She's very well known in academic circles here and very well respected. My mom saw her lecture back in the 90's. But she remembered a question she asked Ms. Laviolette that I think is telling. My mom asked her if she has ever seen a male victim of domestic violence. ALV said its rare and my mom went on to describe a male client of hers who had been severely abused.
The very fact that my little, feminist, liberal mother asked that question and brought up that client tells me something. I do believe this lady is a radical second wave feminist and I think that has caused her to be biased when it comes to male and female roles and who victims are and who perps can be. It's called confirmation bias.
Laviolette represents an important past in feminist history and academia. I think radical feminists were necessary to get things like the equal pay act of 1963. But I think we have moved past patriarchy as the sole framework for any issue and ALV has been left behind.
I think this case could become as pivotal as the burning bed case but this time, instead of highlighting the serious issue of battered women, it will highlight the serious issue of men who are stalked and murdered by female Intimate partners.
ALV unfortunately, is going to be on the wrong side of history when it comes to this. She may sense that and thus she's bucking her role with extreme defensiveness and a refusal to be objective.
But people who attack her, threaten her and unfairly smear her past work will only delay her possible acceptance of the possibility that she may be wrong here. All that will do is make her more entrenched in the idea that our patriarchal society conspires to prevent victims like jodi from surviving or standing up to their abusers. Gag. But that's what all the rage is doing.
