He told her that she simply wasn’t “liberated” enough
More from the Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow article on Eric Schneiderman:
Evan Stark, a forensic social worker and an emeritus professor at Rutgers, is the author of a landmark book, “Coercive Control,” in which he argues that domestic abuse is just as often psychological as it is physical. Abusive men, he writes, often “terrorize” and “control” their partners by demeaning them, particularly about the traits or accomplishments of which they are proudest. Manning Barish says that Schneiderman often mocked her political activism. When she told him of her plan to attend an anti-gun demonstration with various political figures and a group of parents from Sandy Hook Elementary School, he dismissed the effort, calling the demonstrators “losers.” He added, “Go ahead, if it makes you feel better to do your little political things.” When she was using her computer, he’d sometimes say, “Oh, look at little Mimi. So cute—she’s working!”
Does that sound healthy? No it does not.
The novelist Salman Rushdie, who dated Manning Barish before Schneiderman did, and who has been her close friend for nearly fifteen years, says that she confided in him as well. “She called me and told me he had hit her,” Rushdie recalls. “She was obviously very upset. I was horrified.” In his view, Schneiderman’s behavior does not fall into the kind of gray area that should remain private. “It was clear to me that it crossed a line,” he says. Rushdie, who describes Manning Barish as “a very truthful person, in my experience,” advised her to stay away from Schneiderman.
I like Salman Rushdie. He stuck his neck out during the whole Charlie Hebdo-PEN brouhaha, when way too many respectable right-on literary types (such as Francine Prose and Joyce Carol Oates) jumped on the anti-Charlie bandwagon only a few months after the massacre.
Schneiderman was elected to the New York State Senate in 1998, and served for twelve years. He wrote many laws, including one that created specific penalties for strangulation. He introduced the bill in 2010, after chairing a committee that investigated domestic-violence charges against the former state senator Hiram Monserrate, a Democrat, who was expelled from the legislature after having been convicted of assaulting his girlfriend. During the hearings, the legislators learned that New York State imposed no specific criminal penalty for choking, even though it is a common prelude to domestic-violence homicides. Not only did Schneiderman’s bill make life-threatening strangulation a grave crime; it also criminalized less serious cases involving “an intent to impede breathing” as misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in prison. “I’m just sorry it took us so long in New York State to do this,” Schneiderman declared at the time. “I think this will save a lot of lives.”
But he’s a strangler himself. People baffle me.
Jennifer Friedman, a legal expert on domestic violence, says that she cannot square Schneiderman’s public and private behavior. Anyone knowledgeable about intimate-partner violence, she says, knows that choking is “a known lethality indicator.” She adds, “I cannot fathom that someone who drafted the legislation on strangulation is unfamiliar with such concepts.” She also says, “A slap is not just a slap—it reverberates through the rest of the relationship, making her afraid of setting him off.” She adds, “People aren’t usually prosecuted for it, but, in the state of New York, slapping is assault when it results in pain or physical injury.”
Well at least I’m not the only one who doesn’t get it.
Finally:
Selvaratnam kept notes about her exchanges with the former girlfriend, and she described them to TheNew Yorker. According to these notes, the former girlfriend told Selvaratnam that she had been in love with Schneiderman, but that in bed he had routinely slapped her hard across the ear and the face, as tears rolled down her cheeks. He also choked her and spat at her. Not all the abuse had taken place in a sexual context. She said that Schneiderman had once slapped her during an argument they’d had while getting dressed to go out. The blow left a handprint on her back; the next day, the spot still hurt. When the former girlfriend objected to this mistreatment, he told her that she simply wasn’t “liberated” enough.
That. It reminds me of a line from Big Little Lies – the novel or the tv dramatization or both, I don’t remember – about a one night stand with a guy who turned out to be violent: when the woman said no he told her she was “too vanilla.” Apparently that’s a thing now? Women who like being beaten up or anally raped during sex are “liberated” and adventurous, and women who don’t are horrible unliberated vanilla prudes? So being beaten up (for women only) is extra extra super sexy and rejecting it is “sex-negative”?
That’s Schneiderman’s theory, apparently.
The lawyer and Schneiderman began making out, but he said things that repelled her. He told the woman, a divorced mother, that professional women with big jobs and children had so many decisions to make that, when it came to sex, they secretly wanted men to take charge. She recalls him saying, “Yeah, you act a certain way and look a certain way, but I know that at heart you are a dirty little slut. You want to be my whore.” He became more sexually aggressive, but she was repulsed by his talk, and pulled away from him. She says that “suddenly—at least, in my mind’s eye—he drew back, and there was a moment where I was, like, ‘What’s happening?’ ” Then, she recalls, “He slapped me across the face hard, twice,” adding, “I was stunned.”
Schneiderman hit her so hard, she says, that the blow left a red handprint. “What the fuck did you just do?” she screamed, and started to sob. “I couldn’t believe it,” she recalls. “For a split second, I was scared.” She notes that, in all her years of dating, she has never been in a situation like the one with Schneiderman. “He just really smacked me,” she says.
When she told him that she wanted to leave, she recalls, he started to “freak out,” saying that he’d misjudged her. “You’d really be surprised,” he claimed. “A lot of women like it. They don’t always think they like it, but then they do, and they ask for more.”
So just in case, he gives it to them, and “a lot of them” like it and ask for more.
“You’d really be surprised,” he claimed. “A lot of women like it. They don’t always think they like it, but then they do, and they ask for more.”
Brilliance there. Sheer brilliance.
Pity they don’t have a Nobel for Reason and Logic. He would be a shoo-in.
Or perhaps a shoo-out..
Maybe his legal attitudes were either projection or some kind of weird penance… That’s the only thing that makes sense
This is definitely a “read the whole thing” article. Wow.
I know there’s the whole domination thing, and there’s role playing, but are there men who full-on slap their girlfriends in the face, call them whores, call them brown slaves, threaten to kill them if they leave, pour alcoholic beverages into their mouths, order them to fill their pain pill subscription and give them half the pills, etc., as part of a healthy relationship?
As part of a healthy relationship? Doubtful. I suppose there might be women who like this, who thrive on it, but I suspect they are much rarer than many men pretend to think they are.
Somehow I’ve managed to avoid relationships with any man who ever hit me, and for that I thank luck. It seems there are few cues to guide you, if the men who promote anti-violence legislation resort to violence themselves. I have been fortunate. It makes me even more determined to stick with my current partner who both loves and respects me, because to wade back into the dating world would be quite frightening (though I know that I can live just fine without a man, so if anything happens to him, I will just stay as I am…I can be happy single).
Not what I’d call a healthy relationship, no – but saying that probably counts as “kink shaming.”
Only to kids who haven’t actually been involved in organised BDSM groups, where consent and education are heavily emphasised and the difference between play and abuse is discussed. For people of my generation and older, kink scenes were pretty much the *only* places that you could talk about sex as anything more than reproductive biology; explicitly negotiating one’s own and one’s partners’ tastes, interests, revulsions, and limits is part and parcel of being active in a kink scene. Concepts such as Risk Aware Consensual Kink have heavy ‘mindshare’, and group settings offer chances for novices to learn and explore from more experienced players in a relatively safe and controlled environment (and also for more experienced players to keep an eye on newcomers).
The fact that abusive people can clothe their abuse in terms of kink is often seen as a major problem in the scenes themselves, which can lead to even more vigilance on the part of the group leaders and veterans. And while abusers (or proto-abusers) do try to enter such groups, the members of the groups are much more aware of the precursors and the signs than the members in your average bowling club. For people who are active (or, in my case, former) kinksters, the delineation between breath play and strangulation is as wide as the difference between using paintballs and live ammunition. I’m not sure what counts as “kink” or not to post-Millennials who spend all their time writing think-micropieces on Twitter and Tumblr, but in my experience, the distinction was fairly unambiguous.
Seth, I’ve never been part of that scene, but I know people who have, and have left because they’ve found too many turds in the punchbowl, so to speak. I’m not really in a position to know, but seems a good bet to me that framing kink as an “identity” and discouraging criticism as “kinkshaming” enables abusers.
(I don’t mean to imply that I don’t think kink can be ethical. Just that my impression is the community is dicier these days.)
Lady Mondegreen, indeed, I might have been a bit too emphatic. The potential for abuse is certainly there, and it’s been quite awhile since I’ve been involved in any scenes, but I suppose I was just trying to say that I and several people I know have no problem calling Schneiderman’s conduct unacceptable abuse and holding him in the deepest contempt for trying to use kink as a cover for it.