The XX Factor: What women really think.

Annie Le's Murder Defies Preconceptions

A post from guest blogger Amanda Marcotte:

If the police are right, and Ray Clark killed Annie Le over a power struggle in their shared lab, then that means that the narrative that the media initially plugged this story into doesn't quite fit the circumstances. A pretty, petite woman about to be married who disappears? We're all conditioned to think of sex crimes, instead of workplace violence. That said, it's not completely accurate to assume that because this act of violence began as a power struggle at work doesn't mean that gender doesn't play a role in it ... (Read more in DoubleX.)

Department of Feminist Outrage: Women, Dogs, and Michael Vick

Michael Vick trotted back onto the preseason field for the Philadelphia Eagles last night to a partial standing ovation in his first game since he got out of federal prison after serving a 19-month sentence for his infamous dogfighting crimes. The NFL is handling Vick's return gingerly, though, giving him game-by-game conditional approval to play rather than reinstating him for the regular season. What bothers me is the contrast between the care the NFL is taking about Vick because he hurt dogs compared to its relative indifference when football players commit crimes against women ... (Read more in DoubleX.)

Will Chris Brown's Apology Stick?

Chris Brown has a thing or two to teach Mark Sanford and John Ensign about how to say you're sorry. In his taped apology to Rihanna, for punching her in February, the singer sounds forthright and sincere. He's straightforward and direct. He invokes his mother, more than once. He says he's getting help and he promises not to do it again. All the boxes checked, including remorse.

It's Not Acceptable to Treat a Woman Like a What?

The eternally awesomely grouchy Copyranter points to a provocative ad campaign from the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The pair of arresting images features a "woman" as a) a punching bag and b) a slab of meathook-hung carrion. The accompanying copy reads: "IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE TO TREAT A WOMAN LIKE ONE." Copyranter wonders: "Like what? A woman?"

The ads are akin to PETA's shock-happy petsploitation ads... (To read the rest of this post, visit our new website DoubleX.com!)

Out, Damn'd Spot

As part of an anti-domestic violence campaign in Portugal created by Amnesty International, liquid soap in bar and nightclub men's bathroom wall dispensers was replaced with a red soap that looked a lot like blood. The shock tactic was accompanied by a sticker warning that those who do not speak out against domestic violence are partners to the crime. "WASH YOUR HANDS OF IT," the copy howls. Purportedly, those who encountered the substance that resembled blood in color and consistency were hit with "a sense of shock and revulsion." While the campaign's creators claim "the initiative helped increase the level of empathy with the cause," how they came to that conclusion after freaking out drunk guys in Lisbon toilets, it doesn't specify.

Chris Brown Deserves a Break? Give Me a Break.

What's distressing is that so many young women have been voicing sympathetic accolades for Brown and disdain for Rhianna and saying that she probably did something to provoke (read deserve) Brown's anger. Check out any of the many blogs or entertainment news Web sites covering the "Chrianna" imbroglio and you'll see pages and pages of criticism directed at Rhianna from young women who are certain—even without any verifiable proof—that Brown's actions were little more than a momentary lapse in judgment. Anyone who saw the pictures of Rhinanna's bruised and battered face and lips could see that she was the victim of more than a simple errant slap.  

Brown has spoken openly about growing up in an abusive home where his stepfather regularly and brutally beat him and his mother. The violent pattern exhibited by men who grew up in violent homes is well documented, so why should we expect Chris Brown to be any different—or any more worthy of our sympathy?

All these young women defending him are being swayed by silly infatuation with a teenage heartthrob. Brown's star power, his winning smile, his cute baby face, his silky voice, and playfully sexy music videos all make for a very appealing combination. However, those qualities do not negate his other less appealing, and possibly dangerous, side. If there is a silver lining in this overcovered story it is that more young people are talking about physical abuse in relationships, and that Chris Brown will be forced to examine his actions and hopefully get some help to break the pattern of violence that he grew up with and learn to speak from the heart instead of with his fists.   

"Not That Serious an Offense"

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard a case about the reach of the Federal Gun Control Act and whether it includes someone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. The case was less about the Second Amendment than how to read a badly drafted 1996 law that tried to take guns out of the hands of domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence as opposed to violent felonies. Courtesy of the LA Times' David Savage, here’s a report of oral argument, which evidently went poorly for the proponents of disarming wife beaters. Of note in the transcript is the following exchange between Justice Antonin Scalia and Nicole Saharsky, the Justice Department lawyer arguing for the stricter interpretation of the law.

JUSTICE SCALIA: And this was misdemeanor assault and battery, wasn't it?
MS. SAHARSKY: Yes, that's right. I mean, I really—

JUSTICE SCALIA: So it's not that serious an offense. That's why we call it a misdemeanor.
MS. SAHARSKY: Well, I mean, certainly the offense is this particular case was serious. The charging document reflects that Respondent hit his wife all around the face until it swelled out, kicked her all around her body, kicked here in the ribs—

JUSTICE SCALIA: Then he should have been charged with a felony, but he wasn't. He was charged with a misdemeanor.

Who Gets Custody More Often, Mothers or Fathers?

Well, Meghan, I didn't mean to bludgeon you about Clark What's-His-Name. Meanwhile, I'm still mucking around trying to find out who gets custody more often. I've got queries out to some researchers and will post here when I get answers. Until then, here's a commentary published by Sandra Kobrin in Women's eNews last year. She has the same impression that I have: that in the 1950s and 1960s, women almost automatically got custody, but now—when custody is contested—the pendulum has swung the other way. She mentions studies that show that, especially if the mothers were battered, fathers get custody and quotes researchers who believe that's true not just when mothers were battered. She says, for instance, that a 2004 Williamsburg, Va., American Judges Association study shows that battered women lose contested custody cases 70 percent of the time. I will look for the study. Her point is that most state legislation requires judges to favor joint custody arrangements; when that's not possible, judges are instructed to favor the parent who is most "friendly" to joint custody. That obviously puts a battered woman in a bad spot: If she seems desperate to keep her kids away from a batterer or abuser, she's going to be perceived as pretty durn unfriendly to joint custody.

I don't know how this holds up beyond domestic violence situations. More stats when I find them.