MALE DISPOSABILITY – How an abuser portrays herself as the abused and how her enabler goes down in flames –the Ballad of Jodi Arias and Alyce La Violette


Daisy Deadhead asked a few weeks ago if anyone here was paying any attention to the Jodi Arias trial. She considered this particular murder trial, with the now customary accusations of spousal abuse by the murder victim, to be a huge men’s rights issue. She was right.

Background – Jodi Arias shot her husband, Travis, and stabbed him 29 times. She can’t keep her story straight enough for anyone to figure out where she did it or quite how it all happened. Nevertheless there is an even chance she’ll be acquitted – because Patriarchy or something and the Duluth Model. Murder victim or not, he’s the only man in the situation, so he must be the abuser, right? That seems to be the way La Violette’s, expert witness for the defense, sees it.

But this is the real news. The star defense witness, a domestic violence expert named Alyce La Violette has stirred up a hurricane with her biased testimony portraying Jodi as a DV victim. Look at the reaction in the comments about her book at Amazon. DV victims and DV professionals are lining up – over 500 comments so far – to say how she disgusts them as DV victims, how she shames them as DV professionals, what a fraud she is. It is really quite the firestorm. And in comment after comment her man-hatred is excoriated. That’s a new development too.

And when someone ventures a positive comment it immediately attracts five and ten comments calling them frauds, maybe even Alyce herself, or else duped idiots. One such comment has 55 comments in response – that’s five pages of comments.

In fact the reaction has become so violent that saner voices, Janice Harper for instance, have had to speak up – not to defend Alyce La Violettee so much as to insist on some kind of civilized moderation.

This is news indeed. What’s news is that the enablers of these abusers are paying the price, for a change. There will always be Jodi Ariases and Ted Bundys – sociopaths who feel free to treat others as objects and simply do not see how the most basic rules apply to them. That’s not the issue. The issue is how society deals with that. In the case of a Ted Bundy no one saw it for years, but when they finally did, the hammer came down. No one testified at his trial trying to excuse his behavior on the grounds of some kind of mistreatment he allegedly suffered. Yet when it‘s a woman – this time it’s Jodi Arias, but it happened with Mary Winkler, with Andrea Yates and with many others – there is a heroic attempt to portray the perpetrator as a victim, and a willing audience, because that narrative fits their narratives.

And the enablers like La Violette are crucial to this. And always even in those rare instances where the woman does get held accountable, the enablers skitter out scott free to wreak havoc another day.

Well, maybe not for much longer.

Jim Doyle
Latest posts by Jim Doyle (see all)
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Jim Doyle

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="3076">48 comments</span>

  • It’s sad to learn about this. I noticed that the second chapter of ‘It Can Happen to Anyone’ is called “Institutional Battering: The Power of Patriarchy.” Sounds like putting political feminism in the same space as psychology.

    The comments on Amazon are fun to read.

  • I made a typo, I meant “The Power of the Patriarchy.” (“The Patriarchy” is more of a feminist term than just “patriarchy.”)

  • Sorry for the off-topic but this is something I’m sick and tired of:

    Yeah, it’s from the sinking ship that is The Good Men Project (UGH!) but it details a pattern that disgusts me:

    Teaching sons about rape without even throwing in nurturing awareness of their own boundaries, respect for them, so they don’t get hurt themselves by girls and women since men and boys can be victims of female rapists.

    Can you do an article for this site on that? This needs to be discussed because it gets my gall.

    As far as the subject here, I’m glad people are waking up to the fraudulent portrayl of victimhood for the cold-hearted murderer.

  • Apparently the jury got to question LaViolette (

    This in particular stuck out to me:

    “6:28 p.m. ET: Juror question: “It has been proven that Jodi has lied multiple times… how are you able to know everything she is saying is truthful?”

    “I don’t, I don’t know everything she told me was true. I know that I have enough to back up with the information that I got… to believe that she is telling me the truth about things. That she lied after the killing of Mr. Alexander does not make her a liar. It makes her a frightened human being,” said LaViolette.”

    The fact that she lied… doesn’t make her a liar?

    …Does this woman even hear herself?

    Another good one:

    “Juror question: Is it possible that your view of men in general is skewed or biased towards being abusive?

    LaViolette says she has great men in her life: Her dad, brother, son, brothers-in-law, friends.”

    ‘I’m not racist! I have black friends!’

  • SWAB,
    “I don’t think they were married…”

    Thanks for catching that. Easy mistake; she sure treated him like a husband.

    Eagle, let me go look at that. It’s time to pull the scab off that place.

    Paul, that’s very interesting. Very interesting. That’s a statement of inherent victimhood and a claim that it trumps everything.

  • The main difference between this case and the countless of others just like it which have gone down before is that this one actually stands a good chance of exposing feminist DV advocates for what they are, no matter what the outcome of the trial is.

    What will happen is that the rest of them will try to cut off people like Violette like a piece of gangreened flesh, but it is imperative that they not be allowed to do so. It is the ideology that is broken, not one or two individuals who take it to an extreme and ruin it for the ‘real victims’. All I see when I look around are a bunch of crocodile tears from advocates who quietly or not so quietly have been throwing men under the bus for decades, yet now when their shtick is out there for everyone to see, all of a sudden they put on their sheep’s clothing and try to claim that men actually stand t benefit from their quackery.

  • I’m hoping, with more cases like this, we’ll be switching from an ideological perspective to a more human perspective when tackling Domestic Violence.

    At the same time, I’ll also be watching the skies for flying pigs.

  • I haven’t been following the Arias trial. I’ve been very busy with lots of stuff and have even been neglecting my own blog. But I’m glad I stopped by yours today. This is one of the issues that got me to start paying attention to men’s rights. About 10 years ago my wife and I became business partners with another couple selling goods at a local swap meet. Shortly after our partnership broke up (they wanted to start their own business), the husband and wife were arrested for murdering her mother. She had lent the couple about $50k to fund their business and was demanding they begin repaying her. She was killed for her kindness.

    As it turned out, she killed her mother and got her husband to dispose of the body which wasn’t found for about 6 weeks. since I had been their business partner I was interviewed as a potential witness (never called). But that’s not the whole story. About 10 years prior, she shot and killed her first husband while he slept. The first shot was from across the room, the second was to the head, point blank. She claimed that he had been molesting their daughters and was abusive to her. There was no physical evidence to support her claims. no witnesses. No prior reports. She couldn’t even produce a single witness to testify that she had told them of the abuse prior to killing him. The prosecutor plead the case down to manslaughter and she got time served. That was less than a year in county jail for an execution-style murder. Had she not been a woman claiming abuse, her mother may have lived to die of old age.

    Funny thing was, she tried it again. She attempted to blame her second husband for killing her mother. Once again she claimed he was abusive and violent. This time she even had a previous report of child abuse to use against the husband. but when the children were interviewed, they stated it was their mother who was abusive and that their father/step-father had taken the blame for the previous incident out of fear of their mother. Her statements blaming him were enough to get him to testify against her. combined with some physical evidence suggesting that she was the murderer, the testimony of the children and her husband was enough to convict her of first degree murder. She got 25- life. He got 12-25 in exchange for his testimony.

    The use of abuse claims by women who commit violence in order to avoid convictions and/or long sentences was one of the first issues to draw my attention to men’s issues.

  • SWAb, yeah, I saw that and threw up across the room. Quivering with rage over that. If I had any doubts about the absolute need for legal and routinely inspected abortion services this drove a stake through those. And here it really was an anti-abortion agenda of de-funding the inspectional capablity of the responsible office that facilitated this horrible, horrible situation.

  • “LaViolette says she has great men in her life: Her dad, brother, son, brothers-in-law, friends.”
    ‘I’m not racist! I have black friends!’

    QED. This is a common attempted defense agaisnt charges of misandry – “But dear, I can’t be misandrist; I’ve been married to a man for …..”

    Yes well, then no married man can ever be misogynist. Right?

  • dungone,
    “The main difference between this case and the countless of others just like it which have gone down before is that this one actually stands a good chance of exposing feminist DV advocates for what they are, no matter what the outcome of the trial is.”

    It seems like that’s how it goes – a situation persists unchallenged, you think no one will ever come around, but all the time everyone else has been walking up and getting fed up, so when they finally call a halt it comes as a surprise. Maybe this is that case for this situation

  • TDOM,
    That’s an interesting story. You may not have posted this to your blog, buit oyu posted it to this one, so it’s going out into the genderspehere. This is the anlge that lifts it to salience:

    “The use of abuse claims by women who commit violence in order to avoid convictions and/or long sentences was one of the first issues to draw my attention to men’s issues.

    “The use of abuse claims by women who commit violence in order to avoid convictions and/or long sentences was one of the first issues to draw my attention to men’s issues.”

    This is women’s proxy violence, or a form of it – men’s protection and licensing of women’s violence.

  • I can’t find it now (of course), but one blogger in Tucson who knows the Arizona laws, claimed that La Violette stood to make around $30,000 (over the 4 year period) if she is charging by the hour. This would include her time interviewing Arias, doing the evaluations and her time on the witness stand. So there is a very real profit motive here.

    I am astounded at La Violette. Just astounded. How she can just take a sociopath’s word for something and say “there is no way she is lying” — is unbelievable to me. It is the triumph of theory over reality, thats for sure. I mean, this is Arias’ THIRD account of the story, and she only came up with it under duress, after law enforcement made it clear to her that they had found her camera with the photos of Travis in the shower. How can you say “there is no way she is lying” when she has a history of lying???

    This is the second defense expert that has appeared utterly besotted with Jodi… the psychologist Richard Samuels seemed infatuated with her as well, and even privately sent her a book and messages. Arizona is one of the few states in which juries are permitted to question witnesses, and one juror pointedly asked Samuels if his chummy behavior was appropriate for a doctor treating a patient, particularly one on trial for murder. He seemed alarmed and surprised by the question.

    Arias is very seductive, and people who spend a lot of time with her (your comparison to Ted Bundy is very astute, Gingko!) seem to become all dreamy and develop crushes on her. Yeeeuch!

    The jury doesn’t seem to be buying any of this bullshit, and that is a real comfort. I hope they remain as skeptical as they are right now.

  • BTW, I saw your Amazon link about the book… just wanted to make clear, she timed her testimony to peddle her book, which is pretty mercenary behavior for a do-gooder.

    The comments at Amazon are pretty damning indeed!

  • Gingko: Background – Jodi Arias shot her husband, Travis, and stabbed him 29 times.
    Boyfriend, not husband. In fact, one of the motives is likely that she was ‘friendzoned’ and the kinky sex wasn’t enough to get her considered for Mrs Travis status. He preferred “good girls” (as a supposed-to-be devout Morman) and was getting ready to take one such good girl (not Jodi) to Cancun. Jodi converted to Mormonism and everything (to suck up to Travis), but still remained Travis’ ‘dirty secret’–they had some wild monkey sex but he still would not introduce her to his friends, for instance. This was a big deal to her and she repeatedly wrote about it in her journal, the one La Violette was mooning over.

    The slashed tires and what-all, was not allowed into official evidence, since it was considered too prejudicial. So the jury may or may not be aware of her stalking… whenever witnesses have tried to blurt it out and get it in, the jury has been told to disregard, but you know how that works. 😉 If they are listening carefully, they know she stalked him OJ-style.

  • Daisy I also recall reading that $30,000 figure too… although I can’t seem to recall where either.

    I also read somewhere else that she basically taunted the victim’s family as she stepped off the stand. Real class act

  • Incidentally, the 1 star reviews on her book have topped 1000, and even alot of the 5 star reviews (if you actually read them) are pretty negative.

    Frankly I disagree that this is bullying or mobbing (besides the threats of violence, of course, those aren’t justified and need to stop) Some people just deserve to have their careers ruined.

  • Daisy, that is very interesting background on the economics, and also on Jodi’s history of seduction.

    I was afraid I was going out on a limb with the Bundy comparison; glad you back me on it. A sociopath’s gonna path.

    Paul, I totally agree that tbhis is not mobbing. This is the free workings of the marketplace and when La Violette is trying to sell a book, she is in trade and she can just take her knocks – the customer is always right.

  • I do not know if anyone watched any of the testimony, however, LaViolette made it clear that she was only looking for things that corroborated the defense’s claim that Travis abused Jodi. Even when presented with evidence showing that Jodi stalked Travis and Travis stating that he was afraid of Jodi. It is clear that LaViolette sides with Jodi, and perhaps even clearer that Jodi managed to successfully con this woman into believing her third story.

    I noticed that LaViolette is as passive aggressive as Jodi. When Jodi took the stand under direct examination, she had no problem answering the questions directly, and neither did LaViolette. Once it turned to cross, both dodged the questions, added tangential quips, refused to answer direct questions, and played the victim. In fact, they both stated they had trouble answering the prosecutor’s questions because of the way he spoke to them.

    As for Arias getting away with murder, I doubt that. In Arizona, the jury is allowed to ask witnesses questions, and their questions to Arias and the experts suggest that they are not buying Jodi’s self-defense argument. None of the evidence supports it, and this is the third story this woman told about what happened. It is hard to believe that someone who killed in self-defense would remove and destroy evidence, throw away the weapons used in self-defense, try to destroy a camera with evidence on it, buy gas out of state so there would be no record of the person in the state, destroy the clothes with the blood on them, lie to the family and friends, lie twice to the police about what happened, and give several interviews declaring their innocence.

    That is what the jury would have to believe to acquit her. It is more likely they would end up a hung jury than let her walk.

  • “I noticed that LaViolette is as passive aggressive as Jodi.”

    That went right past me. Thanks. Looking at all this dodging and distortion, it occurs to me that Jodi Arias may not be the only Cluster B type in that courtroom.

  • Not sure where to put this, but it’s about abuse and I thought you should know about it. AVfM has just highlighted a piece at the Good Men Project (and I’m not fucking linking to it, I’m not prepared to give them traffic, not after this one) in which author Zach Rosenberg told his four-year-old son that trying to kiss a girl at school, who it turns out didn’t want him to kiss her, is rape. He also says he’s more comfortable talking about rape than about sex in front of him. Not only that, but he’s put the boy’s photo at the top of the article!

    This is what we’re up against. We have men who have so internalised feminism and it’s “rape culture” that they think calling a four-year-old a rapist, and then writing about it on the internet, is something a sane person would even consider doing. We have editors who approve articles like this, and commenters who leave approving comments after them, and none of them notice what they’re talking about is fucking child abuse! This is not well-meaning but misguided. This is evil on a Mary Daly level.

  • I saw that somewhere else, Patrick, and it disgusted me. That’s going up here next.

  • Jacob, actually, a hung jury is what I am worried about, at this point.

    Jacob: In fact, they both stated they had trouble answering the prosecutor’s questions because of the way he spoke to them.

    The way all the commentators and everybody is howling over (prosecutor) Juan Martinez being a “bully”–well, I hardly know what to say. I had algebra teachers as demanding and as sarcastic when the dog ate our homework. I mean, really? This guy is considered mean? Didn’t these people ever watch Perry Mason reruns? What do they expect under cross examination? I expected Jodi to whine and play victim (thats her defense, after all), but I was shocked when La Violette followed suit.

    I was once cross-examined to a fare-thee-well… it would never have occurred to me to whine that the lawyer was a bully; I expected her to be one. Bullying me was her *job*. I was duly warned about this and appropriately prepared for it. But getting on a witness stand and whining that someone was being mean to me? Are you serious? I could not believe that La Violette, an expert witness, would start that shit. Isn’t that what you are there to do, field questions from Perry fucking Mason? Good God. Unbelievable!

    This trial has been educational for me in oh so many ways.

  • Patrick Brown:

    That’s horrible, but I think that bit about the comparative ease of discussing rape with children as opposed to discussing sex is something a lot of parents have (my own almost certainly included). It isn’t just a matter of feminism; there’s also the fact that our culture offers a much more clear-cut and widely accepted narrative about rape than it does about sex. It’s much easier to feel confident telling a child ‘this is a terrible thing’ than it is telling them ‘this is an incredibly complex human interaction inextricably tied up with boatload of sometimes contradictory emotions and social standards’. Still, the degree to which male sexuality is viewed as harmful and predatory, even in males who don’t have sexuality yet, is always frightening. The damage those attitudes can do to a child is incalculable.

    Also, I have a good friend named Zach Rosenberg (definitely not the same one). Fuck synchronicity.

  • Hiding, you may be right. God, I hope not though. My own upbringing wasn’t anything like that extreme, but I still grew up with he message that my affection was a hostile insult to the person I felt it for, something I should be ashamed of. Women are entitled to feel insulted at being liked by me – what kind of self-image does that inculcate? I’m prone to depression and my love life has been a disaster area, and it’s only now, in my 40s, that I’m working some of that out. A Four-year-old being told that his affection is rape? This kid is going to grow up believing he’s a monster.

  • Patrick, Gingko: If you are writing about that Zach Rosenberg (what’s up with people named Rosenberg? : ) then this Belle Jar post is probably relevant:

    Clarissa from Clarissa’s Blog were not very happy with that post:

    And here is a horrifying post from a mother of a 2-year-old who is already having fantasies of him raping somebody at a party 20 years from now. This happens a lot more often that you might want to imagine. I have read and heard so many of these outbursts from mothers who believe that there is a vicious animal hiding inside their sons. If this is the reflection of yourself that you see in your own mother’s eyes, how easy do you think it is to disappoint Mommy and not rape anybody? It is just horrifying that such parents then inflict their deeply traumatized off-spring onto the rest of us.

  • Interesting point re: TGMP article.

    I remember reading (on this blog?) that there was a study that showed that parents who emphasize children *not* doing action X is correlated with a *higher* likelihood of the child engaging in activity X (due to the normalization of activity X as something that everyone except the child is allowed to do). Therefore, any mother who is obsessed with the idea of her son raping women is actually making it more likely that the son will rape a woman, by making him believe that all men rape women.

    As for Jodi Arias, I am somewhat disappointed with the prosecutor’s office. Strategically, they should have had a female ADA cross examine both Arias and LaViolette. That way, the natural tendency of people to assume gentle intentions of women would have gone some distance towards canceling out the natural tendency of people to assume that a woman is being victimized when that woman feels uncomfortable.

  • “This trial has been educational for me in oh so many ways.”

    Daisy, you were right about this affair frorm the very beginning. I would expect you to be a bit adversarial towards Arias, but every point you make is well-founded and fair.

    La Violette’s whining is another of the example of the passive-aggressive behavior TS noted. “I am this big ferocious champion of the downtroden!>Don’t hurt me!! I’m just a frail little thing!” Just a big, seething ball of toxic femininity.

  • Equilibrium, good point, but ugh. Men have no such guarantees. Again, what the hell happened to FEMINISM? I thought we were seeking EQUALITY — not being coddled and fussed over like 8-year-olds.

    The drama queen in me enjoyed Martinez saying, “Were you crying when you slit his throat?” (while Jodi bawled) which was awesomeness, like something from the movies. I think that question was crucial, delivered exactly like that. He cut through the bullshit in one question. But I agree that a woman might have handled La Violette better; he seemed really ‘put out’ by her.

    Apparently, Martinez is a control freak (notice he wouldn’t plead her out for anything less than First Degree murder) and that might be why he insists on doing the whole thing himself. As I said, reminds me of a skeptical algebra teacher demanding to know where the homework is… I can’t believe anyone considers him a bully. He is very IMpersonal and somewhat bureaucratic, if anything.

    Have we descended to the level where any man demanding facts of a woman (even one on trial!) is now regarded as a bully? Jesus H Christ.

  • Daisy, I think Martinez’s in-court demeanor is just to throw off witnesses. His aggressive style can unnerve someone, make them trip up, and perhaps lose track of their planned testimony.

    What struck me about LaViolette was that she was passive aggressive as Jodi Arias. On direct, she had no problem answering questions, but on cross she quibbled. That sort of thing annoys an aggressive type, which is how I think she viewed Martinez. Aggressive types are thrown off when someone does not respond to their anger. However, since Martinez’s “anger” is just a courtroom ploy, it did not always work.

    Likewise, passive aggressive types are thrown off when someone does not respond to their victim ploy. LaViolette specifically did that early on the first day of cross, asking Martinez if he was angry with her. That is also what Arias did.

    I think it is clear that Arias conned LaViolette, not only by using the woman’s own biases, but also because Arias is just that good at manipulating people.

  • Daisy,
    “Again, what the hell happened to FEMINISM? I thought we were seeking EQUALITY — not being coddled and fussed over like 8-year-olds. ”

    You have answered this question a thousand times in a thousand different ways and no one seems to wanat to hear. Spoiled, privileged entitlement princesses took it over as their personal hobby horse when everybody else was focusing on real life and turned it from a sisterhood into a sorority.

    And then they purged you and everyone else like you out of the movement.

    They turned it from a sisterhood into a sorority, and people like you, my dear, were never going to make it past rush week, if you even made it that far.

    This sorority mentatlity masquerading as sisterhood is the source of every major problem in feminism. We may identify one that isn’t, let’s see, but for now it looks that way.

    Do feminism focus only on the concerns of young, white, college-educated women? Check.

    Does feminism focus on the concerns of young women to the detriment of older women – health and reproductive issues, parenting (and grandparenting) issues, false rape acsusations as they affect the sons of women, etc?


    Does feminism view young, white men as the object of fascination and enmity?


    Does feminism collect women of color and gay men and thier issues as tokens to be deployed in white feminists’ fights and then react with alarm when these people confront these white feminists on this objectifying behavior?


    Does feminism police its perimeters very fiercely and deny entrance or impose permanent probationary status on anyone who is not a white, young, college-educated woman.?

    Check – just ask trans women or male feminists (if you can hack through the male feminsts’ Stockholm Syndrome).


  • Catherine Kieu is back in the news and, surprise surprise, she’s claiming to be a rape victim! Not only is her mutilated husband apparently a “sexual fiend who forced Kieu to have sex with him.” but Kieu is also claiming the fact that her mom died when she was 5 and she was (allegedly) raped when she was 6 is somehow relevent to her assaulting her husband with a knife.

  • When I was in first grade there were the “Kissing Girls”. They’d run around the playground kissing boys. Six girls all “attacking” one boy. Mothers, teach your daughters not to rape!

  • debaser,
    “Mothers, teach your daughters not to rape!”

    That’s half of it. The other half is “Mothers, teach your sons what girls are really like. (Real human beings – vicious,cruel and devious in their cruelty)”

    Paul, I saw that. How uttrery predictable. Well, Jodia Arias has just made her case exponentially more difficult to convince anyone of. God help her if there are any women on her jury.

  • Kind of related two several themes in this thread:
    GMP’s Joanna Schroeder brags about having a big strong and violent husband:

    But yes, as my friends who know my husband said on Facebook when I told the story, “Smokey would f*@cking kill that guy.” (his nickname is Smokey, not his real name, just FYI.)

    He probably would have punched the guy unconscious if he’d heard it. But OF COURSE the guy would never have said it if I had a 6’3″ Serbian man with me 😉

    The story she refers to seems to be this one, obviously the guy in the story behaves inappropriately, but I was still surprised about what she seems to think is an admirable reaction from her husband. This is apparently what a modern feminist looks like.
    Now I have to say something which many will find apalling, extreme and probably an example of rape culture:
    If “Smokey Schroeder” ever punches somebody I know and care about unconcious (no matter what noble and chivalrous reason he might have), then I am going to find him and I am going to kiss him.

  • Not married to each other. Never even lived together. She is a lying, psychotic, stalking KILLER>

  • Michelle, welcome!

    “Not married to each other. Never even lived together. She is a lying, psychotic, stalking KILLER>”

    Like I said…

    “God help her if there are any women on her jury.”

  • SWAB, that fucking infuriated me!!!! GENDERED morality tale, huh? Who gendered it? Oh wait, Jodi and La Violette did, didn’t they? Or maybe Jodi did when she decided to slice and dice Travis in the first place.

    Grr! The comparison to Casey Anthony again… perhaps the author of that piece doesn’t understand that it is entirely due to such miscarriages of justice that these ‘cyber posses’ came about in the first place?

    Casey Anthony is a free woman, one of those disturbing facts that this writer just glides over.

By Jim Doyle

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather