Gynocentrism Sucks
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Kaja Perina
Editor-in-Chief
Psychology Today
115 E. 23rd St., 9th Floor
New York, NY 10010
212-260-7210
Dear Ms. Perina & Psychology Today:
In the shockingly irresponsible article "Sweet Revenge" (Psychology Today, January/February 2010), Regina Barreca, Ph.D. praises convicted Texas killer Clara Harris for her "great moment of revenge." The act for which Barreca praises Harris? In 2002, Harris repeatedly ran over her ex-husband David, as David's daughter Lindsey sat in the front seat of the car begging Clara Harris not to kill her father.
While Barreca praises Clara Harris, Lindsey, who loved her father and was only 16 years old at the time of the killing, publicly denounced Clara Harris for "the ultimate act of selfishness, caring only about obtaining revenge and thinking not one bit about how her horrible act was going to affect me or my brothers, Brian and Bradley. Anyone who shared my ride in the car that evening, seeing my dad's face as he was about to be hit, and experiencing the horrible feel of the car bumping over his body would understand that this murderess deserves no sympathy."
Lindsey says that Clara mistreated and neglected David, and that her father often confided in her how lonely he felt. Coupled with Clara's temper and evident capacity for violence, David had ample reason to want to get out of the relationship. Instead of letting him go, Clara killed him. Does Psychology Today feel this is praiseworthy?
Besides condoning violence, Barreca's article also reeks of gender bias. The vast majority of divorces are initiated by women, not by men, and research shows that women's decision to divorce often catches their husbands by surprise. These men don't just lose their wives, they often lose their children, too, and their rationale for feeling betrayed is often far more legitimate than Clara Harris'. Does Barreca also feel it would be "great revenge" for these men to murder their wives?
No type of marital or post-marital violence should ever be condoned, much less praised, and Psychology Today should immediately and clearly distance themselves from Barreca's reprehensible statements.
Sincerely,
Glenn Sacks, MA
Executive Director, Fathers & Families
Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Founder, Chairman of the Board, Fathers & Families
Kaja Perina
Editor-in-Chief
Psychology Today
115 E. 23rd St., 9th Floor
New York, NY 10010
212-260-7210
Dear Ms. Perina & Psychology Today:
In the shockingly irresponsible article "Sweet Revenge" (Psychology Today, January/February 2010), Regina Barreca, Ph.D. praises convicted Texas killer Clara Harris for her "great moment of revenge." The act for which Barreca praises Harris? In 2002, Harris repeatedly ran over her ex-husband David, as David's daughter Lindsey sat in the front seat of the car begging Clara Harris not to kill her father.
While Barreca praises Clara Harris, Lindsey, who loved her father and was only 16 years old at the time of the killing, publicly denounced Clara Harris for "the ultimate act of selfishness, caring only about obtaining revenge and thinking not one bit about how her horrible act was going to affect me or my brothers, Brian and Bradley. Anyone who shared my ride in the car that evening, seeing my dad's face as he was about to be hit, and experiencing the horrible feel of the car bumping over his body would understand that this murderess deserves no sympathy."
Lindsey says that Clara mistreated and neglected David, and that her father often confided in her how lonely he felt. Coupled with Clara's temper and evident capacity for violence, David had ample reason to want to get out of the relationship. Instead of letting him go, Clara killed him. Does Psychology Today feel this is praiseworthy?
Besides condoning violence, Barreca's article also reeks of gender bias. The vast majority of divorces are initiated by women, not by men, and research shows that women's decision to divorce often catches their husbands by surprise. These men don't just lose their wives, they often lose their children, too, and their rationale for feeling betrayed is often far more legitimate than Clara Harris'. Does Barreca also feel it would be "great revenge" for these men to murder their wives?
No type of marital or post-marital violence should ever be condoned, much less praised, and Psychology Today should immediately and clearly distance themselves from Barreca's reprehensible statements.
Sincerely,
Glenn Sacks, MA
Executive Director, Fathers & Families
Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Founder, Chairman of the Board, Fathers & Families
Even before Democratic Senate Candidate Martha Coakley was defeated by the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, political commentators were offering explanations for her loss of popularity, ranging from a bungled campaign to the idea that the Massachusetts election was a national referendum on health care reform or the Obama agenda. One explanation that deserves more attention was recently put forward by Carey Roberts at ifeminist.net. In "Prosecution of Innocent Man Seals Martha Coakley's Defeat" (http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.665), Roberts argues that Coakley's role in keeping Gerald Amirault in prison played a major role in the election of Scott Brown.
In the early 1980s, as explained in a story by Dorothy Rabinowitz that ran in the Wall Street Journal five days before the election (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html), Gerald Amirault had been accused of plunging "a wide-blade butcher knife into the rectum of a 4-year-old boy, which he then had trouble removing. When a teacher in the school saw him in action with the knife, she asked him what he was doing, and then told him not to do it again, a child said. On this testimony, Gerald was convicted of a rape which had, miraculously, left no mark or other injury." In 2001, when the Massachusetts Board of Pardons voted 5-0 to release him, Coakley, then District Attorney Coakley, successfully pushed for the Governor to deny commutation, which she did in 2002. Amirault spent two more years in prison before finally being paroled.
According to RADAR spokesman David Heleniak, an exciting aspect of the public's negative reaction to Coakley's handling of the Amirault case is that it seems to represent a coming together of the right and left on the issue of civil liberties...
"On both sides of the political spectrum," says Heleniak, "there's outrage at the treatment Amirault received. And there's an increasing awareness, after Nifong, that prosecutors are not necessarily the impartial champions of justice they claim to be."
Even before Democratic Senate Candidate Martha Coakley was defeated by the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, political commentators were offering explanations for her loss of popularity, ranging from a bungled campaign to the idea that the Massachusetts election was a national referendum on health care reform or the Obama agenda. One explanation that deserves more attention was recently put forward by Carey Roberts at ifeminist.net. In "Prosecution of Innocent Man Seals Martha Coakley's Defeat" (http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.665), Roberts argues that Coakley's role in keeping Gerald Amirault in prison played a major role in the election of Scott Brown.
In the early 1980s, as explained in a story by Dorothy Rabinowitz that ran in the Wall Street Journal five days before the election (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html), Gerald Amirault had been accused of plunging "a wide-blade butcher knife into the rectum of a 4-year-old boy, which he then had trouble removing. When a teacher in the school saw him in action with the knife, she asked him what he was doing, and then told him not to do it again, a child said. On this testimony, Gerald was convicted of a rape which had, miraculously, left no mark or other injury." In 2001, when the Massachusetts Board of Pardons voted 5-0 to release him, Coakley, then District Attorney Coakley, successfully pushed for the Governor to deny commutation, which she did in 2002. Amirault spent two more years in prison before finally being paroled.
According to RADAR spokesman David Heleniak, an exciting aspect of the public's negative reaction to Coakley's handling of the Amirault case is that it seems to represent a coming together of the right and left on the issue of civil liberties...
"On both sides of the political spectrum," says Heleniak, "there's outrage at the treatment Amirault received. And there's an increasing awareness, after Nifong, that prosecutors are not necessarily the impartial champions of justice they claim to be."
"The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions."
"By this memorandum, I assign to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (Director) the responsibility for ensuring the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch's involvement with scientific and technological processes."
"The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions."
"By this memorandum, I assign to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (Director) the responsibility for ensuring the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch's involvement with scientific and technological processes."
"More than a quarter-century ago, British feminist philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards wrote, 'No feminist whose concern for women stems from a concern for justice in general can ever legitimately allow her only interest to be the advantage of women.' Joyce's article is a stark example of feminism as exclusive concern with women and their perceived advantage, rather than justice or truth."
"The characterization of Straus as someone who has written extensively on female violence is like characterizing Susan B. Anthony as someone who wrote extensively on temperance – true but misleading because of what it leaves out. Straus has devoted his professional career to the study of all forms of family violence – parent-to-child, child-to-parent, sibling-to-sibling, as well as partner violence in all its configurations – male-to-female, female-to-male, and mutual. He has never focused exclusively on female violence."
"The articles discuss various aspects and actors in the (men's and fathers) movement, and also quote and misquote me. ... I specifically, repeatedly, and emphatically told Joyce that any linkage between the men's & fathers' movements' grievances and Sodini is not my view, but I guess she was determined to jam it in there anyway."
"More than a quarter-century ago, British feminist philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards wrote, 'No feminist whose concern for women stems from a concern for justice in general can ever legitimately allow her only interest to be the advantage of women.' Joyce's article is a stark example of feminism as exclusive concern with women and their perceived advantage, rather than justice or truth."
"The characterization of Straus as someone who has written extensively on female violence is like characterizing Susan B. Anthony as someone who wrote extensively on temperance – true but misleading because of what it leaves out. Straus has devoted his professional career to the study of all forms of family violence – parent-to-child, child-to-parent, sibling-to-sibling, as well as partner violence in all its configurations – male-to-female, female-to-male, and mutual. He has never focused exclusively on female violence."
"The articles discuss various aspects and actors in the (men's and fathers) movement, and also quote and misquote me. ... I specifically, repeatedly, and emphatically told Joyce that any linkage between the men's & fathers' movements' grievances and Sodini is not my view, but I guess she was determined to jam it in there anyway."
| Senate Judiciary Committee | Chairman | Ranking Minority Leader |
| Name | Patrick Leahy (D-VT) | Jeff Sessions (R-AL) |
| Telephone | 202-224-4242 | 202-224-4124 |
| Fax | 202-224-3479 | 202-224-3149 |
| Contact Webform | http://leahy.senate.gov/contact.cfm | http://sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=ConstituentServices.ContactMe |
| Senate Judiciary Committee | Chairman | Ranking Minority Leader |
| Name | Patrick Leahy (D-VT) | Jeff Sessions (R-AL) |
| Telephone | 202-224-4242 | 202-224-4124 |
| Fax | 202-224-3479 | 202-224-3149 |
| Contact Webform | http://leahy.senate.gov/contact.cfm | http://sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=ConstituentServices.ContactMe |