Earlier on the news, I heard that Andrea Yates (she who drowned her five children in Texas) had been granted a new trial. I’m not going to go into that topic specifically (I happen that the screwup in that first trial was atrocious, and heads should roll over whoever vetted Dr. Dietz), but it made me think of something odd I’ve noticed before.
There have been cases of parents killing their children before, and regardless of the sex of the murdering parent, the reaction is the same. When it’s the father, it’s expressions of disgust and outrage at the monstrous father, accompanied by sympathy for the mother. But when it’s the mother who kills the children, it’s the same: sympathy for the poor mother who must have been driven to this monstrous act, and outrage at the father for allowing/encouraging it to happen.
It was really driven home to me this time, though, when it came out that the National Organization for Women had raised the funds for the appeal. Does NOW really want to be associated with a woman who murdered all five of her children?
It goes even deeper than that. I happen to be pro-choice on the abortion issue, as is NOW, but do they really want to leave themselves open to charges that they favor the right of women to kill their children on a whole new front?
But back to my point. It seems regardless of which parent actually kills the children, the mother is seen as sympathetic and the father as monstrous. Why is this?
Maybe I’m just not as in-touch with this issue because I don’t have children of my own, and never will. But the trend seems, to me, to smack of a double standard.
And that’s why I’m tossing this out — I’d like to hear some calm, reasoned discussion of this matter. I’m asking folks to try and be civil about this — if you want to really get heated, please do down and chime in on Paul’s regularly scheduled “PC vs. Mac” wars.
J.
Gee, Ray, I like how you apply the few facts you know, to a very limited knowledge and understanding of a complex legal matter and determine that you, and people who think like you, are “moral” and those who disagree, aren’t. All I can say is, cough, bullshit, cough.
Julie:
Your comment is a bit unfair. I don’t suppose those with whom I disagree are somehow “immoral.” Quite the contrary, I assume they come to their conclusions on what is just here based on a fair inquiry into what they feel is just.
I don’t think it’s immoral to want to uphold the principle that people shouldn’t be punished for actions that are the result of a mental disorder – or beyond their control in some sense. I just think it has internal inconsisencies based on my reasoning above. Based on this, and searching my own feelings, I come to a different conclusion than you. I certainly don’t know all the facts or understand the law as well as you do, but does that really mean my opinion is “bullshit”?
C’mon. Play nice. Or at least try to change my mind.
I don’t suppose those with whom I disagree are some how “immoral.” Quite the contrary, I assume they come to their conclusions on what is just here based on a fair inquiry into what they feel is just.
What they feel? I thought you were the one who feels and we were the ones who employed reason and logic. Anyway, you contradict yourself:
The emotive crowd says [as opposed to the reason/legal crowd] “I feel in me a great moral revulsion to her actions.”
and this:
In short, they feel moral revulsions [as opposed to the reason/legal crowed] . . .
and this:
Ultimately, science and logic [the reason/legal crowd] will lead us to the conclusion that no one is “responsible.” [no morality at all, huh?]
I don’t think it’s immoral to want to uphold the principle that people shouldn’t be punished for actions that are the result of a mental disorder – or beyond their control in some sense. I just think it has internal inconsisencies based on my reasoning above.
One, you contradict yourself, and two, what reasoning? You feeeeeeeeeeeel, remember?
Based on this, and searching my own feelings, I come to a different conclusion than you. I certainly don’t know all the facts or understand the law as well as you do, but does that really mean my opinion is “bullshit”?
Though the bullshit comment was actually directed at your belief in your moral superiority, now that you ask, yes.
C’mon. Play nice. Or at least try to change my mind.
Why?
Julie:
Responded to you on the new posting re: Yates.
Responding to someone, in the thread, earlier…too many to reread, sorry:
The O.J.Simpson thing being referred to earlier by me as being “gender bias” in action as to his skipping past a guilty verdict for murder one, was due to the fact that the very presence of the man is based upon his appearance of a male stereotype…that and that the fact that the jury was majority populated by sympathetic females and black females especially (in this case, individually selected as such, not so much their racial characteristics but their personalities AS blacks and as black females sympathetic to and impressed by the success of O.J. as a black man), and, the fact that his very issue was a stereotypically a male issue (nearly by a mile, although I realize that some females abuse their male partners and some even murder, but the majority of this behavior is by males who abuse female companions/partners).
I write “stereotypically” in reference to frequency of occurence within populations…it’s more prevalent (at least studied, identified) that males abuse females than vice versa, is what I mean here.
And, in the case of O.J., his entire line of defense and means to defend himself were based upon a male personna, a “male” “success model” so to speak…everything about the person characterized a certain male presumption against a female spouse/companion, right down to not being held accountable for his terrible behavior toward her (and others, in all due respect to Ron Goldman, may he rest in peace).
Several of the females on the jury later shared that they were impressed with the Simpson defense and Simpson himself, not being able to admit that he was a murderer based upon his “stature” and ‘fame” and achievements and such, and, there was that thing about Johnny Cochran (certainly not a female stereotype) who “commanded the courtroom” (a very, very male stereotype if not several) that also “impressed” female jurists.
I didn’t read too many comments by the males on the jury, however, which also tells me quite a bit about the societal interest in the jury response — again, a gender bias issue.
And, about the issues here of male vs. female, it was the very premise raised by Jay Tea as to the thread, so some of us commented on that.