I wanted to say something in response to the Terrible Case of Mary Winkler as debated by Women’s Space/The Margins in the two postings – ‘The terrorizing of Mary Winkler‘ and ‘Winkler Verdict: Voluntary Manslaughter‘
First off – for what Mary Winkler did, I think is between her and God and nobody else – and If You Don’t Believe In God (I haven’t forgotten you) then I don’t think it’s your business either. What has happened has happened. She was terrorized and she eventually killed her protagonist.
There are two types of retribution and another argument for sticking people in jail – there is corporal retribution (including at the high end the death penalty) and is imposed by the state as it’s right and then there is also monetary retribution (ie blood money, and there are some states which wave ‘their’ rights to prosecute on the grounds that the injured parties have extracted their own justice, or just been paid off) the other argument for sticking folk in a closed society (ie a prison) where they may also be ‘reformed’ is to protect others in not such a closed society from them, whilst in their cell, and hopefully once they are out by being reformed.
There is no way to bring Mary Winkler’s husband back and therefore any corporal retribution is pointless, she is very unlikely to kill again and therefore no need to keep her away from us filthy unwashed or ‘reform’ her character – she has been through more than any of us would cope with. Her in-laws are thinking very seriously about pursuing ‘blood money’ from her, which if successful could see the Mother of their Grandchildren in the debtors prison. And if you don’t have any money your ‘freedoms’ are worth little in a capitalist state.
However this is where I start to diverge from the debate on Women’s Space/The Margins and where they go heck for leather into blaming porn for the husband’s abusivness and saying that women should not wear such and such.
If they truly wish to support women they should support the argument that no matter what a woman wears or how much she drinks or what career she decides on that it does not make her any less than a person who should be respected compared to anybody else.
And quite frankly it seems likely that Mary’s husband was abused in some ways by his parents – which one or both together we don’t at this time have a clue. My mother has some strong friends and they had a couple of kids who turned out to be a bit of a bully in their own turn – they mimicked the manner of their father with the support and encouragement of their mother – try to uncoil that one… They thought that they were bringing up two fine specimens who’ll get on in life – and they did.
Frankly I don’t support the idea of a porn industry – I won’t buy the stuff but I wouldn’t stop it either, except where folk (of either gender) are being abused by the co. to do stuff against their will. On reading ‘The kingdom of fear’ by Hunter S. Thompson I was truly shocked at the $ the porn industry makes – not only because I don’t think it deserves that much but also because it shows just how many folk must get this stuff.
But I don’t think it ‘makes’ a rapist, an abuser or whatever by itself, it may allow folk to develop a calloused idea of the subject they look at and their gender, but it does not mean that by itself it creates these problems. I have two stories I wish to share which I think are relevant to this debate within terms of how folk become threats to others and in respect to the feminist critique.
I lived in Belfast for many a year and once someone came up to me and asked if I could have a word with somebody else because they were making disturbing comments… At the time I just thought, ‘ok, here we go’ and took an opportunity to talk to this personage on their own… we talked about the comments that were being generated head on and and why they were being generated. The person was shy and from south of the Northern Ireland Border and was nervous about how those folks in Belfast would treat themselves. Once we got through the ‘they’re no different’ (because as someone from England I was/am) and everybody just wants to get along… the interesting behaviour died down and everyone could go back to their comfortable normality… The point here is that what could’ve happened if their was no-one who took the time to just set the record straight? Virginia tech is a horrible example… [and I think somebody else would've done that with my friend if I hadn't stepped in then...]
The culture we live in does see ’strong folks’ as ’solid dependable folks’ and as such in very little need of setting right – but this is not true, anymore with the kids from my mother’s friends or with Mary Winkler’s husband – but when there are the parents supporting the behavioural aggression it becomes much harder to do so even if we try.
A few years ago I dated a women in Northern Ireland – she was a little older than me but I really did fall for her – despite the short space of time we had but once I told her how I felt she pulled the plug and did the run and hide routine, saying that for her it ‘was just a bit of fun, wasn’t it?’ Well, no it was a long way from that for me and it has left me with a deep wound which calloused my ideas about women which I am still trying to deal with – now I am in a nurturing relationship with a loving wife, whom I adore, I hope that it will eventually all be healed – it hasn’t made me abusive but my point is that it could have and porn nowhere in sight…
Porn does not equal abuse – it may well reinforce abusive conditioning, but I do not think it would be the be end and all of making an abuser. It may act as a trigger for someone who has a tendency towards such behaviour but it does not make everyone a victim or abuser.
Which leads to the question of clothes especially high heeled shoes… If someone thought they were sexy or sassy and wanted to go out looking a certain way – we may cringe but would it give anyone legitimate grounds for discriminating behaviour towards them either by saying that they are making victims of themselves as women or tv, or letting the side down. For there is one reason a woman may wish to wear high-heels and that is height.
Stick any two like chaps or chappesses next to each other and the taller one will be described as having qualities of character/desirability that the shorter one will not. And before we go anywhere else with this – the biggest single factor for how tall someone will grow is the amount of protein they receive before the age of seven. That is determined by the richness of the parents – it is a class/status distinction not a gender one. So for someone who wants those high-heels for an extra bit of height to go with her working suit is merely trying to get that bit more ‘authority’ those inches will give her over either her female colleagues or male colleagues. And before we get into a feminist critique here – the poor short arsed guy does not have this option, even though if asked if he’d like to be taller may say ‘yes.’
I understand that folk get angry at people being persecuted even though they’ve acted under great pressure but to then belittle others for a certain lifestyle which harms no-one is actually spreading abuse.
