She probably did receive royalties. But she either let him control those too, or else they weren’t enough. Kind of funny how the only way she makes money is by trying to put other women in their place.

Conservative women are the best at playing the helpless victim, and this douchebag is a prime example. I have no sympathy for her. If there is a failure of feminism, it’s that we haven’t been able to convince women to take responsibility for themselves.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Ever hear of getting a job? Who was preventing her from doing so? You could say David Hager, but did he actually have that legal authority? No. It was her choice to cling to an oppressive ideology rather than to help herself.

Actually I don’t think that’s necessarily a fair statement, Redneck, since she did after all co-write at least one book with him. Offensive as that book might be, where were the royalties? Also, was she a stay-at-home parent during the relationship (no mention of children is made that I’ve seen - though that might be an oversight on my part)? Either way, his typical abuser stance of controlling the money amply provides an understanding of what the relationship ‘might’ have been like for her. No doubt she fucked up in a lot of ways, and has played a role in justifying the victimization of other women, but that doesn’t justify the victimization that seems to have been done to her.

On another note: Imagine having this guy as a doctor! How many women has he wrongly or incompletely treated by imposing his paternalistic views and out-dated medicine on their medical care? they probably never knew that there was better medicine available.

Scary, huh?

There are all kinds of ways abusers prevent their spouses from getting financial independence that have nothing to do with “legal authority.”

I think that courts - and “Alas”? readers - are smart enough to understand the distinction between fact and opinion.

Again, Amp, saying “he’s a rapist” is a direct accusation of criminal behavior and sexual misconduct, and while practically you’re not really in much danger of a lawsuit, it is something to be aware of. Not because any of us care about Hager, but we care about you.

Julian’s right–these people either deliberately lie or don’t distinguish between consensual and nonconsensual sex. That’s why they prattle on about how accepting gays will lead to child rape and incestuous marriage. For them, if you change any of their very rigid rules about sex, you have to discard all of them.

I really wonder if some of these people want those rules in place because it’s necessary for them to get it up. It’s no fun if it’s not dirty, y’know.

Money was an explosive issue in their household. Hager kept an iron grip on the family purse strings. Initially the couple’s single checking account was in Hager’s name only, which meant that Davis had to appeal to her husband for cash, she says…

These financial atmospherics undoubtedly figured into Linda’s willingness to accept payment for sex…

Ever hear of getting a job? Who was preventing her from doing so? You could say David Hager, but did he actually have that legal authority? No. It was her choice to cling to an oppressive ideology rather than to help herself.

This woman got a divorce, didn’t she? How, exactly, was she able to do that? Because of feminists. So maybe she didn’t specifically go running to NOW, but she sure took advantage of the right to divorce. And she had a FEMALE lawyer defend her. Doesn’t she think her lawyer should get back in the kitchen? Or is it okay to defend Linda Davis first?

What’s worse is that this woman ALLOWED a sexual abuser to treat other women (as he is a gynecologist). She allowed him to control women’s health through his position with the FDA. Why didn’t she come forward sooner? Because she doesn’t care about other women, that’s why. She was too selfish, too worried about herself, her precious family, and how bad it would all look. She even co-wrote a book with him WHILE he was allegedly abusing her, calling for a rollback on women’s rights.

Do I feel sorry for her? Not at all. The dumb b**** is STILL a political conservative. She’s still against women’s rights.

And that’s fine, she can be that way. But in my opinion, women who are against having rights should just give them up. It’s what she wants, isn’t it?

Of course, she did not deserve to be raped. I’m not saying that. But who the heck does this dumb b**** think got all those laws against rape passed? Who fought for her right to get divorced from an abusive husband? And how does she repay them? By writing this stupid book.

She shouldn’t have been raped, and for that I am sorry. But no sympathy for her overall situation, not from me. She made made money off of oppressing women. She probably still gets royalties from it. How does it feel to be oppressed, sweetie?

Feminists are way too nice.

The second most disturbing thing (after the whole repeated rape thing) about this is that I’ve encountered Bush-defenders elsewhere on the internet (e.g. on Matthew Yglesias’s blog) who are saying stuff like, “what, are liberals opposed to anal sex?” It really seems like consent isn’t that big a deal to them. Well, maybe it’s a bigger deal than they let on, and they’re just falling into the human failing of defending people they like even though they know their actions are immoral. I really hope that’s the case. I saw some really disturbing arguments though, along the lines of “well, she was married to him! What did she expect?”

I guess it feels intellectually dishonest for me to stick “alleged” before every word. It would probably be the smart thing for me to do, but I still don’t want to do it. I think the post as a whole makes the facts of the case, and what my opinion is based on, clear.

And it’s just not my opinion that he’s an alleged rapist. It’s a fact that he’s an” alleged rapist”; it’s my opinion that he’s a rapist. I think that courts - and “Alas” readers - are smart enough to understand the distinction between fact and opinion.

Isn’t there a technical term for ‘pretending there are no women in the room and paying attention only to the men’? I’m pretty sure anti-feminists are all into that one.

There’s probably another Latin term for ‘taking your opponent’s argument to a ridiculous extreme to stuff words into their mouth’, too.

How horrid.”

Oh indeed! There’s nothing wrong with calling a woman coming forward a gold-digging whore. I’m sure if Amp referred to the ex-Mrs. Hager as the gold-digging whore and a hysterical vindictive ex-wife, guys like Tom T. wouldn’t be shitting a brick over ‘libel’ issues. We should ONLY protect they guy’s credibility, right? After all women who come forward with any claim of being rape, assaulted, abused, etc are just being hysterical and are after money and attention, and have ZERO credibility to begin with, right? So who cares about protecting them from slander, libel, and abuse!

::gags::

When in doubt, discredit and mock the alleged victim, and put alleged criminal on a pedestal and protect him(or her) at all costs.

It’s highly disturbing, to say the least. And this guy is the Bush nominee for reproductive health issues at the FDA.

I doubt Amp is likely to get sued for making posts on his blog, frankly, but you asked why Amp shouldn’t call somebody a rapist if Amp believes that person to be one. Defamation lawsuits are one reason it’s wise to be careful what you call people and of what you accuse them.

Truth is a defense to defamation. Really, really believing it was true isn’t. Short summary of US defamation law here. In most jurisdictions, accusing a person of criminal conduct or sexual immorality is defamatory ‘per se’–the law assumes the subject suffered damages, you don’t have to prove that there WERE damages.

(I suppose at this point I should note that rape laws vary by state, and that if Hager forced his wife to have sex in a state that does not consider forced sex between non-estranged spouses to be rape, then legally he is not a rapist.)

Actually, isn’t mere belief in the truth of your claims a defense against libel in the US? Particularly against a public figure? Particularly when your claim includes a full explaination of your reason for reaching your conclusions?

No, public figures are a different animal, but not fair game for any comments at all, and no.

I’m hardly trying to defend Hager here–at the very least he’s a misogynistic asshole–and while I’m a lawyer, I don’t specialize in First Amendment law. But generally speaking, while on a practical level it’s unlikely Amp would be sued by Hager, there is a reason newspapers say things like “alleged rapist”.