Letters

Sacks is wrong, abuse isn’t a myth

This is in response to Glenn Sacks’ “Feminists
must adjust views on abuse” (Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Oct.
12). I do not consider myself a feminist, and although he was
attacking the “feminist myths about violence in
families,” I was still offended.

I was once in an abusive relationship. I was only 18 years old,
about 5-foot-3 and 110 pounds. My now-ex-boyfriend was about 5-10
and nearly 200 pounds of muscle. I would like to comment on the
first two “myths” that Sacks attacked: the first
stating that men are usually the aggressors, and second asserting
that women act in self-defense.

First of all, abusers are not just violent people, but are also
amazingly manipulative. They have a way of twisting the truth and
getting people to believe it. After all, they did manage to gain
the trust and love of their partner.

My ex was about half a foot taller than me and twice my weight,
but he would undoubtedly argue that I was the aggressor, not by
striking first, but by initiating his violence by doing something
to provoke him (i.e. talking to a male friend on the phone).

Strangely enough, when we were together, I would have probably
agreed that I had started the violence because of my behavior. If I
ever did physically attempt to hurt him, it was in an attempt to
protect myself from him, which leads me to the second
“myth:” that women who are violent are acting in
self-defense.

From his resources, Sacks concludes that this is not true. My ex
would agree with him, and on one occasion, he did have a scratch on
his arm. He received this scratch while picking me up by my hair,
after he had just shoved me so violently that my head slammed into
a wall. He would probably claim that I attacked him for no reason,
and he even told me that he would show the scratch to the police if
I ever attempted to call them.

Since our breakup, I have worked hard to put my life back
together. Most people do not understand what goes through the mind
of an abused person. I used to be one of those people who thought,
“She’s so stupid, why doesn’t she just
leave?” when I heard stories about abused women. Now I
understand that abuse is not just physical, but emotional, verbal
and mental abuse as well.

Again, abusers are manipulative and they brainwash you into
thinking that they are right and you are nothing. This in turn
leads to skewed data and inaccurate and false reports. I can
understand what Sacks was getting at, and I know that men are also
being abused, but the subject is too sensitive and emotional to
generalize. I don’t think that anyone without experience in a
domestically violent situation should write about the topic as if
they know what they are talking about.

Stacy Lee Third-year Political science

God, religion did bless our nation

In his submission “Did
God really shed his grace on us?”(Daily Bruin, Viewpoint,
Oct. 8) Greg Rubinson spends a great deal of time talking of
“humanity.”

Rubinson states, “Americans and everyone else in the world
should rally around our common humanity and our revulsion for the
destruction of human life.”

What I’d like to know is, if Rubinson has so much love for
humanity, then how can he blatantly try to destroy the
psychological belief that we are blessed?

I am an agnostic, but I recognize the need for meaning in
people’s lives. Many people are trying to make sense of this
tragedy that has left them broken. How dare he say to those
children who have lost parents to terrorism that they are being
arrogant in their love of God and country? This shows nothing but a
lack of compassion and revulsion for the humanity that has done
good, including raising healthy children, working, and donating,
all in the name of God.

Furthermore, Rubinson could not be more wrong regarding the true
meaning of separation of church and state. Many people are unaware
that the phrase “separation of church and state” does
not actually appear in our Constitution or Bill or Rights. The
First Amendment, regarding religion, simply states: “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The framers respected the beauty of faith and belief; else our
national motto would not be “In God We Trust.” There is
no denying that America was founded on morals that were derived
from the Christian religion. But the left wing religion-haters have
completely skewed this concept to mean “No church in
State.”

Rubinson also professes that we are told, “We are the
greatest country in the world,” and blindly believe it
because of “the conceit that God had a special plan in mind
for our country when it was founded.” I will say right now
that we are the greatest country in the world, and it is directly
because of a link with God.

Our Christian founders derived the concept of freedom, hard work
and personal responsibility for others from their religion. We are
great because of these morals. Free enterprise and infinite
opportunity for all, the hard working mentality of the American
people, and a rate of compassion and charity unparalleled by any
other society in history have brought us here. To say that America
is not special is nothing short of ignorant.

So even though I am agnostic, I will reiterate it: “God
Bless America, Land that I love.”

Joel Schwartz Third-year Psychology