Lizzie Borden--Cult heroine?

[Darrowfan]

I mentioned this briefly on another thread, and I thought it might be worth discussing in more detail. I'm mainly intrigued by the crime itself, but lately I have found myself wondering about the popular view of Lizzie Borden as a person.

She was of course, a product of her time, when women could not vote, and in most cases, could not own a business, could not seek an advanced educational degree, and so on. In short, Lizzie, like most American women of her time, must have felt a great deal of frustration.

In the 1975 film "The Legend of Lizzie Borden", (which I thought was an awful film overall, by the way), the prosecutor's wife made an interesting remark. After Knowlton claims that Lizzie is trying to avoid punishment by "hiding behind her skirts", Mrs. Knowlton expresses some sympathy for Lizzie. "Not for her deeds, but perhaps for her motives." When the prosecutor asks his wife what she could possibly know about Lizzie's motives, she replies, "You have no idea how heavy these skirts can be".

Although that conversation is probably fictitious, the line I quoted poses an interesting question. Was Mrs. Knowlton suggesting that perhaps Lizzie lashed out at her parents due to a silent rage, a rage caused by her feelings of being a "second-class citizen" within her own society? Of course, I realize that most of the other women of her time faced the same social constraints that Lizzie did, and they faced the oppression without committing acts of homocidal violence. But still, its an interesting question, I think. Especially given the fact that some people, even some who believe Lizzie is guilty, seem to feel a certain admiration for her.

Thoughts?

[PossumPie]

I think the "sign of OUR time" is that whenever a tragedy occurs, people don't come down on the killer as much as finding blame elsewhere. 2 boys choose to go into their school in Columbine, Colorado and shoot innocent kids, 10% discussion on their crime, 90% discussion on how society, movies and video games were to blame. Heck, when they put up crosses as a memorial to the dead, they had crosses for Dylan and Eric until some 'radical' parent of a dead student tore them down.
A coward walks into a building on Virginia Tech's campus, and shoots innocent students and teachers. Almost NO discussion as to his guilt, virtually all media coverage was how the schools, teachers, parents, psychiatrist failed him, he was a sad loner, a girl actually told him she wouldn't date him, Heck, I almost felt sorry for him when the media was done.
We have very quietly moved away from individual blame, and moved to blaming nebulous things like the justice system, psychiatry, video games, religion, whites, men, bullies, poverty, etc.
This is one more example of diffusion of blame. I see posts here occasionally "Lizzie must have had a great burden to bear to kill her parents." I don't care WHAT she went through, SHE chose to kill, which our society deems a crime.
I feel Lizzie was guilty, and feel NO admiration for a (probable) murderer.

[NancyDrew]

Ditto on PossumPie's comments.

I'm a woman, and I remember growing up in the 1960's when women didn't have the right to control their own bodies (pre-Roe V. Wade), when spousal rape wasn't a crime, when women were expected to bear children whether they wanted to or not. I remember my own mother chafing under those societal expectations. She chose to vent her frustrations on me...and to a lesser extent, my brother. How? With her fists, that's how. I was beaten on a daily basis. Told "I wish you were dead" over and over and over again. She left me with damage to my left temporal lobe and a strong sense of self loathing.

It took me years and years of therapy to learn how not to hate myself. And I had to go thru a dozen therapists before I found one that finally lay the blame exactly where it belonged: on my MOTHER. Not on society, or her oppression, or feelings of helplessness. She chose to abuse me. There were a million ways she could have expressed the rage seething inside of her. The choice she made was to exact those powerful feelings on the heads of two innocent children.

I'm okay now. I have children of my own (and have NEVER laid a hand on any of them) and through many years of painful trial and error, I have worked out a semi-relationship with my own mother, now retired and living 1200 miles away. In fact, I'm going to visit her in a month. I will have my guard up, my boundaries clearly laid out, and if she violates any of them, I walk away. (This will be, most likely, the last time I ever see her. )

Back to Lizzie: The only circumstance I can possibly see that might provide a defense for brutally hacking the faces of her father and step-mother would be if Andrew had been sexually abusing Lizzie, and further, if Abby knew about it, and did nothing to stop, or worse: aided him in the molestation (Lizzie was 2 years old when her father remarried.)

We have, however, no proof.

In terms of female oppression in general, do you think women in the 19th century KNEW they were oppressed? You can't miss what you never had. Just thinking out loud here...(I reserve the right to revisit this topic, modify my comments, or even change my mind. But I doubt I will.).

We know that Lizzie felt she deserved a more luxurious style of living than the one her father provided. She probably longed for nicer clothes, a bigger house in a wealthier neighborhood. She probably thought she deserved a "coming out" party, her name in the social register, invitations to grand balls at the governor's mansion. Boo hoo, poor Lizzie.

I have no sympathy for her.

She never did a day of hard labor in her entire life. With the exception of cleaning her own bedroom, all household chores were done by a servant. She could spend a morning leisurely leafing through a magazine instead of washing windows on a hot summer day (in between throwing up, I might add.) She was lucky enough to travel outside of the U.S. and visit exotic, foreign countries. She slept in a well-made feather bed, and as late as she pleased. If she wanted to "go visiting" she didn't need to ask for the day off from work.

Even while incarcerated and waiting for her trial, she was recipient of better treatment than 99% of the country; her meals were catered by a hotel chef, she was allowed to go on carriage rides, her clothes were laundered and pressed by someone else.

It is true that she could not vote (although she did see females win that fight in 1920.) she could have gone to college. FIRST she would have had to finish high school (she dropped out in the 10th grade.) While it was not common, it WAS possible for women to earn a college degree. Vassar was founded in 1861, and had a curriculum similar to all-male universities http://www.nwhm.org/online-exhibits/edu ... 800s_6.htm.

Was it easy to be a woman in the 19th century? The case can be argued from both sides. I don't think it is particularly easy to be a woman now. Of the two of us, I earn a higher income than my husband, and yet, I am still expected to cook, clean, prepare all holiday meals (Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, not to mention birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, baptisms, wedding and baby showers, etc.) I do all the dusting, vacuuming, scrubbing, neatening up, and if my husband or children are sick, I am the one who does all the care-taking. I have several close female friends, and they are in the same boat.

I'd like to modify my statement: Unless you are very wealthy, it isn't easy to be a human being, period. We are an impressive species, if you ask me. We don't know how we got here, what happens to us when we die (we can have very strong belief systems, and faith, but truth-be-told, NO ONE really knows,) or what we are supposed to do in our lifetime. We operate daily against incredible odds, knowing that at any moment, our entire world as it is known to us, could be wiped out.

We are at the mercy of sometimes violent and catastrophic weather events. The threat of crime is increasing; you can get shot and killed just for being inside a mall at the wrong time. As we get older, the risk of developing a painful (and terminal) illness increases.

On the flip side (I did, after all, state that this supposition could be argued from both sides) we now have sophisticated satellites and tracking systems that can inform us when a hurricane or blizzard is approaching and therefore allow us to prepare. We can choose NOT to be in crowded public arenas. And medicine has made astonishing strides in the past 25 years alone, never mind 120 years. In July, I was bitten by my own dog. Due to several strong antibiotics, I am alive and didn't lose my limb. If this had occurred during Lizzie's era, there is a strong chance I would have had to suffer amputation of my right arm, and I probably would have died from infection.

I know I'm getting way off topic here--forgive me my rant.

The way I read the original question was: (assuming Lizzie DID kill her parents) who is to blame? Lizzie, or the society that oppressed her? I vote for the former. Every century, heck, every generation suffers from their own set of injustices. Even if one is born into the most privileged of all situations: wealthy, white & male, there is still the threat of illness and injury.

We play the hand of cards we are dealt at birth. Lizzie's father was truly a self-made man, creating his own success and wealth. Had his life NOT been cut down (no pun intended) tragically, he would have left a sizable fortune to his heirs. And who would those heirs have been? His wife, of course. But in my opinion, he would not have left his only children, Lizzie and Emma, NOTHING. They might have not received as much since some of Andrew's estate would have been bequeathed to his wife of over 20 years, but it still would have been more than enough to live on, without ever having to go to work.

It is not difficult to see that Lizzie enjoyed the finer things in life. After her fathers death and her subsequent acquittal, she wasted no time in buying a ridiculously large house (too big, imo, for just one person) hiring a staff of servants, and after the advent of the automobile, buying a limousine and hiring a full time chauffeur.

In my opinion, such an ostentatious display of riches is nothing short of obscene. Lizzie did donate to the to SCPA, but think of what her money could have done to help the sick, the poor, the disenfranchised. She could have started an orphanage, donated to a hospital, adopted children, reached out to prisoners, helped support the families who lost their husband and father in the "war to end all wars" (WWI.)

Prior to her father's death, and barring any new information that we are not privy to, Lizzie had it no better or worse than anyone else...in fact, she had it a lot better. The oppression of females in the 19th century is, in this writer's opinion, scarcely motive for taking the lives of two people.

Lizzie Borden is no hero to me, nor do I feel a speck of admiration for any person who ends the life of another, except in cases of pure self-defense. This didn't happen here. Andrew Borden lay napping when the repeated blows of an ax cut his face off, even slicing his eyeball neatly in half.

And Abby? She was struck from behind. Sucker-punched. Her fatal error was in marrying a man who had, at the least a mentally ill daughter, and at the most, a narcissistic sociopath.

There will always be unfairness in life. I'm sure every person reading this believes they have been treated unfairly at one time or another. Does it give him/her the right to brutally attack and murder? A firm NO.

I've seen The Legend of Lizzie Borden many times, and didn't remember that comment made by Mrs. Knowlton. If she did indeed say something like that, shame on her. The inequality between the sexes pales in comparison to the inequality between people living and DEAD.

The above is only my opinion. It is an excellent topic for thoughtful conversation, and I think you, Darrowfan, for bringing it up.

[Darrowfan]

To Possumpie and Nancy:

Thank you for your interesting responses. I agree with you both that too often, a societal "scapegoat" is sought in homocide cases. (childhood abuse, video games, etc.) If Lizzie committed the murders (and I believe she did), I don't think she had any real justification. I have heard the sexual abuse theory, but I have never believed it. From what I have read about Andrew, he just doesn't seem the type of man who would do such a thing. The only "lust" he ever felt was for money, I think.

I addressed this issue because I was curious about each member's attitude toward Lizzie Borden the woman, as opposed to Lizzie Borden the homocide suspect. Your thoughtful answers to my post made me realize that the two cannot be separated; they are but two sides of the same coin, so to speak.

One a personal level, I admit I was gratified to hear both Possum and Nancy stand up for the victims. I have studied many famous murder cases, and one thing that has always disturbed me is the fact that the victims sometimes become mere abstractions. Whatever virtues or faults Abby and Andrew had, the fate that befell them is truly appalling.

On the subject of Lizzie herself, one of the investigating officers may have said it best. In the Witness Statements, one of the policemen who interviewed Lizzie on the day of the murders wrote, "To the Marshall I said 'I don't like that girl'" He added, ""Under the circumstances she does not act in a manner to suit me; it is strange, to say the least." I think the officer was saying that while he was horrified by the crime, Lizzie didn't seem to be.

Anyway, thanks again for your well-reasoned replies.