Suppose Roles Had Been Reversed in Clara Harris Case

Police squad cars all across America bear the slogan, “There’s no excuse for domestic violence.” Yet there is one situation in which the media and the public seem to feel that domestic violence is sometimes excusable — when the perpetrator is a woman, and the victim is a man.

Imagine a woman trapped in a loveless marriage with a jealous, potentially violent husband whom she believes may be cheating on her. She stays in the marriage because she fears she could be separated from her children should they divorce, and finds understanding, companionship and passion in a relationship with a coworker. Her husband finds out about the affair and goes on a violent, jealous rampage, slaughtering her in front of her daughter as the daughter begs him not to kill her mother.

There would be no tears or excuses for the killer, and nobody would dare to proffer the fact that his wife had been cheating on him as a justification for the murder.

These are the facts of the Clara Harris case, with the genders reversed. Yet the reaction has been quite different.

The media on both the left and the right have poured derision upon the murder victim, referring to David Harris as a “rat,” a “lying, cheating scumbag” and Clara Harris’ “unfaithful dog of a husband.” Commentator Susan Estrich asked, “Who could blame [Clara] for getting into her Mercedes and running him over?” and seemed a little sad that the Harris County criminal trial jury did. Conservative talk show host Joseph Farah penned a column entitled “Free Clara Harris!” in which he wrote, “I’d give her a medal. … She did the right thing. That creep deserved what he got.”

Even the prosecutor in the murder trial, Mia Magness, expressed her disgust, saying that Clara, instead of killing David by her own hand, should have “[done] like every other woman … get his house, car, kids — make him wish he were dead.” Lorna Mullens, the jury forewoman in the recently concluded wrongful death trial, also expressed sympathy for Clara.

CBS portrayed Clara as a pitiable, betrayed wife in the 2004 movie Suburban Madness, and Oprah Winfrey sympathetically interviewed the sobbing Clara from prison in 2005. Of the 354 news stories covering the wrongful death trial that are indexed on Google News, 233 refer to David Harris as Clara Harris’ “cheating husband.” Not one mentions the phrase “domestic violence.”

The truth behind the Clara Harris case has come from the mouth of a child — David’s daughter, Lindsey. Only 16 years old at the time of the murder, Lindsey rode in the front seat with Clara and begged her not to kill her father. Lindsey has denounced the widespread media sympathy for Clara, saying:

“[Clara has appeared] in print and on television to persuade the viewers that she is actually the victim, but she is no victim. What she did was the ultimate act of selfishness, caring only about obtaining revenge and thinking not one bit about how her horrible act was going to affect me or my brothers, Brian and Bradley. Anyone who shared my ride in the car that evening, seeing my dad’s face as he was about to be hit, and experiencing the horrible feel of the car bumping over his body would understand that this murderess deserves no sympathy.”

Bobbi Bacha, vice president of Blue Moon Investigations, the private detective agency Clara had hired to spy on David, also conducted an investigation of Clara. Though the media have largely ignored it, in November 2002 Bacha presented the criminal court with several audio tapes on which witnesses claim that Clara was also having an affair before she killed David.

Lindsey says that Clara mistreated and neglected David, and that her father often confided in her how lonely he felt. Coupled with Clara’s temper and evident capacity for violence, David had ample reason to want to get out of the relationship. Instead of letting him go, Clara killed him.

While many see the Clara Harris case as one of love and betrayal, it is in fact a garden-variety domestic homicide. Clara Harris is no better than high-profile wife-killer Scott Peterson. Perhaps Clara is even worse — at least Peterson spared us the crocodile tears.

This article first appeared in the Houston Chronicle (1/27/07).

Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, the world’s largest shared parenting organization. Their website is www.acfc.org.

Glenn Sacks’ columns on men’s and fathers’ issues have appeared in dozens of America’s largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

33 views

  • Denis

    Nice work. Whether it is this story or the Duke Lacrosse Team in N.C., or the sleugh of adult women molesting minor boys, or mothers killing their children the message is always the same: sympathy for the perpetrator who is a female.

    Men had better damn well wake up and confront this.

  • snootfish

    All I know is that my wife had an affair. He moved into my house using a protective order to get me out of the house. He was driving my car, etc. This was before, during, and after the divorce. No one cared. It was treated as a complete irrelevancy. I was beat upon at every stage of the process by everybody involved. If anything, it seems they were treating me as being “bad” for embarrassing her by making an issue about her affair. I shouldn’t embarrass her seemed to be the attitude. They beat up on me despite her affair. They had no sympathy for me at all. The only thing I wanted was fairness in the divorce. I got no fairness at all. I didn’t kill her. I didn’t do anything other than ask that he not be around my children, etc. I couldn’t even get a hearing on that. It is an understatement that no one cared. It was as if he was the legally entitled party because he was with her (not me). I had no rights at all. Of course, if I had killed her, there would be no sympathy. None at all.

  • conservativation

    snootfish:

    Wow, you experienced the “full monty” of this madness, how horrible. It really is amazing, and the Harris thing proves it, that we will contort ourselves as a society simply to not think poorly of the fairer sex. Even more amazing, in a world that would weep for a murderer due because of gender, we have gender studies rallying these poor oppressed creatures to the beasts called men who keep them down.

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    Clara Harris is a murderer, with plenty of evidence to prove it, including the testimony of her own daughter.
    Due to the aggravating nature of committing the murder of one parent by the other parent in front of the child, I would say that Clara Harris should have been sentenced to death.
    In the case of Scott Peterson, who is sentenced to death, there is little or no evidence actually placing Laci Peterson, alive or dead, on the boat.
    Yet Laci washed up on the beaches of San Francisco Bay, very much dead.
    The only explanation offered by the prosecution for this fact is that Scott used the boat to place Laci in the water, without leaving any trace of Laci whatsoever on the boat.
    Laci’s hair in the pair of pliers back at the house, now that looks suspicious! ;-)
    I would not be surprized if it turned out that a different boat was used to place Laci in the water, and Scott’s boat sans any trace of Laci, was intended to be a diversionary alibi.
    Still, the difference between the Loch Ness Monster and hard evidence proving Scott murdered Laci is that there are those who claim to have seen the Loch Ness Monster.
    Yet Scott Peterson is on death row and Clara Harris, who should be on death row, gets the sympathy from the left at least equal to their hatred and contempt for David Harris, a murder victim.

  • christianj

    I am suprised that the murderer actually did time. She only murdered a mere male. Not that he is human or anything like that.

    The blatant bias that feminism has injected in society is another reason why cretins like Guess should be castigated and eventually held accountable for the hate they have caused and continue to pursue.

    Feminism is responsible for this action and the blatant anti-male attitude that pervades society.

  • snootfish

    I cancelled my life insurance policy at the time of the divorce. I did this in violation of Court Order. I wrote the Court and told it that I was violating its Order. I was not doing this due to “contempt” for the Court. I was doing this out of fear for my own safety. I didn’t need my wife and her drug dealing boyfriend having a half million dollar reason to kill me. I mailed the cash value of the policy to her lawyer and told her to hold it in trust so that it could be used to settle the divorce. No one every complained about cancellation of the policy even though it violated a court order. I didn’t get the feeling that anyone thought my actions paranoid.

    I to this day will not go to the front door when I go pick up the children. I know two me who were killed in this City by women who shot them through the front door (in fairness I don’t know them personally but I know about them. Neither of the women who killed these men were prosecuted.

    A woman can kill a man with impunity if she can make any plausible claim of “abuse” at all.

  • http://www.FIRMncp.com Eric

    Wahhhhh! Sniff… Sniff…

    Who’s to blame?

    Men. That’s who.

    For the real men?

    Complaining, saying “not fair” does absolutely nothing.

    Get back to me when you, you, and you, are willing to protest…

    Get back to me when you are actually willing to go to jail for your beliefs…

    Glenn? Gotta love ya for pretending to be man… Now (no pun intended) go grow some balls… You have the voice and you are singing alto!

    Eric Ericson
    Eric87443@hotmail.com

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    We hear you Eric, but blaming the victim doesn’t wash. Men do protest. You and we have been protesting for a long time.

    Yes we need to take the tough options. More than simple protest. A storm is building from the complete ignoring of men’s plight by the public. We must be prepared to sacrifice, but chose your weapons and targets with care and attention. Don’t shoot at your own troops. There are plenty of more worthy people to take aim at.

  • Ray Blumhorst

    Thanks Glenn and Mike for your efforts to raise awareness about the misandry that exists in America’s corrupt domestic violence laws.

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PA090099a-1.jpg
    DOMESTIC ABUSE LAW EXCUSES VIOLENT WOMEN

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PA100002a.jpg
    DOMESTIC ABUSE LAW REWARDS VIOLENT WOMEN

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PA130033a.jpg
    DOMESTIC ABUSE LAW BATTERS INNOCENT MEN

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PA120038a.jpg
    DOMESTIC ABUSE LAW VILIFIES INNOCENT MEN

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PC120007a.jpg
    FEMINIST LIES MAKE BAD JUDGES’ TRAINING

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PC060001a.jpg
    JUNK SCIENCE MAKES BAD JUDGES’ TRAINING

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PC170020a.jpg
    FEMINIST LIES MAKE BAD POLICE TRAINING

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PA250015a.jpg
    FEMINIST LIES MAKE BAD DOMESTIC ABUSE LAWS

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PC040007a.jpg
    JUNK SCIENCE MAKES BAD DOMESTIC ABUSE LAWS

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PA160033a.jpg
    DOMESTIC ABUSE LAW IS A FEMINIST SCAM

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PA170067a.jpg
    MALE DEMONIZING DOMESTIC ABUSE LAWS ARE PREJUDICED

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PA180105a.jpg
    MALE DEMONIZING DOMESTIC ABUSE LAWS LACK INTEGRITY

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PA080069a-3.jpg
    DOMESTIC ABUSE LAW IS BIASED AGAINST MEN

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PA310011a.jpg
    D.V. SHELTER ACCEPTING ABUSED MEN

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PB030012a.jpg
    PRISON & GRAVE ARE NOT MEN’S SHELTERS

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PA300005a.jpg
    DOMESTIC ABUSE LAW IS SEXIST & HATEFUL AGAINST MEN

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PA270003a.jpg
    DOMESTIC ABUSE LAW IS DEADBEAT GOVERNMENT

    HATE TARGET OF DOMESTIC ABUSE LAWS
    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PA230077a.jpg

    http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVAwarenessMonth/PA200066a.jpg
    MALE DEMONIZING DOMESTIC ABUSE LAWS HARM US ALL

  • snootfish

    The problem has to be identified and complaint made before individual or collective action motivated or organized. In Boston, I am sure there was a lot of complaining before a ship load of tea was poured into the harbor.

    I think a large part of the problem and why the situation has gotten as bad as it has is that men have not complained enough (and not loudly enough). I understand the sentiment about “whining” but it is actually constructive.

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    This appeared in Britain’s Daily Mail last week. I’m suprised it didn’t get onto MND. I don’t have the link:

    Daily Mail (Britain)
    24 January 2007

    Why is it NEVER a woman’s fault?
    By Carol Sarler

    When the prison doors clanged shut behind her, Hayley Kenny began her four-year sentence this month with plenty to think about.

    She could think, for instance, about the long weeks during which her violent boyfriend, Craig Pearce, had abused her two year old son Kieran – while she stood back and did nothing.

    She could think about the day she came home from work to find that Pearce, now serving 18 years, had punched the child so brutally in the abdomen that it was evident to a plank of wood he was dying – but she stood back and did nothing.

    She could think, too, of the judge’s words: that if she had only lifted a telephone to call an ambulance, Kieran might have been alive today.

    For her dereliction of the most basic motherly instinct, 23-year-old Hayley is now the first woman ever to be convicted of the new charge of familial homicide, or allowing the death of a child.

    And hurrah for that: frankly, if it were left to me, I’d throw away the key.

    For years, scarcely has a month gone by without some hideous story coming to light about a child being physically assaulted, sexually abused and even murdered by his father or, more usually, his stepfather (aka ‘Mummy’s new partner’).

    Yet instead of asking, as we sensibly should, where Mummy was while all this was going on, the popular judicial line has been that obviously she was so cowed by the bad guy – and make no mistake, he is a bad guy – that she couldn’t possibly have been expected to do anything about it.

    No, not even intervene to save her own child’s life.

    The question now is this: do we celebrate Kenny’s punishment as a turn for the better and the start of a new trend? Or do we expect her case to be an isolated blip without any suggestion that we hold our breath for the next one? I hope it’s the former.

    But the way things are, I fear it might just be the latter.

    It is a pernicious corruption of the once progressive principles of feminism that today women are responsible for nothing and therefore guilty of nothing.

    Blame it all on the boys, no matter what the wickedness. ‘The girl can’t help it,’ has become the anthem of our times.

    Within hours of Hayley Kenny’s well-deserved incarceration, Woman’s Hour’s hot topic of the day was a new report claiming that one in five men suffers from domestic violence.

    To illustrate the point, some bullying thug of a woman came on to explain herself. But instead of dripping remorse, she managed the same self-pitying victim-whine that routinely stalks the programme: ‘Nuffin’ to be proud of, fair enough,’ but she ‘couldn’t express ‘erself’ and what she really needed was ”elp’.

    If she needed help, what about her wretched punchbags? At which point a male guest, himself a sufferer at the hands of such a thug, congratulated her, expressed his admiration for her seeking the ”elp’, while the interviewer didn’t so much as hint a criticism of the woman’s ferocious rages.

    Can you imagine any programme, let alone Woman’s Hour, affording the same soft ride to a man who had regularly beaten women? They wouldn’t give him air-time, let alone applause; he’d be held to be entirely responsible for his brutishness with no excuses considered.

    But when the he is a she, well, give her a break, the girl can’t help it.

    On this basis, some women quite literally get away with murder. The woman who lies in wait for a louse of a husband who has battered her for years, then stabs him through his heart, is hailed as a heroine by today’s appalling apology for a women’s movement.

    Nobody is allowed to ask why she didn’t try to escape: his behaviour had broken her spirit; her broken spirit, in turn, was her reasonable provocation.

    Fine. And, yes, entirely possible under some circumstances. But, again, imagine a man, his body bruised from 20 years of bites and kicks and hurled implements, his mind numbed by 20 years of ridicule and humiliation and abuse, killing his wife.

    He would never escape a murder charge with a claim of provocation. In fact, should he even try to claim ‘I woz provoked’, he would guarantee himself hordes of outraged sisters waving banners outside the courtroom – it was his fault, and his alone, that his dear wife was dead.

    As it happens, I am uneasy about invoking provocation in cases of any and all killings.

    But I am still less easy that we appear able to accept it for women and not for men, supporting as this does the view that men are able to take responsibility for what they do, whereas women are not; that women are less capable, less clever, less moral and less able to make decisions and live with the results.

    Yet another example of this differentiation thrust itself into our faces this week on the knotty issue of gambling.

    For centuries there have been people who cannot resist the instant riches that they just know are riding on the next horse, card or throw of dice, to which end they bet their food and even their homes, in the process driving their families to exasperation, desperation and the poor-house.

    Our response to them, at least while most of them were men, has included anger, scorn, contempt and – from the exceedingly generous – a measure of pity.

    But it’s all changed now that newly released figures show that the fastest growing group of people hooked on this dangerous sport are women.

    Indeed, the British Medical Association is suddenly demanding that their indulgence should be promoted to a proper illness (for which read: it’s not their fault, the girls can’t help it) and that the NHS should spend serious money, that is to say yours and mine, ‘treating’ them.

    Actually, it is their fault. Addiction to gambling is a matter of choice, in that you don’t catch it in one go. I played poker once, two years ago, in some so-called celebrity tournament and won it, to the tune of four figures for my favourite charity.

    You cannot imagine the excitement. In fact, so acute was the heart-thumping that then and there I recognised it for the seduction it was and haven’t looked at a playing card since.

    But if I had, and consequently succumbed to destructive temptation, then according to the BMA you should now feel not cross but sorry for me – just as if I had blamelessly acquired, say, osteoporosis.

    No doubt the BMA’s decision to weigh in is supposed to look caring for women. But what I think it says is that women really are the weaker sex.

    Progress? The message is clear: whisper support, offer encouragement, but never, ever, tell a woman she should just say no. No woman is supposed to buck up, square her shoulders, stand up for herself or – least of all – pull herself together.

    A sexually ridiculous jibe from a male colleague at work, one which a generation ago we would have destroyed with derision? Not now.

    Bring on the smelling salts, the industrial tribunal and the counsellors to diagnose ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’.

    Never mind that this makes the woman more publicly pathetic than the twit who offended in the first place – or that the inevitable conclusion must be: modern woman, soppy bint, falls to bits under pressure.

    Send us out on a date with a chap and look what happens. You’re drunk, he’s matched you drink for drink so he’s equally drunk. Oh yes, he is!

    The grisly fantasy of the drug rapist has been utterly discredited; British bars are not replete with soberly calculating lounge lizards, slipping deadly powders into the nearest cocktail and then waiting for their moment of unconscious conquest (no matter how handy such an image has been to counter hung over morning regret).

    The reality is far more likely to be silly pairs of inebriates who foolishly agree to sex – which at least one of them (and good money says both) often later wishes they had refused.

    Yet once more the inequality is obvious. Although they both agreed to the sex at the time, the man’s agreement is something he is expected to live with when sobered up, but if recent government initiatives are to win the day, the woman’s agreement is not.

    It is pleasing to hear reports this week that some judges are opposing radical moves to boost rape convictions.

    The Council of Circuit Judges is said to be unhappy with plans to overhaul rape laws, calling them ‘overcomplicated’.

    I’ll say. Especially those that ask courts to accept that a man’s ‘consent’ stands, while the woman’s ‘consent’ may be deemed to be invalid because it was given while she was as drunk as he was.

    He is, therefore, sufficiently competent to be a rapist and she is sufficiently incompetent to be a victim; silly, stupid, little dolly her.

    This might result, as is planned, in more men being flung in jail and therefore in a victory for women’s groups who desire nothing more or less.

    We know that many – or should that be most? – of these groups which set themselves up as anti-rape and anti-violence are led by militant feminists, whose real agenda is anti-men.

    But if they really think that their anti-men propaganda is the same thing as pro-women politics, they are in cloud-cuckoo-land.

    Everything they achieve, they do so at the cost of women; at the cost of acknowledging the strength of a woman’s determination – and at the cost of allowing a woman the ultimate equality, without which all else will fail: an equal right to make mistakes.

    Women make mistakes for all manner of reasons. Because they risked a bet, because they fell for the wrong man, because they took on a job too far – or a job too mindless.

    Sometimes we crumple because of pressures others pile upon us; sometimes because we get it wrong and pile pressures upon ourselves.

    The point is that they are our mistakes and, in any sane world, ours to answer for – not ours to wriggle out of with the pitiful old lament that the girl can’t help it.

    She can help it. And when her mistake, like that of Hayley Kenny, is so grotesque that she puts her boyfriend before the safety – and ultimately the life – of her child, there are and should be no excuses.

    Bang her up, I say. Not just for her; not just for justice. Bang her up because none of us will ever get equality worth the word unless, when we go dreadfully wrong, we learn to take our punishment like a man.

    Well done Carol Sarler. It is so good to see a woman speaking out with sense in the public media. Such media usually censor such views.

    XXXXXXX

    I made a comment on a board (dads on the Air, in Oz)

    I have been calling for women to stand up and be counted for years. Many others have too. Carol heeds the call and writes passionately and accurately.

    Maybe just one point missed. She says: “For years, scarcely has a month gone by without some hideous story coming to light about a child being physically assaulted, sexually abused and even murdered by his father or, more usually, his stepfather (aka ‘Mummy’s new partner’).

    She might have added that most child murderers are women but no one reports that. While men, fathers (rare) and step-fathers (misnomer, these are rarely step-fathers but causal live-in shagnasties) get bad press for their bad deeds, women killing children are generally relegated to page 14 and a short paragraph so few see it.

    The 2003 Justice Dept USA figures (very similar across the west) show that the perpertrators of child killings were:
    Mothers : 40.8%
    Fathers :18.8 % (less than half the mother rate)
    Mum &Dad :16.9 (inc stepdad, b/f, casual lovers, shagnasties, all called ‘father’)
    Mum & Other : 6.3%
    Dad & Other :1.1% ( one sixth the mother & other rate)
    Non Parent : 13.4%
    Unknown : 2.8%

    Mothers are over twice as likely to kill, rather than stand back and watch.
    Mothers are involved in 64% of the killings.
    64%
    But no-one blames the woman.

  • Big shooter

    It’s helpful to remember that the MSM exists primarily to market to women who spend the money men earn. Whats is alarming is the casual way the prosecuter states: “should have “[done] like every other woman … get his house, car, kids — make him wish he were dead.” Any man who gets married without an iron clad prenup is insane.

  • fourthwire

    “Wahhhhh! Sniff… Sniff…
    Who’s to blame?
    Men. That’s who.”

    Eric, just how well does that same sort of dim-witted excuse for an argument hold when one tries to employ the same addled logic with respect to female rape victims, do you believe?

    Try telling a feminazi that women are to blame for not preventing rape.

    Clearly you are having difficulties perceiving reality around you, what with your vision apparently limited to a view of your own colon.

    As amfortas points out, a storm IS building among men who are frustrated and disgusted with the double standards for behavior in our nation’s judicial systems, educational systems, families, and workplaces.

    The alternative is for men to simply continue to accept feminazi attempts to create and enforce gender apartheid in America.






Search