she lied...
questions by cletus nelson / answers by jim goad
Reprinted and Expanded from an 1999 interview in PANIK magazine

Describe the final altercation with Anne R..

HER STORY: [According to transcripts of a taped conversation she had with police detectives four days after the incident]: We pull up to her building. I've been insulting her all the way from my building to hers. She calmly turns to me and says, "I'll tell the world about your domestic violence," which causes me to lose my temper, slugging her with a closed fist so hard that she collapses in the seat. A black guy walks up to the car and asks me if everything is OK. I say yes. After he leaves, I pull away from the building and bash in her brains. In all subsequent versions of her story, R. omits the part about the black guy.

And for SPIN magazine, she expanded her alleged "outing" threat to include my sexual history and class background.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: We pull up to her building. I've been insulting her the whole way from my building to hers. I finally say, "I'm going to get a girlfriend who isn't so fucking crazy - so just go." Instead of leaving, she screams "NO!" and lunges at my face, scratching my cheek. I restrain her arms, and as she tries kicking me, she says something to the effect of, "You'll never get rid of me! I'll write tons of shit about you! People'll [sic] be laughing at you - it'll be like Carrie!" We both see the black male approaching the car. She stops trying to hit me, and I let go of her arms. He asks us both if everything is OK. We both say yes. I watch him walk into her building.

As I'm turning back to face her, she punches me square in the nose. I again grab her arms. As we're struggling, I see in the rear-view mirror that I have scratches on my cheek and blood dripping from my nose. I pull away from the building and bash in her brains.

I'm only disputing how it all started, and I can prove that my version is the true one.

First off, if such a world-class loudmouth as Anne had been punched hard by me - so hard that she goes down in the seat - and someone came offering help, she would've screamed at the top of her lungs and exited the parked car. In her version, she's silent, allowing the chocolate-covered Good Samaritan to quietly walk away.

And if the black guy - or anyone - had witnessed a man punching a woman, he wouldn't have merely taken my word that everything was OK. What happened is that he saw us both struggling, wasn't sure what was going on, and took our word that we could handle the situation.

Second, as EYE readers should know from Debbie Goad's interview in issue #14 (published months before the final incident with Anne), my domestic violence was no big secret. Loudly, clearly, and to whomever cared to listen as well as many who didn't, Debbie had already made it a matter of public knowledge that I'd been violent with her, and I never tried to silence her or deny her allegations, as overblown and outright false as some of them were.

And as far as other "outing" threats go, only hours before the incident, Anne had left phone messages threatening to do "tons" of zines supposedly designed to shame me. On seven separate taped phone messages from that day, I told her that I'd welcome a zine war with her, so long as I could tell the world about her secrets, too.

Here are some excerpts from my taped messages to her from that day:

"Write all you fucking want... Go ahead and write whatever you want...

You don't have shit on me...

I will say some things in my defense if you come out talking shit (i.e., lying)...

If you want to go on alt.zines or wherever talking shit about me, I would fucking welcome it..."

In fact, we'd already planned to write about all our secrets in a collaborative zine called BLOW Me! - surely she'd remember projected articles called "To All the Girls I've Hit Before," "Reasons He Ain't No Redneck," and "I'm not a Nazi, I'm Gay." None of these so-called "secrets" bothered me, or I wouldn't have been writing about them. So her alleged motive for my violent rampage is totally implausible.

It's not surprising that denial about violence, discomfort about class background, and unease about sexual history are all much more a part of her personality than mine. She's the queen of guilt-projection.

Third, and most importantly: The physical evidence supports my version. My mug shot shows scratches all over my face, and the state crime lab found my blood mixed with R.'s in six samples - five in the car, and one on her clothes.

When I say our blood was "mixed," I don't mean that my blood was found in some samples and hers in others - I mean that our DNA was found mixed in the same samples, meaning that we were bleeding at the same time, the blood got mixed, and it dried at the same time. When I was booked, police noted no cuts or scratches on either hand during a routine check for signs of abusiveness - the blood which the crime lab found came from my face. R. has since alleged that my facial scratches, as well as blood caked in my nostrils, was all self-inflicted. But it would be impossible to mix blood samples with hers, especially on her clothes. The blood evidence conclusively proves that she's lying about what happened.

She lied when she told a 911 operator that I was "very big" - 6'1" - and had been jailed the previous weekend for beating her up. She knew that I'm only 5'11" - only two inches taller than her - and that I hadn't been jailed the previous weekend. The truth was that almost four weeks earlier, we'd both been jailed for an incident in which she smashed my car windshield with a shovel, bit me on the chest and shoulder, and falsely told police that I'd raped her after cops responded to a 911 call placed at my urging.

She lied when she told detectives she was unable to exit the car because I'd pressed the power-lock button, claiming that she "tried and tried" to open the door. The problem with this story is that the car was a 1998 Ford, and Ford hasn't made a car in 30 years that locks from the inside - even with power locks, exiting any Ford is easily accomplished merely by pulling the door handle.

She also lied to y'all at EYE [Cletus Nelson is a contributor] when she claimed that she was the one who was trying to end our relationship on 5/29/98. She has changed her story in order to protect her fragile female ego, fraught as it is with issues of severe abandonment. As late as October 1998, she was being truthful when she quoted me in SPIN as saying: "I'm taking you home. It's over."

It's amazing how time changes things.

Compare the following passages, and you'll see the extent to which Anne R. has twisted reality in order to reconstruct her shattered ego:

"...everything that you said was true, about me being more obsessed with you and loving you more..."
-Anne's phone message to me, 5/4/98

"...he was just as obsessed with me as I was with him."
-Anne's taped phone conversation with Sean Tejaratchi, 10/13/98

"...I'm violating the restraining order... I can't stay away from you..."
-Anne's phone message to me, 5/6/98

"After the restraining order... I would have gladly stayed away..."
-Anne's taped phone conversation Sean Tejaratchi, 10/13/98

"According to R., Goad woke up {on 5/6/98} and said, 'Get the fuck out of bed. I'm taking you home. It's over. I'm never seeing you again."
-Anne quoted as quoting me in SPIN magazine

"...on May 29th, in the morning, I turned to him and said, 'Jim, it's over. For good.' He kidnapped me..."
-Anne's taped phone conversation with Sean Tejaratchi, 10/13/98

It's interesting that she would be the one to raise the topic of self-inflicted wounds, because I was facing a 70-month sentence merely for a bite mark on her right wrist.

The problem is that none of the numerous hospital reports mention this bite mark.

None of the police reports do, either.

In a taped conversation with detectives four days after the incident, Anne makes no mention of a bite mark on her right wrist.

To my knowledge, this mystery bite mark only surfaced three months later when I was re-indicted and charged with it.


You have publicly expressed no remorse for your actions on the morning of May 29th. Why?

My outburst lasted ten minutes; her murderous ill will toward me has been calculated and prolonged, both before and after the incident. I see a huge distinction between having an explosive temper and having a protracted intent to destroy another person.

I'm only guilty of the former, while Anne's guilty of both.

Here are two of her many documented death threats to me:

"You will WILL be killed"
(e-mail, 4/98)

"Somebody's going to wind up dead, whether it's me or you. And don't think [laughs] that I won't find a way. Don't think, even for a second, that you can get away. And I wouldn't be very sloppy about it, believe me. If you hurt me bad enough, you will be fuckin' blown to fuckin' pieces. You will be assassinated.... I'm going to find out where you are and I'm going to blow your fuckin' brains to smitha-fuckin'-reens!... Your head - it's going to be out of this fucking universe. Your head's going to be blown to fucking shreds."
-(Voice mail message, 4/11/98)

These days she's claiming that her violent behavior was only a response to mine. But she also says that the violence between us didn't start until late October 1997, when I told Debbie about the affair.

Here are two phone threats which pre-date my alleged violence by more than a month:

"I want to fuckin' castrate you, I want to stab you a million times all over your fucking body... So, I hate your guts, and I'm going to kill you, and I don't care what happens to you or your fucking wife, and I hope you die."
(Voice mail message, 9/3/97, after I told her I'd had sex with Debbie)

"I hate your fucking guts and I want to rip you apart and destroy every fucking living cell in your body - I want to crush you and take tweezers and pull out your fucking nipples and cut you up into a million pieces and scratch out your eyes and I want to chop off your fucking head."
(Voice mail message, 9/21/97)

In the waning months of our relationship, she repeatedly mentioned that she either wanted to buy a gun or hire a hit man to kill me. On 5/28/98, about 16 hours before the incident which landed me in prison, she attacked me on a public bus and bit me hard enough to leave a permanent scar. This set off a voice-mail war between us. In her phone messages that day, as well as one Internet posting, she wished me dead 5 times. In all of my messages, despite how angry I was, I make no physical threats or references to her being dead. She will be unable to produce any evidence of me ever threatening her in any way.

Throughout the time that Anne and I were going together, Debbie's cancer and our divorce had made me savagely aware of my own mortality. I was so emotionally devastated, I wasn't sure I wanted to live. So when I hit Anne that morning, it was the emergence of a life instinct that I'd allowed her to chip away at for months. It wasn't self-defense in the sense that I was in immediate physical danger, even though she drew first blood - after all, I could've left the car and asked for help.

But on a deeper level, it was self-defense in that I was clearly showing her I wouldn't allow her to prey on my survival instinct anymore. I'm not exaggerating when I say I feel I'm alive today because of what I did. Sadly, the only reason I didn't leave Portland was that I wanted to take care of Debbie when she suffered her inevitable cancer relapse.

And I kept getting back with Anne for two reasons:

I didn't want her to kill me, and I didn't want her to kill herself.

As I stated on my restraining order against her:

"She has repeatedly threatened to kill me and/or herself when I broke up with her."

Anne has since stated that the fact I kept seeing her somehow proves I wasn't afraid of her, but she misunderstands something crucial: I was much more afraid of what would happen if I cut off contact completely than if I kept her around. It was a situation where I was keeping my friends close, but my enemies closer. I spent the last few months with Anne desperately trying to figure out ways to keep her out of jail and to keep myself alive. Deep down, I think Anne R. knows I wanted her out of my life, but I didn't want anybody to get hurt or killed, and that between Debbie's cancer and Anne's relentless threats of murder and suicide, I was trying to juggle all of this death as compassionately as I could.

People ask, "Well, why didn't you just get away from her?" with the sort of bluntness they'd never ask a woman in such a situation - women can claim to have been "battered" or suffer all sorts of "dependency syndromes" to excuse their inaction. In my case, I felt obligated to take care of Debbie when she got sick again, and that necessitated staying in Portland. And Anne knew where I lived and worked, and it wasn't so easy to just uproot myself and find new living quarters and employment.

Plus, I felt obligated to her in that I genuinely didn't want her to kill herself when I made the inevitable breakup - this is a girl whom I witnessed eat dog shit and drink cleaning fluid and who was institutionalized four times as a teen for suicide attempts, so I took those threats seriously.

So I was trapped (and ultimately fucked-over) by a sense of obligation to others rather than to myself, a mistake I'll never make again. Obviously, Debbie and Anne never felt as obligated to me as I did to them, so my "remorse" centers around wasting compassion on the unworthy. I should have just left town and let the nutty bitches fend for themselves.

Beyond all that, I've had my ass kicked several times in my life, a few times as bad or worse than she got it that morning, so I know what it feels like. For the most part, the suffering is over when the swelling goes down. But a week in jail - only a week - is worse than a week spent nursing one's battle wounds. I've been down for almost two years now, and this is a million times worse. If the punishment should fit the crime, I'd gladly have my face bashed in for ten minutes in a moving car - it wouldn't be the first time.

So on top of the punishment being far worse than the crime, I'm supposed to emotionally flog myself about it, too?

Nope. Ain't gonna do it.

If anything, this makes me savor the crime. My only regret is that I twice dropped complaints to police that she'd violated the restraining order, one of them only fifteen hours before our final fight. I was too merciful. If I was as vindictive as she is, she'd be the one in prison now. I see my situation as FATAL ATTRACTION, with Michael Douglas in prison and Glenn Close being viewed as a victim. If a man had shown such a consistent pattern of malice, violence, and stalking as Anne did, and a woman finally caved in his skull - or even killed him - she'd be considered a hero rather than a pariah.

But although it's grossly unfair, I'm not going to whine about it, for that would be playing into the sort of "victim mentality" that I find loathsome.


As your case was preparing to go to trial a few people commented that your writing had NOTHING to do with the severity of the sentence. Do you agree with this assessment?

Well again - opinions are one thing; proof that those opinions are wrong is another.

During my bail-reduction hearing, ANSWER Me! #4 was cited as a primary reason why I shouldn't be released before trial. The DA also planned to use passages from issues 2, 3, and 4 at trial. When I was first indicted, the DA was aware of what I'd written - after all, Anne R. gave copies of ANSWER Me! to detectives the first chance she got - but I don't think the DA knew my level of notoriety or how much publicity he could get by prosecuting me.

After a few months went by and the case began getting media attention and national magazines were contacting the DA for interviews, he went ahead and re-indicted me based on the same incident, increasing my potential sentence from 7ü years to over 25 years. One of the new charges in the re-indictment was a potential 70-month sentence for a bite mark on Anne's wrist.

Never mind that on 5/03/98, she left a bite mark on my chest which police said was the worst human bite mark they'd ever seen - she wasn't charged.

Or that on 5/28/98, about 16 hours before my crime, she bit me on the elbow, leaving a permanent scar - she wasn't charged.

And just ignore the fact that on both these occasions, there were multiple witnesses to her biting me, while in my case it was her word against mine - she wasn't charged.

And pay no attention to the fact that in November, 1997, she smashed a female rival in the skull with an ax handle while the girl's back was turned (legally, a more heinous crime than me punching her with my fist), and that several witnesses told detectives that she'd confessed to the crime, while in my case there was no confession - she wasn't charged, even though the victim had to receive stitches in her skull and tried to press charges.

And try not to ponder the fact that in the year we were together, a zinester named Brandon called police on Anne for stalking him and a woman name Jane called police on Anne for threatening her, and not only wasn't Anne charged, but police didn't even investigate.

How else to explain these discrepancies in the DA's charging decisions other than the fact that she's an unknown, while I'm the notoriously evil Jim Goad? Well, you can argue that this is Oregon and she's a woman, I suppose.

It's noteworthy that, with very few exceptions, the people in Portland who actually knew both Anne and I said the wrong person wound up in jail.

I object to this tendency toward binary thinking which dictates that I'm either an entirely innocent political prisoner or an evil gynophobe whose prosecution had nothing to do with his writing. As I see it, I did something which the law defines as a crime, but my prosecution was so aggressive and overwrought - I mean, c'mon, 25 YEARS' worth of charges? - that it was political in that it seemed I was being prosecuted as much for who I was as for what I did.

I am a political prisoner in the sense that domestic violence has been politicized and made a matter of public witch-hunting hysteria to the point where men are always seen as guilty, and women, no matter what they do or how violent they act, are consistently viewed as victims. Remember, this is a climate heavy with post-O.J. bloodlust. It's also a climate where Lorena Bobbitt cuts her husband's DICK off, and yet HE'S seen as the abusive one. I wonder if John Wayne Bobbitt would have gotten the same sympathy that Lorena did if he'd mutilated her vagina?

To settle this "political prisoner" question once and for all, it would be nice to be afforded the luxury of hooking my prosecutor up to a lie-detector test and asking him whether his prosecution of me was entirely unmotivated by what I'd written or by how much publicity he could get for his career by prosecuting me.


Having been accused (and convicted) of committing acts of violence against a woman - currently, what are your views on this politically sensitive topic?

As with those who oppose racism and fancy themselves to be cutting-edge, coming out against domestic violence isn't quite a bold, career-threatening move these days.

But in my writing, I try to focus on things which seem obvious to me, but about which society is rampagingly hypocritical.

The Redneck Manifesto is a good example of what I mean - the very people who were painfully sensitive regarding ethnic stereotyping were gleefully indulging in the vilest stereotypes about so-called "white trash," even though it could be proven that white trash were a disadvantaged group as measured by most indices of oppression. In Shit Magnet, I intend to write about similar hypocrisy regarding domestic violence.

The biggest misconception is that men hit women, and that's all there is to the story.

But research paints a much different picture:

* In June, 1994, USA Today featured an article citing 12 sociological studies, all of them conducted independently of one another. In each of these studies, researchers interviewed married couples about who hit whom. And every one of the studies concluded that women hit men more often than men hit women.

* A November/December '99 issue of Psychology Today cited three different studies - two of them concluded that women hit men more frequently than the inverse, and one said that the rates were about the same.

* And a recent issue of Mother Jones cited a study, conducted by a female psychology professor, in which 860 men and women were interviewed about domestic violence in their lives. This was the study's conclusion: "A surprising fact has turned up in the grisly world of domestic violence: Women report using violence in their relationships more often than men."

* In her book When She Was Bad, Patricia Pearson cites a 1985 study conducted by "highly respected family violence scholars" Murray Straus and Richard Gelles in which "several thousand households" were surveyed; the results, according to Pearson, were that "...women initiated the aggression as often as men. About a quarter of the relationships had an exclusively violent male, another quarter had an exclusively violent female, and the rest were mutually aggressive."

Pearson, whose book is an excellent exposé of female violence and the ways in which our culture denies it, writes: "On the whole, men do indeed have a more powerful left hook. The problem is that the dynamic of domestic violence is not analogous to two differently weighed boxers in a ring. There are relational strategies and psychological issues at work in an intimate relationship that negate the fact of physical strength. At the heart of the matter lies human will. Which partner - by dint of temperament, personality, life history - has the will to harm the other? By now it should be clear that such a will is not the exclusive province of men... Donning the feminine mask, {women} can manipulate the biases of family and community... in order to set men up. If he tries to leave, or fight back, a fateful moment comes when she reaches for the phone, dials 911, and has him arrested on the strength of her word: "Officer, he hit me"... With mounting pressure on north american police forces to disavow misogynistic attitudes and take the word of a woman over a man, female psychopaths and other hard-core female abusers have an extremely effective means to up the ante and win the game."

When domestic violence was "outed," only one gender came out of the closet. America isn't in denial about male violence toward women - Jesus Christ, every other TV movie features some stubbly ogre walloping his bitch for not folding the towels properly. But I believe that female violence toward men is pervasive, although largely denied. Or if it isn't denied, it's excused. As a friend of mine observed - "when a man insults or hits a woman, it's 'abuse'; when a woman insults or hits a man, it's Ďassertiveness.'" Women who hate - or attack - men can always blame it on some past abuse, while men do these things to women because men are subhuman incubi. Men do bad things because they're "evil"; women do the same things because they have "emotional problems."

In the current scheme of things, a man can "deserve" being hit merely for something he said, while a woman never "deserves" being hit, even if she hit you first. Pay close attention to TV or the movies, and it's astonishing how often you'll see women hitting men, with blunt objects as well as their hands, and it's invariably justified because the guy was acting like a "jerk." Anne and I had a very violent relationship.

In the year we were together, she attacked me numerous times. Here are some of her admissions to being physically combative with me:

"I wanted to hit him! It feels good! He deserves it!"
(Quoted in a police report of 5/03/98)

Sean Tejaratchi: "Every time you attacked him, you tried to do damage but you weren't able to."
Anne: "Same with him on me! Same with him on me!"
(From a taped phone conversation w/ST, 8/98)

"And just like I said on the bus, I kinda woke up and just punched you in the face about ten times because you deserved it, you fucking prick."
(Voice mail message of 5/28/98, left about 13 hours before the incident which landed me in prison)

"Let's give him everything that he saysáthat I hit him every time..."
(Anne quoted in SPIN magazine, 1/99)

The only times that there were witnesses to the violence between us- 5/03/98 outside my apartment and 5/28/98 on a public bus - those eyewitnesses described her as the aggressor.

There were two "witnesses" who called 911 on the morning of 5/29/98, but neither of them claimed to see direct violence - one only heard something outside his apartment building, and the other one saw a car speeding by but says she didn't even see the woman.

Even Anne's mom told an investigator after the relationship ended:

"This isn't the poor little battered woman. Anne was giving as good as she was getting."

So she certainly didn't fail for lack of trying. In essence, I'm being punished for being better at violence than she was.

Still, Anne has tried to argue that my size advantage - only 2 inches in height and about 25 or 30 pounds - means I shouldn't have struck back.

But what would you do if someone was clawing at your eyes and biting you?

Those weren't girly-slaps; by her own admission, she was trying to do damage. It's funny—most people will allow that blacks are physically stronger than whites, but you don't hear anyone saying that blacks shouldn't hit back if a white person assaults them.

Look at it this way: If over the course of a year, I'd physically assaulted Shaquille O'Neal 14 or 15 times, and Shaq finally hauls off and brains me, wouldn't you think I had it coming, despite his tremendous size advantage?

Sure you would.

So what's different in Anne's case? Only her gender.

You should never hit a woman under any circumstance, runs the popular wisdom. Women bristle at being called the weaker sex unless they can work it to their legal advantage. But if you're truly concerned about equality and looking beyond gender, women should be held accountable for the identical behavior which they'd condemn in a man.

As it stands, women hit men because they can get away with it. For all the nonsense we hear about how this culture is supposedly a "patriarchy" and that women are "second-class citizens," the truth is that a woman's pain always carries more weight than a man's. Men are much more expendable, which is why they go to prison and to war. It may also have something to do with why, on average, their lives are nearly a decade shorter than those in the "oppressed" gender.

Yeah, they'll say that men make more money, but who works for the money and who winds up spending it? I'm in favor of equal standards, but the law treats men much more severely than it does women. Studies have concluded that when men and women are convicted of the same crimes, men are much likelier to go to prison for them. Men comprise 94% of incarcerated Americans, yet few would be so bold as to assert that they're committing 94% of the crimes.

Our culture's naive illusion of female sanctity and moral irreproachability allows women to get away with behavior which would get any guy's ass kicked, even if the guy in question is a 90-pound weakling.

Does anyone get remotely as upset over the fact that I've hit a LOT more guys in my life than I have women? Would anyone care if some of these guys were possibly smaller and weaker than Anne? Fuck no, because it has very little to do with relative physical strength and everything to do with this idea of innate female preciousness. Women hold an exalted place in our culture that goes far beyond any notion of physical frailty.

But as I see it, girls who want to act like boys, meaning they want to threaten and attack others, should expect to be treated like boys and not be allowed the privilege of running behind their vaginas when someone strikes back.

In our nearly 12 years together, Debbie never hit me, although I hit her about 10 times. And these weren't "beatings" in the sense that I didn't strike her more than once during any given incident, certainly not like I thrashed Anne R. on the morning of 5/29/98. My relationship with Debbie is nothing I'm particularly proud of, nor something I'm trying to excuse. The last time I hit Debbie was in October, 1995.

But when we got divorced in late 1997, she got a restraining order claiming I was hitting her daily in 1997 while she had cancer. She later admitted to friends, investigators, and reporters that this was a lie she told because she was mad I had cheated on her. But this lie was another reason that the DA piled such severe charges on me.

I don't pretend to be an ethics professor, but if you want to say that men should never hit women, I'll accept that premise for the purposes of argument. But by the same token, neither should women hit men. And neither should women exaggerate and fabricate instances of domestic violence merely because they're romantically vengeful and public sympathy is so heavily weighted in their favor.

Yes, I did things to Anne and Debbie that the state considers crimes, but so did they - providing false information to authorities is a crime. Debbie lied on her restraining order; Anne falsely accused me of rape only four weeks before our final blowout.

And since it happened to me, I'm certain it's happening to lots of other men.

Many of the stories I've heard while incarcerated, from guards and lawyers as well as inmates, make my case, as extreme as it is, seem relatively benign. I've heard dozens of situations recited to me so extemporaneously that I tend to believe the majority of these accounts are genuine, wherein a woman will not only have thrown the first blow, but she'll have stabbed the man or smashed his skull with a frying pan or ghetto blaster or some other blunt object, and sometimes it'll have taken as little as a retaliatory shove - or sometimes no retaliation at all, merely an attempt to leave the house while she wants to keep arguing - for her to make a hysterical 911 call and get him imprisoned.

And repeatedly the police and prosecutors will have responded to his stab wounds or other injuries with absolute indifference, even if his injuries exceeded hers, assuming she even had injuries. And what's also startlingly consistent about all these accounts is that, even though the woman may own up to all the damage she caused, she winds up feeling like the one who's been abused, no matter how slight or even nonexistent her own injuries may have been.

I think one of the main reasons for this, besides what seems like an inborn female sense of masochism and victimization at any cost, is that the legal system encourages women to feel abused.

The "justice" system's main business isn't truth, it's getting sympathy with a jury, and women get much more sympathy than men do. The legal system, blind to female malice and violence, is now allowing vengeful ex-girlfriends and ex-wives to go wild with vaginal vindictiveness (and vindictiveness is essentially a female trait - I know of no males who are remotely as vengeful) through the avenue of false or exaggerated charges of sexual or physical abuse.

Think about it: During a breakup, it's usually the girl, and hardly ever the guy, who goes on an aggressive smear campaign.

During a divorce, it's usually the mother who tries to turn her children against their father.

Since there's such hysteria surrounding the topic of domestic abuse, a woman merely needs to make the accusation to be believed, and a male who denies it will look like a liar, regardless of his guilt or innocence. Whenever there's intense public outrage concerning any given subject, it naturally opens the leeways for tons of false accusations and overwrought calls for punishment and demonization.

In the 1950s, it was communism. In the 1960s, it was drug abuse. In the 1980s, it was satanic ritual abuse. Now it's gender crimes and sex crimes such as rape, child molestation, and domestic violence. This isn't to say that communism, drugs, and even ritual abuse never hurt anyone - at last count, the communists stacked up over 100 million bodies, certainly a heavier toll than wife-beating - but the phenomenon of witch-hunting satisfies a distinct psychological need for a certain type of sheep which has very little to do with the problem they're ostensibly trying to solve and everything to do with their own need to project guilt and "evil" onto others and thereby purge some of their own self-loathing and feelings of inadequacy.

And if they can do this while hiding within a crowd of similarly inclined sheep, so much more are their feelings of radiant inner goodness magnified. Joining a witch hunt is always done in the name of a "good" cause, yet it satisfies a much darker urge to condemn and punish, made all the more dangerous because it cloaks itself in goodness. I'm always amused to behold these P.C. sheep who condemn the intolerance of Christian witch hunts or racist lynch mobs or anticommunist "McCarthyism" and who then spin around and engage in similar herd-mentality sadism when one of their own sacred cows, like the laughable idea of female innocence, is challenged.

Unlike some of my fiercest detractors, I make no cowardly attempts to hide my innate meanness behind ideas of goodness or morality.

Yet in my experience, I've found that the do-gooders are the ones you need to watch most closely. I can proudly say that I've never joined a witch hunt in my life and I'm not about to start, which means I usually wind up playing the role of witch by default.

I always manage to have my middle finger up the ass of public hysteria, so it's natural that I'd be scapegoated in the midst of all this Goddess nuttiness. But once the anti-domestic-violence industry - and believe me, it is an industry, because a lot of prosecutors and victim's advocates have a financial stake in the perpetuation of a problem they pretend to be eradicating - once that industry becomes subject to the same widely publicized allegations of corruption which hobbled the anticommunism, anti-drug, and anti-satanic-abuse industries, it'll crumble of its own weight, and I'll wind up looking like a visionary rather than a caveman.

And before I achieve visionary status, here's something that I'd like people to ponder. It's probably safe to assume that most male abusers were primarily raised by women, so what exactly is the correlation between becoming a male abuser and being raised by a cold, insensitive mother? I'd wager that the correlation is a strong one.

My mother used to laugh in my face while I cried. With Debbie, I remember feeling enraged to the point of violence because she displayed a near-autistic insensitivity to my emotional state. With Anne, it was a different story-I got violent because I'm extremely sensitive to being physically assaulted, seeing as how I used to be a punching bag for my parents.

But I feel that people will never understand this phenomenon until they're willing to search for its emotional root causes, instead of concluding that certain men just wake up one day and decide to be Satan.

But doing this will necessitate that women get rid of their imaginary halos, which will be difficult, since there's a lot of power in the presumption of one's innocence.


This is a hackneyed question, but what do you miss most while in jail?

My Chihuahua, although I don't miss the girl who ate his poop.