Idiotic logic like this is what causes the feminist movement to get a bad name. The author argues that this expanded definition could be misused to reinforce patriarchal structures, and uses that to argue that the expanded definition is bad. This is hogwash, because each case of domestic violence would still be tested on the facts… And it is a blatant stretch of logic to assume that the law will now uphold the patriarchal structure all of a sudden. Moreover, the author does not lend any credence to the fact that there are indeed instances of abuse by daughters-in-law which do not receive protection under law. She sweeps the same under the carpet, as if this kind of abuse is an “acceptable” as opposed to abuse of daughters-in-law. The author is in effect saying that by virtue of being a daughter-in-law, you should not be held responsible for abuse committed by you. This cannot be an acceptable proposition for any rational mind.
That part, so far of the special and the DVD, was very gratifying because that's what we had hoped to see happen would be essentially the unmasking of the SPLC. Twenty or 30 years ago, we did a number of specials doing the same thing to the ACLU, because the ACLU had a reputation for being 'hey, we're for civil liberties, right?' But over time they became less and less in favor of the civil liberties of people like us. So we wanted people to understand what was really going on with them at that time and we want the same thing now with the SPLC.