News & Politics
Tiger's Best Reason To Lie
If he admits she hit him, she could end up in jail, whether he likes it or not.
In his defensive half-apology yesterday, Tiger Woods went out of his way to turn his wife, Elin Nordegren, into the heroine of his latest adventure. The "rumors" that she scratched up his face and smashed the rear window of his Escalade were "malicious" and "false," he said. In fact, she "acted courageously when she saw I was hurt." Should we believe him?
News reports have mentioned the big, obvious reason why Woods would want to erase the image of his wife in a jealous rage wielding a golf club. His endorsement deals, reportedly worth billions, depend on his reputation as a "boring" guy, as he likes to call himself, a family man with a wife and two kids and no bouncy, boozy mistress or other tabloid bait in his life. But there is another less obvious reason for Woods to lie (if that's what he's doing): Because of Florida's domestic-violence laws, admitting to the police that Nordegren in any way harmed him would virtually guarantee that the glamorous Elin would be led out of their mansion in handcuffs, even if he protested it.
In 1991, Florida became one of many states to set up a pro-arrest policy in domestic-violence cases. For years, feminist advocates had complained that police treated domestic-violence cases as private, family matters and assumed the abused spouse would never follow through and press charges. Beginning in the 1990s, laws began virtually to force the police to take action. The new statutes direct police to figure out who was the "primary aggressor" in a domestic dispute. They make a call based on a checklist (bruises, disparity of physical size), and then they make an arrest. Howls of protest from the abused spouse are to be ignored: "The decision to arrest and charge shall not require the consent of the victim or consideration of the relationship of the parties," the Florida law reads.
This all seemed very clear and firm, except that an unexpected problem arose. Police could not always tell who the primary aggressor was. Sometimes they just arrested both parties; sometimes they arrested one party based on minor evidence of violence. Liza Mundy's great Washington Post magazine story from 1997, on a comparable domestic-violence law in Virginia, opens with a scene of a cop called to the scene of a dispute between a husband and wife. The officer contemplates a tear in a man's breast pocket and decides it counts as "probable cause"—the new standard—for mandatory arrest of the wife. "Oh God. Oh God," the man says. "Can I go on record that I don't want to press charges right now?" But it's too late. His wife is in handcuffs, on her way to the back of the squad car. Now, women are arrested in about 20 percent of domestic-violence cases. As such scenarios played out across the country, the updated domestic-violence laws accidentally created a new mythical woman: the Female Abuser. Never mind that the sociological research does not really support her existence.
A close legal reading of Woods' statement suggests that he desperately does not want his wife to fall into this category. "He is going out of his way to protect her from any concern that she's committed a crime," says Kimberly Tatum, a law professor and domestic-violence expert at the University of West Florida. In Woods' narrative, the car accident, not Nordegren, caused his injuries. She used the golf club to get him out of the car after he'd crashed. "She was the first person to help me," he said. "Any other assertion is absolutely false." (He also then says that "this situation is my fault" and that he won't do it again, although it's unclear what, exactly, he's taking the blame for in this version. It's his fault he crashed his car? His fault he didn't rescue himself?) So far, Woods has refused to talk to the police. (In some cases, police charge alleged victims with failure to cooperate, particularly in cases where the victim recants a statement. But this is very rare.)
Hanna Rosin Double X co- editor, reporter, prefer my friends live.
SNL: Equal Opportunity Objectifiers
Jon Hamm spent most of the Saturday Night Live episode he hosted last night shirtless.
Confessions of a Woman Comedy Writer
Allison Silverman accepts one from New York Women in Film & Television (and tells us why it's rare).
Comments
She needs to goto jail, she
By: emosquito | Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:35
She needs to goto jail, she took a club smashed it into her husbands face and could have killed him. Im not such a fan of him either but how does she not see a club to the face wrong.
perfume
If Tiger tells the truth
By: Linda | Sun, 12/06/2009 - 12:18
and his wife got in jail, it would just ruin his image for more lucrative endorsement deals and get free press release. Now I just heard she got a $5m check to keep silent. She knows what's going on and just playing along for now.
lie
By: rikuvimp | Fri, 12/04/2009 - 16:20
tiger won't admit to anything. he doesn't need to. once he starts sinking 10-footers, the cheering will return and people will forget and forgive. his wife on the other hand...Riku
I've been reading Double X for months, first time I felt I HAD..
By: Karen D | Thu, 12/03/2009 - 14:48
... to respond.
First off, why the heck is anyone assuming Elin is guilty in the first place? He says she didn't.There is no physical evidence it actually happened (and likely won't be) and isn't this still America, where you're innocent until proven guilty? Or to put it another way - did your attorney get a look at this before it was published?
That said - without buying into the assumption that Tiger was abused - I have to move on to the deeply rooted and disturbing sexism in this article.
I've worked with domestic-violence professionals for most of my career. The "myth of the battered husband" is in itself a myth. Female-on-male abuse is not common, and it's usually skewed more toward the psychological than the physical. But it definitely exists, despite what the one "expert" (I've never seen more dubious credentials in my life - his doctorate is in quantum theory. WTF?) has to say. It's not even what I would categorize as rare.
Your/his dismissal of female-perpetrated spousal assault ... "as a rule, women tend to use violence as self defense, or impulsively, not as a systematic method of control the way male abusers do" is spurious. And it plays into the notion that women are just too nice to do something bad like that. Which is in itself a dangerous stereotype, for women AND men, one that keeps women from being taken seriously in business and other highly competitive fields.
Here is where it gets personal for me, because for three years I watched my brother being tormented by an abusive spouse. She insisted that he check in five or six times a day. She controlled access to their money (once he had to borrow gas money from me to make it home from work) and went ballistic when she found out he had a debit card. She monitored what he ate (her "excuse" for taking away his access to cash was that she was worried he'd eat junk food. My brother is not overweight. She just wanted the control. In fact, she'd often pack his lunches with a ridiculously small amount of food - half a sandwich, for example, or a little piece of cheese and some crackers.)
She would submit him to hours-long tirades where she battered away at his self-esteem, and she constantly threatened to leave the state with his beloved baby daughter if he didn't knuckle under. She started accompanying her rants with slaps, then blows. Finally she came after him with a kitchen knife.
And when the police came, they very nearly arrested my brother. Because like many people, the cops had a hard time believing that a 6'1" man was being terrorized by a 5'2" "pretty little blonde." (In fact, she looked something like Elin.) And he was so ashamed he would deny the abuse even when he had bruises on his face and arms. This was in Florida, by the way. In 2004.
Don't tell me female-on-male domestic violence is a myth. I know that's baloney.
GOTCHA
By: boredwell | Thu, 12/03/2009 - 03:04
Well, if our erstwhile good guy hero, Mr Woods, is capable of marital duplicity he or his lawyers more than likely also know a good, ah, thing we they seize it. Namely, that by evoking "privacy" and postponing 3 police interviews Tiger is purportedly "saving" Elin from possible arrest for what has now become the almost universal presumption of possible domestic battery. That is,in fact,if the scratches sustained were determined to be the result human intervention rather than road rash. That would be a bargaining chip,one supposes,to keep it all in the family (and everybody guessing) if not make Elin more amenable to going along with whatever program Tiger's PR people spin out. Tiger more than likely might suffer from Bill Clinton's hubris. When the president wrote about the Lewinsky debacle, he said he did it because he could. Clinton survived to be reelected and more than likely Tiger will compete and win again, too. As for Elin, the kids and those "transgressions" well time will tell.
podcast
By: marignygirl | Thu, 12/03/2009 - 00:06
My ... what an offensive podcast! So tell me Hanna, what "type of people" are abusers? Do you honestly believe that people with money and social standing can't be abusers or victims of abuse. By no means was I a member of the East coast social elite, but I came from a good home, had a good life, was married to a man that appeared decent and honorable. He still beat the snot out of me. Domestic abuse exists on every level or society. I feel bad for Mrs. Woods but if she bashed her husband with a golf club, she should be charged - the same way my husband should have been.
Perhaps next podcast you guys could address your own prejudices and stereotypes.
What a chauvenstic disgusting article
By: Casey Loufek | Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:05
Double post, my apologies.
What a chauvenstic disgusting article
By: Casey Loufek | Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:03
Are you aware of the definition of chauvanism? It is the belief that one's own kind is innnately superior. I normally find Double X be a balanced voice of gender-equality in a gender-battle field torn apart by radical feminists and reactionary conservativism so I am truly shocked and disgusted by this article. The justifiable outrage it seems to have sparked in the comments does restore a bit of my faith in humanity.
The gender-dependant reactions you describe do not make sense, nor does the law really implement things in a remotely gender neutral way. Stories like Eightjac's are all too common. These laws have not created a climate where women are jailed for DV, it has created one where men are jailed for being victims. Phsyical size should have nothing to do with determinine the "agressor" any way, particular as women are more likely to use weapons.
There are plenty of studies showing DV commited by women against men, and considering that men are less likely to report abuse and abuse is underported in general it is likely higher. The female abuser is very real, and trying to claim she is a myth is downright immoral. I do not claim she is as common as her male counterpart, and despite what your article implies I am not aware of anyone who has. Apparently you feel this mean that a woman who does commit domestic violence should ignored? So now guilt or innonence is not a personal matter but a statisical average? I'd better make sure to only commit crimes that are uncommon for my demographic.
Reason to lie?
By: rohara | Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:09
There is absolutely no reason to lie about anything here. If the man was assaulted by his wife with a golf club (lethal weapon as far as the law is concerned) he should report it to the police for the children's sake as well as his own. Unfortunately it seems that he is taking the same action that many male victims of domestic violence take. Afraid of the perceived shame that it would bring him and the misplaced chivalry he is simply going to sweep it under the rug. This is a big mistake. Violent people get more violent when they are given impunity to do so.
Furthermore, this Jack Straton dude is a joke. Women have the same propensity for violent abuse that men have in spite of what anyone tells you. The evidence for this is everywhere and every time someone does a self reporting study like the CDC did recently it is revealed that women are just as likely to initiate a violent attack as men.
The last paragraph in this article really gave me the creeps as well as pissed me off. The notion that he has no choice and must admit that HE did something wrong in order to preserve his endorsement income is just plain bad. It's as if he isn’t a human being or something.
Let's get this straight: TIGER WOODS IS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE! That’s all there is to it.
Compliment Sandwich
By: Foobs | Wed, 12/02/2009 - 08:22
Now, I'm going to do something I like to call the 'Compliment Sandwich" Where I say something good, talk about where you need improvement, and then end with something good. Something good... something good... I guess the article was well written... It was intellectually and morally vile.