dangerous military situations with signs saying “Give Us Trenches and Bayonets Or Give Us Death” which in any event would amount to much the same thing. This “greater good” realization has resulted in Vet’s Hospitals being 98% male while ironically 98% of women are in favor of equal pay.
Thus saying that feminists had some kind of moratorium against violence is like saying that rabbits don’t attack lions because they are nicer.
This obsession with the greater good is reflected in your pointing out that “Feminists passed legislation, opened shelters for battered women, counseled rape victims, demonstrated, lobbied, exposed issues such as incest, sexual harassment, pornography, prostitution, trafficking, brought lawsuits on behalf of women’s reproductive rights and employment discrimination” or in other words things that only benefited women.
Considerations such as things that benefit everyone were left to clueless males and the institutions they had created.
Like yourself and feminists in general, I too have the survival instincts to avoid trenches and bayonets though not lacking in the sense of duty that I must do so anyway. That doesn’t mean I would actually enjoy an asteroid strike that would wipe out civilization with the first victim the moronic cultural conceit that is feminism but it is fun to daydream about…
…along with living in the 17th century Mediterranean and being a pirate who matches himself up against the female pirates in what I’m sure would be terrific battles.
Phyllis, You are such a complete phony.
You might as well say no real Jew robs a bank, no real Christian.
And, now that I think about it you do.
You continually ascribe to the idea that those of your supposed ilk are morally above the rest of Humanity.
Let’s not forget, no real conservative robs a bank, no real democrat, no real, just fill in the blank.
“Judith is a woman who deserves and needs to come home. Her continued incarceration would certainly be a fraudulent use of taxpayers’ dollars intended to protect the public from the dangerous, or to punish those who have been violent in the past. It would also deprive the community of the work of a productive citizen. I and countless others who have dedicated our lives to improving the conditions faced by women await her arrival. We know that she has at least as much to teach outside prison as she has taught within.”-–Gloria Steinem
You know what that is?
A feminist sticking up for another feminist.
What has she done to assuage the grief she caused those families? Since that is not mentioned I must assume, nothing! She is therefore unrepentent and unworthy.
“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.”—-Catharine MacKinnon
Yeah, that’s the school of feminism that commie whack jobs like Bernadine Dohrn, Judith Clark, Marilyn Buck and the other Weatherloons adhere(d) to.
The idea that these thugs and killers AREN’T feminists is absolute balderdash.
I had to reread Phyllis’ article after reading the comments just to make sure I had understood it in the first place. And I did. What did Phyllis clarify? That feminism, as she knew it, did not use violent means to make social changes whereas non-feminist women grafted themselves unto male dominated groups, i.e., Weather Underground, and participated in violent means to transform society. I thought that was the gist of her article. The business of Judith Clark and her continued imprisonment along with Phyllis’ plea for her release is not the essence of her article nor is her condemnation of men who used women (sexually) who happened to join their organizations, i.e., being hit-on by Blacks and leftist (White) men as well. While her opinion regarding Judith Clark’s unfair long imprisonment may stand up under closer examination and while the sexual exploitation of women who joined “revolutionary” organizations undoubtedly had basis in fact, neither of these themes really has much to do with the essence of Phyllis’ article. As previously indicated, I think Phyllis’ article clarifies the difference between the preceeding male dominated movements and the feminist movement which succeeded them. Unfortunately, Phyllis’ article was marred by poor conceptualization in terms of the actual writing of her piece and that is why so many Readers have misconstrued it.
I think the point was clear, just that people felt strongly about the prisioner issue.
But when she said feminists didn’t use violence, she meant directly. A lot of the stuff she said they DID do has led to a great deal of violence, as I commented above.
Yes, Yes, Women are not independent beings capable of their own sexual or political desires and motives.
That is why Phil is correct no REAL Feminist would do anything improper only some poor helpless thing misguided by those Evil Men.
Is that about right there, Pal?
No, Ozzy, not “about right”. Your obvious hostility and anger has really blinded you to comprehending Phyllis’ article. She simply stated that the feminist movement which succeeded the one’s she mentioned in which women were grafted onto them (recall, Patty Hurst) did not engage in (physical) violence. She did not deal with what may be termed “emotional violence” or other destructive actions. Try dealing with facts and cold analysis as opposed to your hostility rigged reactions and you may reach some real clarifications.
I had to reread Phyllis’ article after reading the comments just to make sure I had understood it in the first place. And I did. What did Phyllis clarify? That feminism, as she knew it, did not use violent means to make social changes whereas non-feminist women grafted themselves unto male dominated groups, i.e., Weather Underground, and participated in violent means to transform society. I thought that was the gist of her article. The business of Judith Clark and her continued imprisonment along with Phyllis’ plea for her release is not the essence of her article nor is her condemnation of men who used women (sexually) who happened to join their organizations, i.e., being hit-on by Blacks and leftist (White) men as well. While her opinion regarding Judith Clark’s unfair length of imprisonment may stand up under closer examination and while the sexual exploitation of women who joined “revolutionary” organizations undoubtedly had a basis in fact, neither of these themes really has much to do with the essence of Phyllis’ article. As previously indicated, I think Phyllis’ article clarifies the difference between the preceeding male dominated movements and the feminist movement which succeeded them. Unfortunately, Phyllis’ article was marred by poor conceptualization in terms of the actual writing of her piece and that is why so many Readers have misconstrued it.
Ms. Chesler: Whatever the point of your article, I’m still with David Horowitz on this: until Judith Clark comes clean with her knowledge about who else was involved in the nast things she did, she needs to stay in prison for the duration of her sentence.
Dr. Chesler, you have put on the blinders of religion in this matter. Feminism on its face is a good idea, just as affirmative action seemed to be. To believe that the release of Judith Clark is or ever will be a good thing is wrong. To say she was singled out for a more and undeserving level of punishment is to deny facts. She defended her and her cohorts actions in court and continues to defend them to this day.
So in my opinion she will get her absolution and freedom from GOD, when she meets him in person.
In Canada we had the marxist/feminist Squamish Five during the 70s. They did rob banks, steal explosives, fire-bomb video stores that had porn. Their final act was bombing a military contractor. The leaders were radicalized at University and by Red Army Faction.
“The patriarchy is alive and well everywhere with double standards for all.”
Well, you can’t argue with that one. In the case of the 1981 Brinks robbery/murder all the women, excepting Clark, have been released, while the males are all(?) dead or in prison.
A double standard feminists seem to have no problem with.
But, then they never have a problem with that…as long as their group benefits from it.
my friend’s mother makes $74 an hour on the computer. She has been fired for 8 months but last month her check was $8737 just working on the computer for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more… LazyCash10.com
If Ms. Chesler could possibly get beyond the worn out, reality warping Newspeak and get beyond such expressions like ‘second wave feminism’ (aka male bashing and blaming) and ‘women’s reproductive rights’ (aka abortion and infanticide), perhaps she would perceive the criminal motivations of Madam Clark in a whole new light.
This article is so full of nauseating naive gibberish. What passes for feminism today is nothing more than gender hucksterism. And all this so-called ‘mercy’ for a Leftwing terrorist shows that Marxist/feminist ideology is still alive and well with double standards for all.
Phyllis: I strongly disagree with your thesis that Clark deserves to be free from her 3 felony murder jail sentences. She deserves, like any communist terrorist murder, or any other brutal multi-murderer, to die in jail.
She chose to be a marxist terrorist, to follow psychopaths of the BLA and the Weather Underground/May 19th Communist Organization. No one forced her to participate. SHe could have walked away from the violence, but chose, instead to participate in it, helping to kill two policeman and a Brinks guard in the process of “expropriating” money for the “cause.”
Dohrn, Boudin, Buck, Whitehorn, Saxe, Evans, Baraldini, Rosenberg, etc. chose to become marxist terrorists, bank robbers, bombers and killers. Let them pay the price for their extremism.
How many people do you have to kill to be kept in jail for life – two, three, four?We dishonor the murder victims by excusing the crimes of the guilty as would freeing them would do.
Some of the women came from Communist Party families where revolution and overthrowing the government of the US was the “norm”, their goal in life. Their choice. Now let them pay the penalty for their treason.
Clark must die in jail or the lives of her three murder victims mean absolutely nothing to society, and if that is the case, then society is slowly killing itself by letting the barbarians back inside the “gate.”
Your previous articles seemed sensible, and now this…why?
Lots of people ‘don’t rob banks. Tell me again why we should let this murderer free?
I don’t think I’ll be reading any more of Chesler’s articles.
yeah yeah yeah, you just killed our future – that is all.
ou got on your abortion train and murdered probably 8 generations of kids since the 70s, just SLAUGHTERED OUR FUTURE FOR A LITTLE LESS HASSLE.
Now we must bring in illegal alien invaders to pay for our retirement system. We KILLED ALL OUR WORKERS. I was the first female jet mechanic (one of 8) in the US Navy in the 70s. Should have been a poster child for a feminist, NOPE NOT GAY, DIDN’T COUNT…………had to be gay to get in your club in the beginning, now for money you will probably take anyone.
You gals could have done so much for women and the haters you put in charge just SOLD ABORTION. Abortion was the liberal answer in the beginning to stopping minorities from having babies (check it out and check out how horrible the black abortion numbers are – those racists knew what they were doing to promote abortion). It is a crime that we abort so many babies and it is a crime that the majority are black. Wonder why the blacks never bother the democrats about that?
It was a shame what you feminists taught and then when we had a real ASSAULTER IN OUR WHITE HOUSE YOU GALS PROTECTED THE ASSAULTER??????
THAT IS WHEN YOU GALS LOST YOUR POWER……………protecting the Impeached Stain Bill Clinton. When you took the side of the rapist that called all his acusers lying hos and then he stuck cigars up the little jewish intern with PROOF, YOU GALS STILL PROTECTED HIM………
feminists won’t have a good place in the history books, promise
“Abortion was the liberal answer in the beginning to stopping minorities from having babies”
Yup. Planned Parenthood, founded by Margaret Sanger: feminist, racist, eugenicist. Had the idea of ‘fixing’ black human beings so they couldn’t reproduce.
Fast forward to ‘second wave’ feminism and you find they’re still obsessed with eugenics, killing and genetic engineering. E.g. Mary Daly on how the male population should be reduced to 10%. Or the more explicitly violent Valerie Solanas on how women should band together and go round murdering men until there aren’t any left.
The word ‘feminist’ (just like ‘environmentalist’) is ruined. PC might want to find a new one.
She looks nice; she sounds nice;she was one of us. Why is she in jail?
Okay, how’s about- every last single Presidential assassin has been from the violent utopian wing of the country? And- the rest of us voted in the President. We like our presidents- we picked them. We’d like them to live in safety. Under broken windows theory-we ought to hold to the law on other violent utopianists, so they don’t kill another president.
And, well, the Russians kept exporting their revolutionaries, until they all ganged up and came back and took over the country. I’d say rot in jail beats the pants off ” and then they all got together and actually took over the country.” I’ve heard all the plans- they always seem to involve killing off me and my family and friends.
I’m not too thrilled that the justice department has a memo saying we ought to watch out for military veterans and single issue voters and third party voters. they just watch-listed me ( I’m a single-issue voter- abortion) my friends ( vote Paul-he’s local) my honorable and decent husband who served in the military as his patriotic duty- my father- a vet- my mother- a vet- the president of the PTA- a single- issue voter- a kids t-ball coach—- normal, decent, patriotic, religious, thoughtful, kind……you know, bitter clingers to casseroles, squirrel-hunting, fishing, church on sunday…people.
I couldn’t read the whole Black Book of Communism. It was literally nauseating. I still have nightmares about the pictures. That’s what she was working towards.An evil, twisted nightmare.
Citizenship in America- you vote. You can vote for a communist- why not? Bernie Saunders is in Congress. YOu have to persuade people to agree with you or your candidate. Killing people is a way of negating every voice but your own. it’s the opposite of citizen-ship. The constitution specifies that treason and sedition are capital offenses. She was trying to overthrow the finest government in the world. She should consider herself lucky that she is alive.
and-femininists don’t rob banks. they rob men, one at a time. in divorce courts and custody hearings. why mess with guns when you can hire a lawyer, or get one for free? and, they rob taxpayers, by insisting on welfare subsidies for single mothers. so my husband works to take care of himself, me, his children, and some woman who can put out, but won’t get married. Not a fan. Not a fan.
There are enough good organizations freeing innocent people from jail to worry about a violent jackass who didn’t know some other form of feminism was the true and all-knowing path. If we have to look at Judith Clark through Phyllis Chesler’s eyes to see why she should be free then there is no argument for freeing her.
Besides what will she do when she gets out? She will seek out every left wing organization there is because that is the only thing she will relate to after all those years behind bars. 10-1 that after she is released she will start saying what she did was wrong but she is “shocked” by all the injustice out there and can see why a younger version of herself did what she did.
Your basic premise is that the men made her do it. Which is total horseshit. Either women are strong and free, and thus responsible for their own choices, or they’re weak little creatures that cannot be responsible for anything, and require men to do their thinking for them. You can’t have it both ways.
Well, yes you can, that is their current status. Full Equality when it is convenient, special treatment when it is not.
Why feminists don’t rob banks?
Oh, that’s an easy one..
Because they have laws in place that rob men of their money, so they can sit down and do nothing but vote for more laws, to rob even more money from men.
The only difference is that one is a state sanctioned criminal, and the other is ‘just’ a criminal. Surprisingly enough, the one who is ‘just’ a criminal gets thrown in jail, while the state sanctioned criminal walks away scot-free, and is furthermore rewarded with somebody elses house, car, belongings and basic human righs i.e. his right to see his children.
Now, what did I win???
I see Kimski got there first.
Feminists don’t need to rob banks. They use the power of the state to rob men directly.
First wave, second wave, blah blah. Whatever wave, feminism is female empowerment, entirely dependent on male muscle.
It’s the oldest game in the world. Chivalrous men LOVE to give preferential treatment to women, especially if it means busting open other men’s heads.
Feminists have never NEEDED to get their own hands dirty. They have always had men to do that for them.
As for the assertion that second wave feminists never called for the murder of men – so what about Valerie Solanas, Andrea Dworkin, Mary Daly? Are those not some of the most prominent second wave feminists?
“The patriarchy is alive and well everywhere with double standards for all.”
Ahh … lies, lies, filthy lies!
I have heard it said that if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes truth.
But THIS particular lie, you went TOO FAR with!
Let’s consider some ACTUAL FACTS – those things feminists do not like very much!
Men are:
99.999% of American combat deaths and casualties (historically)
97%+ since the 1st Gulf War (DOD)
94% of industrial deaths and accident (NIOSH)
76% of homicide victims – DOJ
80% of Suicide victims – CDC
The overwhelming majority of rape victims (there are estimated to be over 300,000 male rapes per year in American prisons and jails)
Not granted custody in 84% of child custody cases
Leading in 12 of the 15 leading causes of death (and are tied in two more)
Average sentences for crime by gender:
Female – 18.51 months
Male – 51.52 months
Capital punishment targets men almost exclusively
Men are more than a third of the victims of domestic violence (26% of intimate partner homicides), yet are denied service at most tax payer funded domestic violence shelters.
Women make or influence over 85% of all purchasing decisions.
Women have the majority of wealth in America.
ALL of the above are taken from the following link, which includes full citations to peer-reviewed research: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mission-and-values/about/
We could also add that men have precisely ZERO reproductive rights!
So, Mzzz. Chesler, tell me again about “the patriarchy,” and who is truly disadvantaged! Yes, please carefully explain to me, taking into account the facts listed above, who is negatively affected by “double standards.”
By the way … have you been following the news about the Costa Concordia? It seems a lot of people are very upset that men did not allow WOMEN to get into the lifeboats first. Would that be another “double standard” of “the patriarchy,” hmm?
Answer me, girl! And no flip-flopping.
-And while you’re at it, please point me in the direction as to where I might be able to get a membership card to this alledged ‘Patriarchy Club’???
-I have lots of male friends that would like to become CEO’s, and get their hands on all the other perks, that feminists have been claiming goes along with it for decades.
Of course I know you would be unable to, and that is simply because it does not exist. It is another bogus ‘enemy’ claim set up by lesbian feminists like Andrea Dworkin and her ilk. The purpose of the feminist movement is to divide men and women and destroy the family in the process, which futhermore goes to show how much it has in common with the communist ideology and it’s goals. They haven’t really been able to come up with much original stuff themselves, and this is what goes for an education in most western universities, in gender study classes attended by mostly women. They learn how to hate men, and get a diploma in it. Expect more biased and man hating laws in the future, gentlemen, because ‘they still have a long way to go’, as they never forget to mention on every occasions they get.
The only reasons women have bought into this alledged ‘Patriarchy’ idea is because there are great monetary and judicial advantages in it for them, at the expense of basic human rights for men. They also seem to be going into auto pilot mode, whenever a woman serves them a big fat lie, because ‘women don’t lie to eachother, because we would know such a thing!’
Yeah, right! The evidence of this being another sick joke is overwhelming. I would probably make up a similar bogus ‘enemy’, if I were a lesbian feminist that did not want to compete with men over women, and you only have to look at the divorce stats to see how succesful they have been in this great deceit. Or take a good look at the world that surrounds you to see how big a lie it is, when they claim that men are the ones to blame for all the wrongs in the world.
When was the last time you saw a homeless woman in the streets, or a woman going to the gas chamber for killing her own kids, by the way???
I really wish women would ‘women-up’ and get over this feminist ideology, and start following the money to where the financial back-up to further this concept are coming from. You will all be really surprised, when you find out who is paying for the party and why, ladies. If you think it has anything to do with equality for women, you’re nothing but blind sheeps and useful idiots. Just ask yourself this simple question: Which demographic spends the most money and were not being taxed before the destruction of the nuclear family, and you’re well on the way to finding the answers.
“…Feminists Don’t Rob Banks”
What about the gals (and guys) of the Symbionese Liberation Army?
Weren’t they feminists?
Or, were they just helpless slaves of the Patriarchy? Forced into robbing banks by the mean old male masters.
“We of the Symbionese Federation and The S.L.A. define ourselves by this name because it states that we are no longer willing to allow the enemy of all our people and children to murder, oppress and exploit us nor define us by color and thereby maintain division among us, but rather have joined together under black and minority leadership in behalf of all our different races and people to build a better and new world for our children and people’s future. We are a United Front and Federated Coalition of members from the Asian, Black, Brown, Indian, White, Women, Grey and Gay Liberation Movements.”
“Who have all come to see and understand that only if we unite and build our new world and future, will there really be a future for our children and people. We of the People and not the ruling capitalist class, will build a new world and system. Where there is really freedom and a true meaning to justice and equality for all women and men of all races and people, and an end to the murder and oppression, exploitation of all people.”
They sure sound(ed) like feminists.
Dave Surls: “‘…Feminists Don’t Rob Banks…’ What about the gals (and guys) of the Symbionese Liberation Army? Weren’t they feminists?”
I think Phyllis Chesler has committed the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Addendum: Feminists at that time called those terrorists feminists. The terrorists called themselves feminists. The left in general accepted them as being feminists.
And by the way, I have know plenty of feminists who, while not themselves committing violence, enthusiastically supported the totalitarian mass-murderers like Mao and Castro and Lenin and Che.
A lesbian single mother is completely in thrall to patriarchy?!? Come again?
In a just society, she would have been tried and executed; in a civilized society, she would have been tried and executed; in a society which cared about its own self-preservation but which was neither just nor civilized, she would have been tried and executed.
In our Weimar society which exalts Ayer and Obama, I’m surprised she isn’t on W, OWN, and Lifetime promoting her self-congratulatory autobiography.
The world she and her compatriots wrecked was better than the world of her imagination and better than our own. Why shouldn’t she ask for clemency: she looks out from prison to see that communism she wanted has poisoned Amerikka, and she is satisfied. Why is she punished instead of rewarded? It’s so unfair.
Judith Clark should get out of jail when rape is decriminalized.
When will you advocate the release of the killer of “Tiller, the Baby Killer”?
I am all for self-defense, equal pay for equal work etc. I am against the systematic dismantling of the family, the cultural ostracism of wives and mothers and the assumption of a “reproductive right” to the convenience-killing of infants.
Feminists against pornography? Maybe a few. Most are loud in defense of the “sex industry.” Nonviolent? God bless the lady, she obviously was not alive in the Sixties. Or the seventies.
Like everyone else on the Left, the author seeks to rewrite history into a compulsory “politically correct” set of fantasies we will simply be big nasty-faces if we do not believe (or at least keep quiet about).
I do not know Judith Clark. Maybe she should be released. Maybe she should be canonized. I offer no opinion. I do, however, take issue with the author’s advocacy of the single most destructive movement in the history of our nation,
and the false premise from which she argues.
If you support bank robbers, march with bank robbers, co-opt the media to portray bank robbers as “victims” and spend hour after day after week after year in court to push for legalized bank robbery, you don’t get off the hook
by pointing out that you’ve never robbed a bank, yourself.
Was there a point in there somewhere? Didn’t this article start out arguing for some tangible outcome? Did Pajamas Media cut off the rest of this article by accident? The arguments you did make were either logically fallacious, historically inaccurate, or both. I did not see one citation to a reputable source, or any explanation to provide context.
Whatever the truth value of rest of your claims, you are from the cohort of feminism (of which there seems to be a glut) that are in desperate need of a remedial English course.
This “patriarchy” spectre that you raise is just a little TOO convenient if you ask me. Sounds kinda of like “the devil made me do it”. Is there ANY point where a feminist will take responsibility for her own actions?
Your cohort DID and DOES murder men. If it wasn’t for your punitive legislation,many fathers who were deprived of their children probably wouldn’t have committed suicide. Men are four times more likely to take their own lives, with the highest incidence of this happening directly after divorce. Coincidence? Maybe, but not likely. The laws your cohort agitated for drive men to suicide. In the case of Kevorkian, assisted suicide was determined to be murder,and these were people who desperately wanted to die. Your feminist cohorts murder men every day, they may not pull the trigger,but they don’t have to.
You talk about battered women killing their husbands. Mary Winkler shot her husband in the back with a shotgun as he slept. Even in the wild west where gunfights were common, everybody understood that if you shot a man in the back, you WEREN’T defending yourself. Those women MAY have been abused,none of us know for sure,but they sure as hell were not defending themselves by murdering a defenseless man in his sleep,I don’t care WHAT you’ve had the definitions of self-defense for women changed to say.Most of the famous cases that I’ve seen you feminists claim as so-called battered woman’s syndrome involve men being surprised by their wives with deadly weapons while they were sleeping or eating or some other innocuous activity. If you can plan to jump somebody with a steak knife, you can certainly plan to get the hell away from an abusive relationship WITHOUT murdering anyone.
i can no no better than tina trent’s comments on what is essentially disappearing the victims and their families out of misplaced mercy for the the guilty and merciless:
“The “lie” is that this article[NYTimes] is about Judith Clark’s alleged rehabilitation. In reality, the Times published this sleazy mythopoesis to advance a very specific yet entirely unmentioned goal: to advance a rules change regarding parole for murderers and other offenders serving long sentences — in other words, to make all those knitting classes and fake poetry degrees grounds for release if you helped kill cops — like the sainted Ms. Clark — or raped and killed women, like several other “reformed” poets and knitter-activists eagerly awaiting the rules change.”
“Tom Robbins and the NYTimes Lie About Judith Clark’s ‘Rehabilitation’
http://crimevictimsmediareport.com/?p=4792