|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Sacks was pretty dead on here.
Atilla? Your comments? I know you have been critical of Mr. Yates, so I am interested in your opinion of this column.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'lo, wiccid! Yes, I have been critical, which I believe wasn't without an expectation that his accounting was important. I still believe that there is justice with mercy available in our courts. Perhaps I am reckless there. I sent Glenn the following email:
That was a most compassionate plea for the sake of Russell. I am persuaded.
I should like to think that he is getting some psychological help with his
burdens. Those of his own mistakes, and his plight. My position has been
that both of them need attention which I take to mean some sort of judgment
that bears insight, complete comprehension of all the facts and as you have
so eloquently proferred, compassion for both of them. Andrea, however, is
liable and should be permanently attended. Whether in an asylum for the
criminally insane or a long spell to think things over. The children were
their responsibility and I don't believe we have any business judging their
moral fiber. Society's liability is all that we as public should be
concerned. Thanks again for that compassionate and fairly well researched
position.
Honest, I ain't a mean old guy. Angry, yes, but mean, no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He generally left for work at 9 am and his mother arrived at 10 am, and he thought he had the situation under control.
This fact has been the missing link that the press is clearly suppressing. Thank to Glen, we now know that Mr. Yates did try to relieve the stress that his wife was experiencing. Further, we now know that she was being supervised which is another fact that the feminist have successfully suppressed from being reported.
Psychiatrist Mohammed Saeed took Yates off the drug Haldol on June 4. Russell Yates, worried about his wife, brought her back to Dr. Saeed on June 18. The doctor said he saw no sign of psychosis and sent her home.
So, it was Dr. Saeed and not a mutual decision by the couple, that resulted in Ms. Yates stopping the medication. Further, it is quite damning to the psychiatric community that Mr. Yates sought help two days prior to the killings of the children, and his pleas for help were obviously ignored. Not surprising.
I don't suppose that the media will stress these critical facts. Why? Because they are caught up in a frenzy of teaching/brainwashing the public to hate men.
Brace yourselves gentlemen. We are about to have a new round of laws enacted that will further criminalize men, and these very lies that have been told will be used to justify those laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"He generally left for work at 9 am and his mother arrived at 10 am, and he thought he had the situation under control.
This fact has been the missing link that the press is clearly suppressing."
What? That isn't so. I mentioned it in a post on this site weeks ago. It's been on CNN, ABC, Fox News... Just because you didn't happen to notice it doesn't mean it's been suppressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What? That isn't so. I mentioned it in a post on this site weeks ago. It's been on CNN, ABC, Fox News... Just because you didn't happen to notice it doesn't mean it's been suppressed.
Perhaps a better word is emphasized and not suppressed. Yes. I think you have a good point.
In this light we fail to see the news media emphasizing how Mr. Yates has been responsible for Ms. Yates care. We fail to see the new media emphasizing that Mr. Yates did try to meet the needs of his family and did not neglect his family.
Instead, the news media has emphasized false allegations that are intended to criminalize Mr. Yates and support legislation to do the same for men in general.
Hey. I don't see the press doing Mr. Yates any favors here. They have clearly painted him in the most negative light possible. It isn't like we have been seeing the major news networks reporting on this matter in a neutral unbiased and professional manner.
They have done most everything possible to paint this man in a negative light, and that has been by design. The news media has chosen to air these male hating feminist and legitimize their views. By so doing, they tacitly condone the furthering the agenda of teaching male hatred. We need to remember that the media has the power to portray the male haters for what they are, or they can make their radical views appear rational and appear as a basis for further criminalzing men. So far, the media has made these male haters appear rational when in fact they have the power and moral duty to do the opposite.
But of course I am as always open minded. If you can show me where the media reports that these male haters are bigoted, I will concede that I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do agree that the public opinion polls cast negativity on Mr. Yates, and I do think that this is wrong and have said so before on this site and elsewhere. He really doesn't deserve the vilifying he has gotten. I do not agree with the Yates' chosen lifestyle, but I think that all evidence indicates that he did what he could to get her the professional and personal help she needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that Andrea is the one who should be held accountable for having murdered the children, and that Russell should not be held legally liable or blamed for her actions.
However, having said that, and even supposing that Andrea was sane when Russell married her, what the hell were those two doing procreating MORE CHILDREN after she began having serious mental problems?
She had had postpartum psychosis (way beyond mere postpartum depression) with at least one of the previous kids before the little girl, she had been on heavy-duty antipsychotic medications, and they still went ahead and had more children.
Maybe the conditions of schizophrenia/paranoia/ hearing voices aren't directly inheritable, but the brain chemistries that underly such conditions are.
Who in their right mind would deliberately use someone like that for genetic material to be passed on to progeny? Or, having married such a person (even if their symptoms weren't manifesting before), who in their right mind would deliberately procreate more at-risk progeny? I just don't get it.
Whether in real life or in typing up medical reports, I see schizophrenic/paranoid/just plain crazy women having not one, but numerous children. And I see men who practically literally knock themselves out in an attempt to please/placate/soothe such women.
In typing up medical reports, it seems that more women than men psychotics have reproduced. Something's a little weird here.
What on earth is the big attraction for women who are obviously in such trouble? And what are these men thinking of? Is rescuing wounded fawns that much fun?
Maybe someone can explain it to me. Because some of the messed-up women like that, whom I've either known or done medical reports for, have gone through men like Kleenex. For whatever reason, they attract certain kinds of men like flies.
Men often criticize women for staying with or running back to abusers or crazy men... I have the same reservations with men who marry or stay with crazy women, especially men who procreate children with such women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did anyone see Live with Larry King last week? He had David Smith on, his wife killed their two kids. But the thing is, David Smith said that he is avaliable if Russel Yates wants to talk to someone, in this exact situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 11, @03:24PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
The bottom line is - if a man had done the killings, the media would have depicted his wife
as a victim, not as an 'enabler' or responsible in any manner. Men are held accountable for their actions in law, and in the media, women are always victims - even if they did the crime.
CJ
feminism is sexism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...if a man had done the killings, the media would have depicted his wife as a victim, not as an 'enabler' or responsible in any manner.
It should also be noted that the media is making appeals to the psychology and psychiatry professions to justify the outright bigotry that they direct at this innocent man. Worse, those professions and professional groups are tacitly supporting this media spree of teaching male hatred.
This practice should make a person wonder at just how scientific and professional these groups are. I have come to the belief that feminism has introduced a significant amount of junk science into their literature and theories.
I can provide several personal examples of how their junk pseudofeminist theories have impacted my children and family negatively. But that is another topic for another time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would respond to Warble's comments by saying that psychology is not junk science but that gender feminism, unchallenged by any well-organized men's rights movement, has misused and distorted major parts of the practice to their advantage in many of the ways they have done with other professions (law, medicine, business, social science, medicine, etc.) Warren Farrell himself taught in the Psych department at various universities and some of our biggest friends are also in the field, such as David Fontes, Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, Martin Fiebert, and many others. We need more. But it is gender feminism, not the field of psychology, that has caused the harm we speak of here. Mental illness is real, and it can be treated. No matter how uncertain the profession and no matter how much gender feminists have distorted it as they have everything else, I support the profession as much as I do medicine, law, or any other legitimate field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But it is gender feminism, not the field of psychology, that has caused the harm we speak of here.
Generally, I agree with your assessment. It is, in my opinion, that gender feminism is damaging the mental health professions with their political agendas. For this reason, and many others, I do believe that it is necessary to question just how much of the science has been distorted and biased with gender feminism. Clearly, it is becoming a major problem.
Worse, it is my belief that reputable groups, which claim to represent these professional groups, fail to list and document the junk science created by these feminist. That is why we saw a period where feminist psychologists were able to claim that children don’t lie. For these groups to fail in publicly condemning these claims is unacceptable and some might argue unforgivable. The result was a tacit consent of the lie and the many false arrests that resulted from false child abuse claims.
Mental illness is real, and it can be treated. No matter how uncertain the profession and no matter how much gender feminists have distorted it as they have everything else, I support the profession as much as I do medicine, law, or any other legitimate field.
There is no debating this fact. However, it is debatable as to how treatable each illness might be.
Nevertheless, every time I turn around mental health professionals are inventing some new category of an illness. In addition, the illness always impacts %5-%10 of the population. Ever notice that pattern?
The problem is that it only takes 10-20 mental illness categories before 100% of the population is mentally ill. Just this fact alone is sufficient to question the integrity of the mental health professions. Now, when we add their practice permitting hostile gender feminist to influence the profession, we have a formula for junk science.
All we have to do is scan a few of these psycho-fem web sites and we find they are already beginning to claim that over %90 of the population is in some way mentally ill or dysfunctional.
I think we had better start getting real skeptical of the professions real fast. Especially, when we have Ms. Yates being diagnosed with half a dozen different mental illnesses by different “experts.” It is telling that they cannot agree upon a common diagnosis. Some might even call that fact quite alarming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...we have Ms. Yates being diagnosed with half a dozen different mental illnesses by different “experts.” "
The fact that these experts cannot agree on one primary malady, one that is pervasive enough to cause this atrocity, is telling. It simply says to me that either they really don't know what is wrong with Andrea, in which case they should either say so or stay out of the courtroom, or the her real problem is not mental illness but evil, in which case, the experts ought to stay out of the courtroom.
In my 25 years of engineering and project management, one thing I've learned is that when things go THIS wrong, there may be several contributing causes, but there is ALWAYS one thing that stands out the primary malefactor. The psychologists clearly cannot identify this thing, which says to me that it has less to mental illness than just plain evil. "Experts" like to make things complicated so they can justify their PhDs and get high billable rates, but events that are this significant usually boil down to simple causes.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my 25 years of engineering and project management, one thing I've learned is that when things go THIS wrong, there may be several contributing causes,...
Now that is really funny! We are both approaching problems from a logical, rational, and procedural perspective. You do it and an engineer and I do it as a Software Architect. Both of our disciplines require extensive logic, analysis, and rational thinking. That is something that these psychologists are lacking with their soft science. Half their theories are without solid cause-n-effect support.
One example is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This is accepted as sound theory with no supporting physical evidence and studies. At best, they rely on statistical studies and look for possible causal associations. Unfortunately, in many cases this practice results in their resorting to false cause solutions out of desperation.
What a hoot! We listen to them and think they are off their rockers. They have no hard science and so they approach their conclusions with a series of might, may, should, would, or it could be’s. Then the public interprets this as a sound and solid basis for making a decision.
We on the other hand see the lack of a reliable diagnosis as a lack of well-established scientific theory and question their credibility.
They would most likely go nuts if they had to actually reach a uniform consensus in their diagnosis, and that would be unacceptable because Ms. Yates might actually be found responsible. Such a prospect would probably scare them out of their minds and cause them to resign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See, Warble, that's why guys like you and me rarely get picked for juries. We think logically, attempting to cut throught emotional bullshit and get to the unvarnished facts. That's also why marriage counseling never worked for me. :-)
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In addition, the illness always impacts %5-%10 of the population. Ever notice that pattern? The problem is that it only takes 10-20 mental illness categories before 100% of the population is mentally ill."
Well, conceding that these figures are accurate, it still doesn't mean that the whole population is mentally iss, since a huge portion of the mental illnesses are overlapping in the same people. But I would say a much larger portion of the population has mental disabilities than we think. This includes even minor ones that may or may not need medications. Almost everyone in the population has some kind of physical disorder as well. The more we understand the brain the more we might find the same. But this will take a long time and lots of errors. I wouldn't say this leads to questioning the integrity of the entire profession. I'd say that the profession is more uncertain than others because of the complexity of the brain and the factors affecting it. The field is evolving and will certain make mistakes and have lots of divisions. The medical field does too. Both are evolving. And both will always have problems. Psychology will change dramatically the more we understand the neuro structure of the brain. This will take a long time, and plenty of error as well.
"Now, when we add their practice permitting hostile gender feminist to influence the profession, we have a formula for junk science."
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was an article recently in the Ottawa Citizen (The Citizen's Weekly Sun March 10 2002 p. C3 I looked for an online version to post but it seems that it was only in the print edition.) Called 'Death of the psychoexpert.' which talks about how the courts are becoming more skeptical of 'expert' testimony particularly in the field of psychology.
Although I think that reports of the death of the psychoexpert are somewhat exaggerated I'm hopeful that a significant portion of society is reexamining the accuracy of forensic psychology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 11, @04:27PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists are suffused with personal bias to the extent that they do not recognise or respect the reality of the other genders frame of reference.
Feminists often can't help being mean, as they are sick on their own fears caused by a concise and vindictive conditioning campaign, that they 'take it out' on others (who they don't recognise as important -i.e. men). This is why there is so much MS-information produced by feminists. They need outrage to exist -justified or not.
Feminists attempt to "de-humanise" the opposite gender & can be very insulting without even realising it. Feminists come from the shallow end of the human gene pool.
Don't let sexist-bigots (feminists) be the judge on all gender issues is our society... and don't let the freaks silence you.
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one's own actions? What kind of socitey are we creating where women no longer have to take responsibility for their own actions? What kind of society teaches their kids that no matter what is done, the woman is always the victim? I truly fear for all of our kids future, especially our little boys. Who is going to stand up for them in the future? Certainly not the mom that attaches her 3 year old son's penis to jumper cables. I know I will be there for mine, you can count on it. This is what dads need to be prepared for in the comming years, one can tell by the way men are more and more becoming second class citizens these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A349 66-2002Mar15.html
This article raises the hair on my neck. This guy is in major denial and is again in the news. I am willing to bet that we hear again from him for many years to come. Similar to Rodney the LA victim of police brutality, he is a bad penny and will be back with more tragedy. I smell a controller of women, a fierce manipulator of people and despite his soft spoken emotional pleas I feel he has refined his technique of manipulation to a very sophisticated degree. Mark my words, Glenn, your compassion is commendable but I will bet against it. As much as there has been bad treatment of men throughout our recent history, there are still some very despiccable men out there and we must not blind ourselves like the womyn of NOW and all. It will come back to haunt our cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case in point:
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20020316/1004 569.asp
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
