Thanks.
There’s a common fallacy in society’s thinking about men, marriage and divorce which I’ll call it the "David Harris Fallacy." David Harris, as you may recall, was the victim of "Murder by Mercedes" killer Clara Harris. David Harris fell in love with another woman and Clara Harris killed him as he attempted to leave their marriage.
The press on both the left and the right poured derision upon David, and even the prosecutor, Mia Magness, expressed contempt for him, saying in court that instead of killing David by her own hand, Clara should have driven him to suicide by divorcing him and "[doing] like every other woman…get his house, car, kids — make him wish he were dead."
Clara received widespread sympathy for her "betrayed wife who snapped" shtick.
I wrote several columns about the killing for the Houston Chronicle, and in one of them I argued that "upon closer examination the evidence is overwhelming that the bad spouse in this marriage was Clara, not David." I explained:
"David’s daughter, Lindsey, says that her father had the affair in part because of the way Clara mistreated and neglected him. According to her testimony, David told his daughter on many occasions how lonely he felt. Lindsey also testified that her stepmother Clara made her feel unimportant and as if she were not part of the family, and that the only place where pictures of her were allowed in the home were in her father’s bathroom. By contrast, pictures of the twins (the children Clara and David had together) dominated the house. Lindsey also testified that Clara had physically assaulted David on at least one prior occasion…
"Clara also lies, as evidenced by her preposterous courtroom claim that she didn’t know she was running over her husband, despite a video which shows her repeatedly circling and running him down with her Mercedes.
"Most importantly, David Harris was married to a person capable of killing an unarmed man as the man’s daughter begged her not to kill her father. While we’ll never know exactly what happened between David and Clara behind closed doors, can there be any doubt that a person capable of such a heinous crime was not exactly the perfect spouse? That David probably had good reason to distrust or dislike her and seek the affections of another? That somewhere along the line it might have been Clara’s um……personality that might have created the problem?"
In other words, a man leaves his wife, she does something terrible, and we blame him and the fact that he left for her crime, or at least excuse it because "he hurt her by leaving her." That’s the David Harris fallacy–by the women committing this crime, she reveals that her character was such that the man had damn good reason to leave.
According to testimony from David Harris’ daughter, Clara had told her, "I could kill your father and get away with it," and then she did kill him. This aspect of her personality didn’t magically appear after David left–it was there in effect before, and David probably saw it.
As a general rule I don’t condone adultery or desertion, but when you’re married to a woman like that, getting out is a good idea. He probably only stayed as long as he did because he didn’t want to lose custody of his sons. (To learn more about the Clara Harris case, see my co-authored column Suppose Roles Had Been Reversed in Clara Harris Case, Houston Chronicle, 1/27/07, or click here).
This can be seen clearly if we switch the genders. If a man’s wife leaves him for another man, and the man then kills his wife, would anyone believe his claim that he was an excellent husband who just "snapped?" Would anyone blame her for his violence?
In a recent English case we again see the David Harris fallacy. From the BBC article Mother jailed for kettle scalding (10/11/07):
"A mother who poured a kettle of boiling water over her five-year-old son to get back at his father who had left her has been jailed…The victim, now aged 17, suffered burns to more than 20% of his body.
"He told Cardiff Crown Court his mother called him to the kitchen and said ‘I’m sorry I’ve got to do this.’
"The judge at thre trial said:
"’You built up a resentment for your position as being left as a single parent. Your son’s father did not turn up that day as intended and over the course of the day your resentment drove you to behave in a way in a way no mother should. You entirely lost your patience with your son and carried out this appalling act of pouring boiling water over him. You punished your child for wrongs you believed have been done to you by your former partner.’"
Get it? He buys into the David Harris fallacy. The woman is wrong because she let her anger over her husband leaving her consume her and make her do this evil thing. He more or less accepts that the woman had good reason to be mad, that the father was wrong for leaving her and making her a "single parent," but she shouldn’t have taken her presumably legitimate anger against the father out on the son.
Yet there’s a much more logical way to look at this. The father left the mother because he saw she was capable of cruelty and violence , and perhaps she had previously acted cruelly or violently in a way we don’t know about it. He had damn good reason to want to get away from this woman, and she is in no way his victim.
I also doubt she scalded the son because the father (allegedly) didn’t show up. The five-year-old was probably scalded because he expressed affection for his father, and this was the vindictive woman’s way of punishing him for it.
The mother had also "been before the court on five previous occasion for a total of 13 offences involving dishonesty"–was that her ex-husband’s fault, too?
Thankfully, at least the now-teenage son knows the score. He said:
"I got my burns for nothing. I don’t deserve to have these scars - I have been punished for nothing - because one woman never loved her son."
The BBC story is linked below.
|
Stumble It!Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
