You’re a slimy glob of defective genetic material that should have been removed from
the gene pool long before the test tube you were hatched in was touched for the first
time.
Do I have your attention? I hope so. Did I insult you at all? If I did, that’s great. If
not, that’s great, as well. It was a simple exercise of free speech. Did I need that
exercise or practice? Not at all, but some folks definitely need it. How do I know? Well,
let’s see, I’m not a mind reader, tarot reader, fortuneteller, or even Ouija board teller.
No, I have no secret herbal tealeaves, no ancient Chinese secrets, or even a lucky
rabbit’s foot to help. In fact, the only proof I have is court records and newspaper
accounts.
There are many political correctness (PC) proponents that believe they have a “right” to
not be offended. They also often believe they have a “right” to have speech they feel is
inappropriate or unacceptable banned, such as people talking about religion in public, and
more specifically, Christianity. Guess what? They’re wrong – dead wrong. In fact, they are
so wrong, they are stupid, asinine, if you will. Oops. Did I offend anyone in the PC
crowd? I hope so, as that’s always my intent when dealing with anything PC.
Have you guessed what I am beating on this week? If not, let me give you a not-so-subtle
clue. It has to do with men who beat on women, but more specifically, about a Dallas-based
women’s organization. The details involve a website, http://www.wife-beaters.com, which is
selling T-shirts embroidered with the words, “Wife Beater.” The site was registered in
September 2000, and shows more than 92,000 visits. Without all the added publicity from
public bickering over the site, I wonder how successful it may have been. I also wonder
how many shirts are actually sold from the site.
“We’re highly offended,” said Leigh Edgar, a spokesman for Genesis Women’s Shelter, which
is only one of several groups critical of the Web site. Edgar said officials for the
shelter want the site removed from the Internet.
So the Dallas group wants the site removed from the Internet, huh? Well, my thoughts on
that are simple: tough. Back in 1992, while working as an editor in Illinois, I was
censored for an editorial cartoon that a handful of people labeled as racist. It was a
caricature of a black man, evidently Jamaican, with tightly braided hair. The man’s mouth
was wide open, evidently yelling, and his hands in the air, framing his face. Above the
cartoon was a caption that read: “Jimmy da Spiritual Counselor say:” and below the
cartoon was: “Just do dis after every class, mon, and everyting be OK!” I loved it,
and got a good kick out of it. The cartoon was poking fun at college students, offering
some off-the-cuff advice for dealing with stress, but also just the artist’s thoughts on
something. The day the cartoon was published, I received a call. In fact, I received a
call shortly after arriving at my desk first thing in the morning. It was a black female,
someone I knew, calling to tell me she was offended by the cartoon and insisted that I
pull all the newspapers out of circulation and make a public apology. I treated the call
as I would any other call. I listened, thanked her for calling, and told her I would note
her being offended. She asked me what I intended to do about the cartoon. I told her
nothing. That’s when she began telling me about her “rights” being violated. I asked her
which rights, and she hung up in frustration. The end result was long and drawn-out, and I
made no apology for running the cartoon, nor for the content of the cartoon. To those who
felt “oppressed” and “offended,” I told them I felt sorry for them, and I did. I always
feel sorry for people when they feel they are being oppressed. Does that mean I need to
change my life, or dismiss an artist’s First Amendment rights to appease the others?
Absolutely not! The funny thing about the entire situation, and the thing that no one
would listen to, was the artist used himself as the model for the caricature.
As I consider this debate over a T-shirt, I pondered if the women’s group would be
offended if Gloria Steinem sponsored a website and sold T-shirts that said, “husband
beater.” The thought didn’t last long. In fact, it took longer to type this paragraph than
the thought stayed at the forefront of my mind. Why? Because this is such a non-issue in
the overall big picture of the experience we call Life.
On the other side of the coin, the entrepreneurial side, I suppose you could call it, is
James Doolin, owner of the website. Doolin told The Dallas Morning News that he is
using humor to sell the shirts and said the women’s rights groups are all overreacting.
Sure, the humor Doolin sees in selling the shirts may be sick and off-base, hence,
unpopular, but being that this is America, there is still that funny First Amendment right
to free speech. There is nothing in the First Amendment to limit unpopular or offensive
speech, thank God.
Doolin was quoted by the newspaper as saying, “It’s a joke, and I understand that a lot of
the women’s groups are upset about it. I can’t do nothing for them.” Doolin has an
unlisted phone number, and email to his account was returned with server errors.
What’s at the center of the controversy, in reality? Doolin, through his website, is
offering T-shirts embroidered with the words, “Wife Beater,” for $20. Information on the
site said that convicted wife beaters are eligible for a special deal. If they buy one
T-shirt at regular price, they get a second one for only half price, but proof of
conviction is needed for the discount. Wow! What a bargain! I think with that kind of
promotion, someone may just go out and beat their head against the wall and hope for a
Wall Abuse conviction, as well.
This promotion, which seems legal enough under free enterprise, is being criticized by the
women’s shelter. “To say that you get something for actually abusing a woman … it’s just a
tragedy,” she was quoted as saying in the Dallas newspaper. No one at the women’s center
was available for comment while I prepared this column.
What spurned Doolin’s idea for the T-shirt? He said he thought of it after watching an
episode of the TV show, “Cops.” He said many people who get arrested for domestic violence
on the TV show are often in T-shirts, adding that he capitalized on the concept of selling
his branded T-shirts before someone else – nothing more, nothing less.
In fact, on the site’s main page, aside from a copy of a recording that could also be
considered by many in the women’s rights community as offensive, Doolin uses a parody of a
dictionary definition to define his site: “wife beater (noun) 1. tank-style underwear
shirts. Origin: based on the stereotype that physically abusive husbands wear that
particular style of undershirt.”
Well, let’s see, there are a few things he could do. Maybe put a message on the back
saying, “I should be shot!” He could also put the words, “Wife Beater” inside a bull’s-eye
logo. He could make a contribution from the sale of each shirt to the women’s shelter. Or,
he could continue doing just as he is, and pocket the profits, which is the American Way.
As I think a little more about this debate over T-shirts, I consider history. There’s an
old saying that history repeats itself, and if it does, well, is it possible we are
actually seeing it in the making? I know, you’re thinking I must be off my rocker right
about now, right? Wrong.
Think back to the 1600s and the 1700s. People were flogged, castigated, and put into
stocks in the town square. Everyone knew what the offender did that was so heinous. Others
were forced to walk in public with signs telling their crimes. Perhaps the courts could
use Doolin’s idea and sentence people to wear the T-shirts to work each day. But in that
event, the courts would have to have the docket number, the jurisdiction, and date of
offense imprinted on each shirt, as well.
Am I judging which side is in the right? Not a chance. Do I really care? Not really. I
believe in unfettered speech, but I also don’t condone domestic abuse, whether it is a man
beating on a woman, a woman beating on a man, or a nasty combination of the two beating on
each other.
|
"Domestic Abuse Agency Offended by T-shirt"
