Putting an End to Domestic Violence Whether It Be Spousal or Child Abuse

* I couldn’t agree more with Superior Court Judge Donald Smallwood’s commentary on the subject of domestic violence. (“Any Abuse, Even Committed In Private, Is A Public Concern” Dec.12).

But his focus didn’t go far enough. Primarily his focus was on men battering women. He didn’t include the much greater problem of parents battering their children. What he says regarding children is, “Domestic violence is generational in that children raised in violent homes frequently perpetrate violence when they become adults.”

When I think of domestic violence I first think of children being spanked, slapped, beaten, paddled, strapped, switched, tanned or whipped. Allow me to emphasize one point the judge made: “One thing is clear. Those who inflict this violence are committing criminal acts, and if their conduct is dealt with seriously at an early stage it can be stopped.”

If we are ever to get a real handle on eliminating violence in our society, we must do whatever it takes to stop adults from hitting or humiliating children. I guarantee that if parents would stop hitting children, men would stop battering women or vice versa. It’s as simple as that.

But is there one courageous politician anywhere in the United States who is willing to stand up and introduce a resolution, or a bill, which will prohibit any adult, including parents, from ever hitting or humiliating their children?

Sweden did it in 1977. Norway and Denmark followed. Why can’t we?

And if you don’t think that all children are our children, think of them after they have committed their crimes, and they end up as wards of the court or in prison. Then who owns them? And for how long?

BENNY WASSERMAN

La Palma

* I am a founder and executive director of Human Options: Alternatives for Abused Women and their Children. I have been involved in the field of domestic violence since 1977. This is the first letter to the editor I have felt compelled to write.

The article “Shootings out of Character for Ensign” (Dec. 3) contains a quote from the brother of George Patrick Smith, the ensign who shot and killed his ex-fiancee, a friend, and then shot himself. His brother was quoted as saying, “I feel that what he did was not right. But you have to understand what honor means to naval officers. For one naval officer to take another officer’s fiancee, that’s a lot of dishonor. He must have gone back to defend his honor. Naval officers are like samurai when it comes to honor.”

The issue goes beyond this young brother who is obviously grief-stricken. His comments unfortunately are not unusual in a society which socializes young men to make dangerous assumptions which justify violence.

Dangerous Assumption One: One naval officer “took” another officer’s fiancee.

Apparently an intelligent, young Navy officer chose to end her engagement. No one “takes” the fiancee of a man. Women are not property to be stolen or ignorant fools misled by one man or another. We must educate boys and girls that no one is property and each one has a right to choose to end a relationship.

Ellen Goodman, writing on “The-Bitch-Deserved-It Defense” chronicled a Michigan case in which a female judge, Carol S. Irons, was shot and killed by her estranged husband, a police officer. He was charged with first-degree murder, but the jury convicted him of involuntary manslaughter. One juror said, “Everybody felt he was provoked by his wife to do this. Goodman goes on to write, “The notion that men snap into viciousness under stress, the notion that women provoke their own abuse, even murder is just that ingrained.”

Boys and girls need to be taught “there is no acceptable excuse, not alcohol and not adultery. There is no provocation for murder.”

VIVIAN CLECAK

South Laguna