On the Grammy’s Wednesday night, the Dixie Chicks performed their new single, “Goodbye Earl”, about two women (Wanda & MaryAnn) who murder Earl (Wanda’s husband) after he beats her badly. Apparently, a fair number of Country radio stations are not playing it because of the subject matter.
Here are the key lyrics:
A few questions I’d like opinions on:
Do the authorities/shelters offer sufficient protection to victims of domestic violence?
Can self-defense be ever be used as justification for a pre-meditated killing?
Is the subject matter in this song so controversial that it should be kept off country stations (who generally do pride themselves on keeping content family-friendly)?
My brief thoughts:
No.
No.
(Which, in combination, admittedly leaves a huge gap in the need for protection, and an acceptable means of obtaining it.)
No, especially since “Independence Day”, a huge hit for Martina McBride covered much the same subject, if more passively, back in 1994 or so.
Sue from El Paso
Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.
I believe so, yes. A victim of unbearable tyranny might be unable to break free of the tyrant’s grip until the tyrant is weak. She might have to plan how she will take back her rights from her usurper.
Why not let the station owners, if they conduct their business peacefully and honestly, decide for themselves what they will broadcast? Then, let consumers decide whether they will listen.
tracer - sure. Then they’d set bail at $10,000, of which he’d have to put up $1000 himself. Then he’d be out on the street, and mean as ever.
Sue - no, yes, and no. If the law ever learns to regard the pattern of domestic abuse with sufficient seriousness, then the ‘yes’ changes to a ‘no’. But too often even today, years of beatings, and a death threat or two after the separation, are met with nothing more than a restraining order, or an overnight stay in jail at worst.
One woman I know, her ex-husband tried to kill her, twice. The first time was laughed off by the Maryland cops. The second time, a policeman was right there to witness him trying to shoot her (he missed, then the gun jammed). He spent about a year and a half in jail, and has been out free for years now. So you’ll have to pardon my attitude.
[digression]In the first Bloom County collection, a cockroach bounds onto the Major’s book and shouts, “Long live the glorious cockroach rebellion against the great suburban bourgeois oppressor swine-pig!!” The Major slams the book shut on the cockroach, with the thought balloon, “I hate revolutionary jargon.” [/digression]
Quote:
3) Why not let the station owners, if they conduct their business peacefully and honestly, decide for themselves what they will broadcast? Then, let consumers decide whether they will listen.
—Libertarian
I know I shouldn’t respond to this, but I really don’t understand how the customers can decide on something they never get to hear.
It’s just a song.
To the OP:
In some areas, they at least try.
Too tough a question for me.
3)They seem to have little trouble with crime, infidelity, drunkedness, etc.
Peace,
mangeorge
I only know two things;
I know what I need to know
And
I know what I want to know
Mangeorge, 2000
If the law does not offer protection, it seems to me to be a moral right to protect oneself by any means necessary. Any subsequent punishment of a person attempting to protect themselves would qualify as an injustice.
As to whether the radio station has the moral right to not play the song, I would say that they have purchased the right to control that area of bandwidth to their own profit. They are not engaging in censorship, because the song can be distributed by other means.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
Damn but it’s sad when you regret you aren’t a lawyer, so’s you’d have the facts not general knowledge impressions.
Can’t comment on the US, but here - pretty good, but lapses. One case of a spouse with an apprehended violence order killing spouse (?and maybe child) outside family law court.
You hear a lot about cops dismissing these sort of things as being brought on by the woman’s behaviour, but sometimes the cops can be real fine. A friend of mine was beaten by her current, ummmm, lover. Local suburban cops talked to friend, and persuaded her to both file for apprehended violence (restraining) order and to lay charges for assault, against my friend’s sexually infatuated inclinations. Cops said she needed it for her future protection, and no-one should be able to beat their partner (in public, if they were unwilling). The guy worked his way back into friend’s affections, persuaded her to drop the restraining order, but cops were very disinclined to dismiss assault charges, again arguing it was for her own protection. And the next step…yep, badly beaten. This time the cops got her to take it to court. This boils down to the cops being very proactive about legal protection in a domestic violence matter.
Personal opinion, no. I always believe you can leave. But I suspect this is a very privileged point of view, and an option that may not exist for the clinically depressed.
However, Legal, (in Aus), yes. For real law buffs, see case of Violet Roberts and son who killed abusive spouse/parent after years of abuse. They were jailed, then freed.
Nup. Censorship, plus not every song has to be politically correct, socially uplifting and educational. I’d personally ban country music, but that’s just nasty prejudice on my part.
I hate to reach for the one flaw in an otherwise fine post, AKAmame, but at least in America, leaving frequently doesn’t end things. The woman I mentioned above had left. The first time her ex tried to kill her, she was two states away from where they’d lived. Unfortunately, many, many women here get killed by their husbands or boyfriends after they leave.
In this country, we haven’t figured out what to do with people who present no danger to society in general, but who may represent a lethal threat to one person in particular. Taking it seriously is the first step.
Historically, authorities in many countries have been extremely lax in punishing spousal violence. This is changing for the better in many places, but the job of the police is often hindered by the self-destructive nature of some victims.
NO! If you are being beaten, leave. If you are stil afraid, take steps to ensure your safety. If the beater tracs you across three states and comes after you again, then defend yourself appropriately. This does not mean shoot him as soon as he rings your doorbell. It might mean shoot him after he breaks into your home. Murdering someone in their sleep because they scare you is not justified.
Station owners have the right to play, or not play, anything they choose. Personally, I am more offended by sacharine playlists that perpetuate peurile pop at the expense of more daring or innovative attempts. So I listen to independent community radio whenever possible.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
It seems to me that #3 can be taken two ways–namely, what can the stations *legally * do, and what ought they do–legally they can play what they like or don’t like as far as I am concerned, but I also don’t see any problem with us wise men sitting on the mountain and describing what we think they ought to do if they want to be good people. It won’t change much, of course, but it will help us all get our own thinking straight in case we are ever faced with a similar situation. So Lib, cut us a little slack. No one is suggesting that Uncle Sam should make anyone do anything. In a way, what we are discussing is what we, as consumers, should decide about listening to such stations.
As far as “Hey, Joe” is concerned, the song is part of a long American tradition of lover’s triangles gone bad–think “Tom Dooly”, “Frankie and Johnny,” , etc. My SO listens to a lot of Blues, and let me tell you, every third song envolves someone getting murdered cause someone was sleeping around. Exactly who is murdered varies quite a bit. You could argue that the difference between the two is that while murder ballads do not exactly condemn the violence, they do not condone it either–the tone is usually more ambiguous–these are stories, and the charecters often act from motives that are both understandable and reprehensable. They are classic anti-heros.
What I expect people are objecting to about the Dixie Chicks song (which I admit I have not heard) is not the violence per se, but the subtext that murder is an empowering act, a blow by the oppressed against the oppressor. It is a story about women ganging together to overthrow a tyrant and achieve independence. I would wager that if the main charecter in the story had called her big brother or her [male] lover to help her kill the man, or even had acted alone, there would not be much objection.
Yes, and it has been. Remember the book & movie The Burning Bed? The woman in question (her name is escaping me right now) killed her husband after years of abuse. The night she killed him, he had beaten her. She killed him later that evening, not actually during the course of their fight. She was charged with premeditated murder, but found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. This opened the door for a defense that I believe is now called “battered woman’s syndrome” or “battered spouse syndrome.”
As for the song, well, the country music stations need to get off their high horses & play it. They censored Garth Brooks, too, a few years ago, remember? The Thunder Rolls was also about a cheating husband who gets killed by his wife. The song got lots of airplay, but they dropped the last verse, where he sings about how she goes & gets a gun out of her nightstand. CMT wouldn’t play the video, either, because there’s a scene in it where the husband hits the wife. Most of the radio stations here just went bonkers about the whole censorship issue, and publicly stood in support of Garth Brooks. Good for them, I say.
Changing my sig, because Wally said to, and I really like Wally, and I’ll do anything he says, anytime he says to.
I am quite familiar with spousal abuse, Libertarian. Fear is an integral part of the syndrome. Abusers use fear to dominate their victim, and it is fear that causes the victim to forego options which are otherwise available to him/her. Fear is also at the very heart of the “battered wife” defense.
Are you afraid of someone jumping out and going “boo”? Is that why you make light of the more substantial fears that can drive other’s behaviors?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
It is a hard issue to deal with. Restraining orders don’t always work. It is hard for someone to defend themselves when they have nothing to defend themselves with. We had a lady here coming out of the place where she worked and her exhusband gunned her down the in the parking lot. She never stood a chance. I live in a small town. This happens everywhere. I don’t know the answer. But shelters do the best they can. Some places won’t allow women if they think violence will be involved (like the man showing up). It’s something that we as a society need to keep in front of our eyes. These ladies need help.
I’ve learned that if someone says something unkind about me, I must live so that no one will believe it.
Look, Spiritus, before you change the subject as usual, what I’m saying is that you are justified in defending your life when your life is in constant, relentless, protracted danger, even if that means waiting until the terrorist is asleep to knock him off. That’s how I feel, anyway.
Spousal abuse is more than just fear; it’s terror, and the abused is in danger of losing her life at the drop of a hat.
I respond to your post, and you accuse me of changing the subject? How perfectly delusional of you.
I see, though, that it all makes sense if we say a woman is terrified rather than afraid. Shall we call that another example of English the Libertarian way?
On the OP, though, I see a clear distinction between a spouse who is trapped in an abusive relationship by an internal emotional need and a person who is physically prevented from leaving. It may not be fair in al cases, but our society demands that adults take some measure of responsibility for their own choices. If you are not locked in the house 24x7, then you can leave. You can press charges whenever the option becomes available, and you can refuse to take the abuser back no matter how many excuses and apologies you hear. You can take responsibility for your life, your choices, and your behaviors. I am not saying that this is easy. I am not even saying that it will solve the problem 100% of the time. There is no guaranteed solution to th eproblem of injustice. I am saying that an adult has the responsibility to try every other avenue before walking down the street to premeditated murder.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*