|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think someone needs to point out to Cathy Young that there has been no formal congealing of support in the men's movement (at least as far as I know) for Russell Yates. In fact, whether he's to blame seems to be a point of contention, even here.
I don't think he's culpable, but I know there are others who consider themselves men's activists who do think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think he's culpable, but I know there are others who consider themselves men's activists who do think so.
Interesting. I personally believe that it is absurd to attempt placing blame on Mr. Yates. I see it as little more than another example male hatred. The roll reversal test makes this fact quite clear.
For example, I believe it becomes clear that Cathy is intellectually dishonest to imply that she would blame Ms. Yates if the roles were reversed.
Okay. Let's say we believe Cathy. Then we can say there are instances where women are blamed for a male committing the murders of his children. NOT! Therefore, I believe Cathy is intellectually dishonest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Then we can say there are instances where women are blamed for a male committing the murders of his children."
Actually, it DOES sometimes happen that women are charged for various crimes when their children are abused or killed by their husbands or live-in boyfriends. The rationale being that the woman did not do enough to stop the abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
could you provide specific examples of this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I got these off of childprotective.org.
For what it's worth, there are a great many examples of abusive female caregivers listed on their site, perhaps more so than for fathers and boyfriends.
Stupid woman charged after asking stranger to watch baby for a minute:
http://www.freep.com/news/locway/isaiah21_20010821 .htm
Stupid woman charged after lying about boyfriend beating her child:
http://www.freep.com/news/locway/abuse5_20010705.h tm
Stupid woman pleads guilty to not protecting her daughter from abusive boyfriend
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId=A27288-2001Nov1¬Found=t rue
Father with Munchausen’s by proxy, mother denied custody of children:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/jul01/custody030 70201a.asp
Link doesn’t work, but I remember reading about the case:
Mom Gets 11 Years in Girl' ' s Death www2.startribune.com June 26 2001 MIAMI, Florida - AP --- A mother who did not stop her boyfriend from beating her 2-year-old daughter to death for eating his breakfast sausages pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Babysitter charged, her boyfriend killed the child:
http://www.kypost.com/2001/jun/19/scarb061901.html
Boyfriend guilty of murder, mom guilty of cruelty for not getting medical help:
Man guilty in baby death The Ledger-Enquirer June 3 2001 By Eddie Daniels - Ohio --- A jury convicted the boyfriend of a Columbus woman Saturday in the death of an 8-month old baby but acquitted the mother of the murder charge....and found Graves, 27 (mother), guilty of one count of cruelty to children for failing to get the necessary medical care for her child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, it DOES sometimes happen that women are charged for various crimes when their children are abused or killed by their husbands or live-in boyfriends. The rationale being that the woman did not do enough to stop the abuse.
Unfortunately this is a fallacy known as comparing apples and oranges. In the case of a female arrest, the women sees the physical abuse and becomes an accessory to the crime by doing nothing. These types of arrest are of course rare.
Now show me where Mr. Yates saw credible abuse or substantial neglect and did nothing. This cannot be done because he took reasonable measures like having his mother help with the children and seeking medical attention when necessary.
In the case of Mr. Yates, there was no crime witnessed. Ever. There is no evidence that the children were beaten, starved, or neglected in any way by Ms. Yates prior to the murders. He never heard Ms. Yates planning a strategy to kill the children.
He never had any psychologist or psychiatrist proclaim that Ms. Yates was an immanent danger to the children. There was every reason to believe that the medical treatment would alleviate any symptoms, and yet that treatment was with held by a psychiatrist (not Mr. Yates) Finally, there was never any incident of DV reported anywhere.
Yet feminist insist on criminalizing him for his religious beliefs, because he is a man, and because he may have caused Ms. Yates to experience stress.
Feminist are literally claiming that he is criminally liable for murdering his children due to the apparent stress. Any reasonable person should be alarmed by this fact and the implications. Unfortunately, there is a massive public hysteria aimed at men. Therefore, most common sense is out the window in favor of systematically criminalizing men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't really interpret this article as Young "blasting" the men's movement so much as cautioning us against giving ourselves the same "black eye" that she goes on to say feminism gave itself by leaping to the defense of Mrs. Yates. This is actually the third article by Young I've read in which she alluded to an emerging trend of "gender masculinism" in the men's movement - although in all three cases, she took both the women's and men's movements to task for largely the same things.
I think Young, while neutral, has been a bit more skewed toward the men's movement's side - if only because men have been the primary victims of gender politics in recent times. But I think she will also be just as quick to chastise the men's movement for slinging the same mud...something that I doubt a male movement would be allowed to get away with for nearly as long or as much as feminism has been able to. In effect, having someone like Young "blast" us now could be ample prevention from being completely "blasted" by society in general a few years down the road.
Again, the overall impression I get from this piece is that Young is simply trying to alert men's activists to a possible emerging trend of victimism within our own ranks, hopefully so that we can nip it in the bud before it does to the men's movement what it did to the women's movement. I think Young, while not a "men's activist", per se, has been quite hopeful that the men's movement might become the effective antidote to radical, victim feminism - and is trying to keep that potential intact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You might find this article interesting... Jamie Glazov has an article on the Yates, both Andrea and Russell, on frontpagemag.com.
I don't believe that Russell's actions and omissions rise to the level of a crime--because, after all, Andrea was the one who drowned the kids--but Jamie Glazov brings up some interesting points in his article. Makes you wonder what planet Russell Yates lives on. Pretty weird stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can always count on Cathy Young. She's the Dhali Lama of gender politics, committed to "the middle way" in just about every instance I can think of.
I can see the pyrotechnics starting now. This thread is sure to become a rousing flame-fest, so I'd better get my comments out there quickly.
I have the utmost admiration for Cathy, precisely because of her acuity on such hot topics, and her refusal to bow to pressure from her percieved ideological "allies". The fact is that there is room for debate here, and I tend to agree with Cathy in one respect: there are moral obligations here for Russel Yates that extend well beyond strictly legal bounds. Where I disagree is her assumption that a woman would be judged as harshly in the same circumstances. Hopefully, we will never have occasion to find out. But I simply refuse to accept that if the roles were reversed there would be ANY national discussion about HER culpability. Can you imagine the press crucifying a woman who worked, by herself, to support a family of seven and then lost her children to their homicidal father? Is that even concievable in the world we live in? I just don't see it.
I hope nobody here finds occasion to sling mud at Ms. Young for what was a well-reasoned, dispassionate and honest analysis of the Yates tragedy. It should be sobering to any in the men's movement to find such a strong philosophical ally chastising the movement for its personal bias. What's fair is fair, and Cathy Young is nothing if not even-handed, even when she disagrees with my petty opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that you are right.
What I am surprised at is the lack of concern about the overwhelming influence of fundamental religious beliefs in this case.
I wonder what others think about the role religion played in the the deaths of the children and the decisions that were made by both of the parents?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly have no idea what role the Yates' religious convictions payed in their behavior. It's not something that's been discussed very thoroughly in the press. That could very well be because it was basically a non-issue, but again, I don't know.
Id' be interested, out of sheer morbid curiosity, to know what their convictions are/were regarding religion. I have read that she didn't start ranting about "Satan" until well after her arrest, that this was never an issue brought up in her therapy. Given my own strict Catholic upbringing, I wouldn't be a bit shocked by anything I found out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Yates' were followers of a VERY strict, fundementalist (and deeply mental) sect of Christianity. Their pastor, whose name slips my mind at the moment, is very tribulation oriented with constant, never ending sermons on the evil of humanity. Their pastor believes deeply in the devil and satanic influence in daily life.
I've seen some of his writing and it is sick...
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that the Yates got the bus they were living in from that pastor.
Religious nutcases are worse than the more secular nutcases because they have stronger convictions about their insanity. They are ordained by God (or Allah, or God-of-your-choice) to commit their acts of violence. How do you fight that kind of reasoning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specifically with A. Yeats, have no idea of what part alleged-religion played. Yet first thing I noted when the media splash struck, were the names of all her victims.
What I DO know, is that people (of what I am beginning to suspect are of Yeats' ilk), have the most screwed-up, convoluted, hypocritical approaches to life of any I have ever come into contact with.
They proselytize & their belief-leaders preach, endlessly to themselves & all others who get in the way, about family values, holiness, etc. Yet viewing the actual way they live is one of the most perverted & self-destructive of any.
They cheat, they slip around in back doors, some want in their 'hearts' to eliminate by whatever means anyone who will not convert to their beliefs. For example, anyone who does not follow their beliefs of the moment fundamentally to the 'word', are going to Hell. Sometime publically, and nearly always privately, they actually believe EVERYONE who does not follow their leaders' beliefs, are going to Hell; and deserve to burn, because those sinners would not convert. That means all of Asia, most of the world is going to Hell, throw in most of America, too. And it's the sinner's own fault he/she is going to Hell.
Only their god & their beliefs can save these sinners.
A common trait seems to be swinging from the end of one extreme, or to the other. Which often happens in the blink of an eye. The holy on Sunday mentality, lewd on Saturday.
Many are so ignorant as to other lifestyle choices, and of basic knowledge, and their lives are so backwards, that my best guess is that simple authoritarian answers seem their only hope. However, many of those TV preachers who lead them, if usually not broadly educated, are very verbal & smart with manipulation. Many preachers of this type would have made excellent entertainers, as many of their relatives have & are.
Of no surprise, for their leaders, this is their heaven for being on the pulpet, the center of attention, in charge of life, and revered as reverends lust to be. Toss in some good money, too, in many cases.
Politically of no surprise, this is also a sensitive issue in the Bible Belt, and a means of political manipulation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but I haven't understood all the furor over this case. Hasn't it already been established that a woman can kill her children on her own initiative, without the father having any say in the matter? It's called her "right to choose." Andrea Yates (and the celebrated teenage trash-can moms) simply waited a little longer than most who reject the onerous burden of motherhood imposed on innocent females by the oppressive Patriarchy.
Again, the womyn want to have it both ways -- depending not on any kind of principle but on how they feel about a particular case. Female "logic" at work.
Description of a common, entirely legal, no-guilt "medical procedure": "A 16-year-old girl comes in to the women's clinic, eight-and-a-half months pregnant. The doctor delivers this little baby right to the top of his head. The baby's about three minutes from delivery and he is brimming with life. He is pink. His little hands and arms and legs are kicking. And the doctor rolls him over and inserts a canula, a tube, into the back of the head without an anesthetic and sucks the brains out of that baby and collapses that head and delivers a dead baby."
Really, what's the dif?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's an expansion of the issue I think is inevitable in some contexts, but Cathy Young isn't trying to make a statement about abortion rights in her article. Not to say the topic isn't legitimate, but it veers to the periphery of Young's point.
Your implication that there is such a thing as "female logic" is something of an affront to the cognitive abilities of women in this forum and elsewhere. "Feminist logic" is not to be confused as representative of something that finds its origin in female biology. Partial-birth abortion is, by any measure, a grisly procedure. But I think we ought to stay on-topic as best we can. I'd be more interested to know your reaction to Young's specific arguments, as opposed to the entire umbrella issue of feminism and infanticide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your implication that there is such a thing as "female logic" is something of an affront to the cognitive abilities of women in this forum and elsewhere. "Feminist logic" is not to be confused as representative of something that finds its origin in female biology.
Actually, there is massive and ample physical evidence that proves the brains of males and females have significant physical differences. No objective person can examine the overwhelming physical evidence and conclude otherwise. For example, there is widespread scientific agreement that women have more neurons connecting the right and left half of the brains then men.
This fact clearly begs the question of how the differing structures of the differing brains cause men and women to process information differently. For this reason, there may be more truth to the term "female logic" then is politically correct to admit at this time.
I predict that men and women will have to come to terms with the fact that there are differences in how they reason. Those differences will impact how we ultimately interact. However, it should not mean that one is superior to the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insofar as the male brain is more assymetrical, more inclined to process the mathematical calculations involved in hand-eye coordination, and so on, you're right.
But considering the number of male feminists in the world, it is an insult to women to assert that feminist reasoning is a result of a flaw in the way females process matters of logic. Men might be more predisposed to advanced astrophysics on the whole, but there are enough cognitively-challenged men in this world to refute the concept that there is such a thing as "female logic", or that radical feminism is the result of such a thing. I'm pro-choice, and always will be. I come to that conclusion honestly, through the use of my own powers of logic. For the same reasons, I am also a men's advocate. It's my over-arching worldview.
Being female has nothing to do with poor thinking ability, plain and simple. Logic is simply logical, and a person is either disposed to it or they aren't. Logic does not come in masculne and feminine packages. Women don't "experience" it differently, even if the have a different level of affinity for it (which I question).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...it is an insult to women to assert that feminist reasoning is a result of a flaw in the way females process matters of logic.
Pointing out biological differences in the male and female construction of the brains is not an insult. DEAL.
It is an open issue on how and by what quantity the physical differences impact the reasoning process.
I realize that feminist hate that fact, and I would not expect anything different from them.
Being female has nothing to do with poor thinking ability, plain and simple.
Nobody said that. This is just feminist trickery that seeks to avoid biological differences in the brains.
The question of whether females and males experience the world differently due to brain structure is unanswered. It is dishonist to state otherwise.
However, there is a new breakthrough that proves that male and female brains process data differently. Currently, I don't have time to look it up. But it has been determined and proven with no possibility of uncertainty. Again....DEAL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I realize that feminist hate that fact, and I would not expect anything different from them.
Actually, I suspect that mainstream feminism rather enjoys the fact that the separation between men's right and left brains is different than the one between women's because many so-called "researchers" have said in the media that it means women have "superior" brains to men.
It's also not really a "breakthrough" discovery. The differences in the masculine and feminine brains have been known for several years. Science just isn't really sure what it *means* yet.
The gender femnists and media tend to loudly proclaim that men are less intelligent because we 1) have smaller connectors between the right and left brains, and 2) we listen with only half our brains while women listen with their whole brains.
Some folks have suggested, however, that the "listening with half our brains" aspect may simply mean that men's brains process that information more efficiently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 26, @11:53AM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
It's also not really a "breakthrough" discovery. The differences in the masculine and feminine brains have been known for several years. Science just isn't really sure what it *means* yet.
Yea. True. I remember reading in Scientific American when a female scientist published the initial discovery (70's I think) of a thick cord from the mouth to the brain in women. She was quite dismayed! I've always thought it was funny because she concluded that it helps women to talk better then men. Now the knowledge is used to claim that women are better communicators. What a twist that was. Smart politics.
However, the article that I am thinking of was published in the L.A. Times and reported on UCLA research. The research demonstrated that men process a specific event exclusively in the left part of the brain while women have multiple sphere response. The breakthrough was in having a specific event that produced the repeated responses. Sorry that I can't find the article. It was quite revealing.
The problem is that it turns out that the brain isn't hardwired as originally thought just a few years ago. This means that differing parts of the brain can adapt to process diverse information. In the past, it was thought that only one area of the brain could process the movement of an arm or a thought process. That theory turned out to be false. The brain is soft wired and can adapt.
It is kind of like the myth that we cannot grow new brain cells, or the myth that we only use 5% of our brains. Now we tend to think of the brain as being more like a muscle. It can grow and develop more power with exercise. If that fact were not true I would be in deep s*#t today.
I do believe that there is ample evidence to prove that men and women process information differently. I believe that there is a definate sex orientation to the brain. However, I don't believe the differences are so significant so as to claim that one sex is superior over the other.
We should start noting statements by the fems on this topic. I know a website that would luv to post these types of bigoted statements on the part of feminist.
warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==============================================
Regardless of what was promoted by a prior wave of politically hopeful myth about UNISEX, instead, clearly viewing over-all:
As life on Earth has increasingly evolved, sexual differentiation has evolved & increased. Gender is a relatively later development; and the differences have been increasing.
As to WHY? That's still the #1 question, Why Sex? (in addition to gender, the larger aspects of increasing differentiation have made accurate reproduction & complex specialized tissues, possible)
--------------------------------------
BTW, an aside: WOMEN are NOT all the same!
My observation is that NOT all women think at ALL alike; there are some nearly radical differences, the much smaller number are rare exceptions. These rare ones better combine the better of both genders, retaining female traits in many cases, yet having a significant capacity for both male logic AND empathy with the male. They nearly always have genius as measured objectively on the IQ scale. And in addition, particularly if their nurturing has not been destructively negative, they will manifest superiority early-on in the very-real world, as measured by all standards. These rare ones clearly above their sisters, make emphatically fine businesswomen, scientists, medical marvels, exceptional lovers, and fiercely protective & loyal mates (once over a wildchild period often circa young 20s).
-----------------------------------
BACK TO MORE TYPICALLY:
The gender differences are hard science certainly as to their existence. And the brain is hardwired with incredible vast precision PRIMARILY designed to run 'programs' automatically, and if needed, without any intervention from what we consider our conscious thinking such as via the cerebral cortex.
As behavioralists & nurture-environmentalists have shown, certainly the brain is somewhat flexible, when it MUST be needed for survival, and/or when intelligent intervention is made to change it somewhat. Yet it remains largely fixed.
The fluid part as to various functions being related to specific brain regions is partially true --again in particular, when it MUST be. Carl Pribram popularized the idea intelligently, when he mused about the holographic brain. LEARNED memory storage in particular, is often diffuse, to some extent throughout the brain, or partly so.
Another aspect about brain diffuseness is that neurons (on their axon output ends) are often very long, billions of them a foot or more, some in the body longer than that. These axons can originate from neurons in one specialized area, and from there spread throughout the brain, such as serotonin axons.
Regardless, bottomline, there are hardwired gender differences in the brain. And over-all, as we evolve, gender differences have been increasing.
Perhaps for the present while we are still learning of the science: Literature, current and historically, may be the best applied study of differences between men and women.
================================
OPTIONAL CONTINUING EDUCATION,
LATER FINDINGS RE GENDER DIFFERIENTAION
From http://www.missouri.edu/~psycorie/brain.html:
"Today, the existence of sex differences in the pattern of cognitive ability and in the structure and functioning of certain regions of the brain is not questioned by most scientists, although the origin of these differences is debated (Halpern, 1992, 1997; Pakkenberg & Gundersen, 1997; Rushton & Ankney, 1996; Shaywitz et al., 1995).
"At least for some domains, there is little question that the development and expression of the sex differences in brain and cognition are influenced by exposure to sex hormones (Arnold, 1996; Berman et al., 1997; Kimura, 1996; Volkow, Wang, Fowler, Hitzemann, Papas, Pascani, & Wong, 1997).
"The relation between exposure to sex hormones and sex differences in brain and cognition suggests that many, but not necessarily all, of these sex differences have been shaped by sexual selection (see Proximate mechanisms and consequences of sexual selection section of Chapter 2).
"In fact, the driving assumption of this chapter is that many of the sex differences in the organization of mind and brain directly mirror the sex differences in reproductive strategies that have been described throughout this book (Gaulin, 1995)."
--------------------------------
SIZE OF CONNECTING CORPUS CALLOSUM,
SIZE OF BRAIN ACCORDING TO GENDER
As to the connected hemispheres, including gender differences, note some of the latest info; this is not a simple difference of one gender being bigger & badder, yet the differences are there:
Fall 2000 study UCSD at http://ling.ucsd.edu/courses/ling172/Abstracts/cor puscallosum.html
"While we observed a dramatic sex difference in the shape of the corpus callosum, there was no conclusive evidence of sexual dimorphism in the area of the corpus callosum or its subdivisions. Utilizing several criteria, there were significant sex differences in shape:
"The area of the corpora callosa increased significantly with age in children and decreased significantly with age in adults.
"In adults, the midsagittal surface area of the cerebral cortex decreased significantly with age in women but not in men.
"These anatomical sex differences could, in part, underlie gender-related differences in behavior and neuropsychological function."
--------- ALSO:
[orig. reference of study is: Laura S Allen, Mark F Richey, Yee M Chai, Roger A Gorski, `Sex Differences in the Corpus Callosum of the Living Human Being', Journal of Neuroscience 11:4:933-942 (1991),
in part, extractions as follows:
"In addition to sex differences in the areas of the brain that support language competencies, there is also some evidence to suggest that the size and shape of certain regions of the corpus callosum--the neuronal axons that connect the two hemispheres--differs for women and men, although the existence of this potential sex difference is not at all certain (Allen & Gorski, 1992; Allen, Richey, Chai, & Gorski, 1991; de Lacoste-Utamsing & Holloway, 1982; Holloway, Anderson, Defendini, & Harper, 1993; Witelson, 1985). ]
"The mixed findings in this area appear to be related, in part, to whether the absolute or relative size of the corpus callosum is assessed.
"When absolute comparisons are made between men and women there are few sex differences in the size of the corpus callosum (e.g., Allen et al., 1991; Witelson, 1985).
"However, when overall brain size is controlled--men have larger brains than women (Pakkenberg & Gundersen, 1997)--women are sometimes found to have a relatively larger corpus callosum than men (see Bishop & Wahlsten, 1997, and Holloway et al., 1993, for reviews and different interpretations of these studies).
"Although the functional significance of any such difference is not currently known, it has been suggested that the relatively larger corpus callosum of women allows the language centers of the left- and right-hemisphere to communicate with one another (e.g., Allen et al., 1991; but see Bishop & Wahlsten, 1997)."
==============================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I really think, is the poor girl finally blew a gasket and killed her children because she was sick and tired of them. Fighting over cereral and toys can really get on someones nerves after a while. All the feminazis want to do is shift the blame, inorder to extridite themselves from culpability in every and any case. Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I neither support or oppose Russell Yates. I don't know him. However, I do know that he wasn't the one who chased down and grabbed his sceaming children, and then held their frightened little bodies under water while they struggled during the last moments of their innocent lives. Gasping for air. Clawing at the sides of the bathtub. When I see pictures of the children and then think of the horror and agony of their last minutes, it makes me cry (really).
Andrea Yates is 100% legally and morally cultable for the deaths of the children. Anyone who thinks otherwise cannot be trusted to be around children. If that sounds harsh, so be it. Russell Yates may be a good person, he may be a bad person. He may be a good husband, he may be a bad husband. He may be a good father, he may be a bad father. Maybe he should have done more for his wife, maybe he did too much for his wife. He may or may not have been influenced by religion. However, he did not kill his children. She did. Period.
She may have been depressed. She may have been despondent. She may have needed more mental care. It doesn't matter. She and she alone killed the children. What is immoral is trying to blame Russell Yates for the murdering behavior of his wife because "he didn't help change the diapers" (as some people have claimed).
It is worth noting that she wasn't depressed enough to take her own life. She felt that her life was more important than the lives of her five innocent children.
This is simply another example of intolerant people trying to blame a man when a woman commits a horrible crime. It's a paternalistic attitude. It's an attitude of childlike minds.
It would be much more appropriate to blame Andrea's brutality on feminism. It is feminism that views children to be the property of the mother. It is feminism that refuses to acknowledge the evil in some women. It is feminism that would have granted custody of the children to Andrea Yates, regardless of her mental state. It is feminism that insists that men take care of women.
My opinion of Cathy Young has dropped tremendously based on this article. Cathy Young has been a sane voice in gender issues, but at times she has also demonstrated an attitude that women are incompetent, helpless, and in need of preferential treatment. This is one of those times.
I'm 42. There isn't a day that goes by where I don't thank God for not being married (don't bother to come up with a condescending immature response to this statement, I'm not going to read it). As is demonstrated by Cathy Young, too many woman want men to care for them, provide for them, protect them, and be responsible for them. No thank you.
Shawn Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think they should leave this man alone. He has lost his entire family. He is most likely suffering his own feelings of guilt, real or imagined; he doesn't need the world heaping more on him.
Did he make mistakes with his wife and children? Very likely, and many of those mistakes were probably the same ones we all make every day.
Leave Russell Yates alone. He is neither a villian who deserves punishment nor a martyr to be offered up by some movement or another. He is a man who has lost everything, and needs to heal so he can get on with his life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to agree with you, Wiccid. I just can't see where we are going with our obsessive desire to cast blame on everyone within a thousand yards of this family. Clearly, Russel Yates would live the last day his children were alive very differently if given the opportunity, and it is extremely uncharitable to second-guess him now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FWIW, I sent the followng to Cathy. I hope it's regarded as beinbg respectful, but I DO disagree with her.
I should point out that, among the rank and file of the men's movement, there is little disagreement about the moral culpability of Russell Yates as (at least) a naive accomplice to his wife's atrocity. In Russell's defense (and I do this without knowing him personally), I would say that clearly he was taking SOME action, having a relative stay with her, having her see the doctor regularly, and it seems that he was actively participating in the house work as well.
However, while I agree that Rusty is morally culpable as an accomplice, I do not believe that he is legally culpable as a conspirator or even as being legally irresponsible. Judging whether or not they should have borne more children after Andrea's initial difficulties is nothing more than 20-20 hindsight. And the truth is, even though Andrea previously tried to kill herself, he had reason to believe, including advice from her doctors, that things were more or less under control. Further, recognizing her instability in the time immediately leading up to the drownings, he was seeing to her care the best he knew how. That activity proved to be inadequate, but the evidence that indicated the likelihood of such an atrocity beforehand was not obvious.
Your indictment of the men's movement is, I believe, poorly placed. Though I recognize that you've been a supporter for quite some time, and I do appreciate that, I must say that I and many others disagree with you on this point. I think that the rank and file of men's activists recognize, as I do, that Rusty Yates seriously erred in judgement to press for more children when he knew his wife was having difficulties. Absolutely. And I would not be offended if the prosecutor's office made such a statement that, while Rusty exercised exceedingly poor judgement in this matter, he is not criminally liable. Again, I think most in the men's movement would concur with this.
Here's what the men's movement is straining its eyes to see: Is the woman in this case going to be treated as a man would be if the perpetrator had been male? If it had been Rusty who had drowned the children, would Andrea be scrutinized as aggressively? The answers we are hoping to see, in recognition of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, are "yes" and "yes." The answers that are beginning to emerge are "no" and "no."
In Texas, if Rusty had committed this crime, the death penalty would have been automatic and an insanity plea would not have been considered. If Rusty had committed the crime, there would be no mental health experts to question his motives, his state of mind, or the level of care that was being provided by his family. In fact, if Rusty has committed this crime, neither you nor NOW would have noticed. The men's movement would have, but nothing would come of that, since we are largely invisible to the media (with notable and appreciated exceptions, including yourself). No, Cathy, when a man kills his family, there is no outcry from the mental health community asking what could have prompted this atrocity; society just presumes that he was evil. It's not possible that he could have felt the loss of his wife, his children, and his home so deeply that suicide was the only answer.
Now, we see that the vultures are circling Rusty, pathetic soul that he is, all five children gone and the woman he professes to love sentenced to life in prison. This man should be seeking counseling. The fact that he does not proves only the depth of his isolation.
So what the men's movement sees right now is nothing more than the perpetual "blame the man" syndrome displayed by most of the public and many of the private institutions in this nation. Andrea Yates is only in prison because society had no choice but to put her there. It's Rusty who they REALLY want to blame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what the men's movement sees right now is nothing more than the perpetual "blame the man" syndrome displayed by most of the public and many of the private institutions in this nation. Andrea Yates is only in prison because society had no choice but to put her there. It's Rusty who they REALLY want to blame.
We Have to stop funding these people with our money , they have absolutely no objective thinking whatsoever, they are biased pirahnnas with no conscience and are unable to look past their identity of being a woman first and a scientist second. Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supports neither side in gender war, but does what is right, and what her conscience tells her to do.
CONTACT THE MEDIA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, she can not be pressured by either powerful opponents, or allies who support her.
CONTACT THE MEDIA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, she can not be pressured by either powerful opponents, or allies who support her.
I don't think anyone is attempting to "pressure" her, but it would behoove her to open her mind a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
99% of American men care less about men's equal rights, then she does.
BUT, Cathy Young would not go along with any political ideology, even that of her allies.
CONTACT THE MEDIA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
99% of American men care less about men's equal rights, then she does. BUT, Cathy Young would not go along with any political ideology, even that of her allies.
No offense, John, but you have no proof of that stat. And, again, I'm not asking her to go along with any political ideaology. I'm saying she needs to open her mind and not attribute one ideaology to an entire group of people, all of whom do not share the same view.
Same fallacy as attributing misandry to anyone who identifies himself or herself as a "feminist."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 25, @03:36PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Despite all the banter, everyone here knows that if the roles were reversed in the Yates case (i.e. the father did the killing), there would have been no consciousness raising in the media about psychiatry, no national organizations rushing in to support the father, and no accountability for the wife in the matter - other than the usual "she was a victim too" type of shit.
A. Yates deliberately calculated when she was going to kill her children, and admitted it.
End of case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal restraint through the obedience to law is requisite for a civil polity to exist. To the extent that individuals within a society, through their will, exercise this restraint all citizens will enjoy the personal security and freedom that this restraint provides. However, if individuals or groups, as in the case of feminists and their supporters, disregard this necessary restraint, as in their support of Ms. Yates, then, in the long term, more repressive forms of government will become necessary to maintain the polity and civility necessary for a state. This clearly means to me that by disregarding the equal application of the law to Ms. Yates, feminists and their supporters are demonstrating their incapacity to live in an independent and free manner, but, rather that they require an more authoritarian form of government to determine and regulate their group and individual behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t think people who rail against Russell Yates have really thought through the implications of everything that they are saying.
That is a primary American cultural value. The majority of the public doesn't want to think about significant issues. They just want to hear politically correct and pleasing rhetoric. Then they let the elites make a choice for them on how to pass the new laws.
I predict that we are now facing a new series of laws that will systematically criminalize men with depressed wives. What will happen is that men will face jail time if they are judged to be causing their wives stress.
Further, there will be a series of studies that confirm this problem as a National crisis. Then psychologist and psychiatrists will be required by law to report men that are deemed criminally negligent for causing their partners stress.
The source of these laws will be the liberal feminists that hate men, and we will see the egalitarian and equality feminist claim they are justified so long as they use gender-neutral language that treat men equally. They will intentionally ignore the fact (except for some hand wringing/washing) that men are not treated equally.
In addition, men will ignorantly remain silent and think it is fine because they won’t believe they can be unjustly criminalized. Meanwhile, the male prison population will continue to explode (faster than any other Nation) with laws that systematically criminalize men for illegally causing stress. After all, if it is illegal to cause stress then it must be okay to criminalize men, and they will argue that it is in the best interest of the children to criminalize these fathers.
This problem is not going to go away without a massive men's movement to stop these feminist in their tracks, and yes, that includes feminist like Cathy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m extremely skeptical of all this brouhaha about Russell Yates. I don’t see how you hold someone accountable for a freak accident like this. Moreover, I don’t think people who rail against Russell Yates have really thought through the implications of everything that they are saying.
Estimates of the lifetime incidence of major depression in the United States range from 10 % to 25 %, with the disease being approximately twice as common in women as it is in men. This means that between 15 % and 40 % of women develop clinical major depression over the course of their lives. The prevalence of major depression in women at any given moment in time is approximately 9 %.
First of all, this means that there are somewhere between 22 million and 150 million women with a history of depression living within the USA. Currently, there are approximately 13.5 million women who are experiencing major depression at any given moment in the U.S. Approximately one in ten mothers with children has depression. Now, we have a single isolated case of 5 kids dying in a freak occurrence that is so strange, that the entire country has been transfixed for months.
Obviously, even if you look at a preselected cross-section of people who have ongoing major depression, or have a history of depression, this is truly a freak occurrence. Within all likelihood, the kids stood a greater chance of harm from dying in a car accident if Russell had taken them along in his car, than they stood to be harmed by their mother when Russell left the home that day.
Hindsight is always 20/20. We can’t all make the perfect decisions in life, based on what the outcome is when everything is done and we know what is going to happen. You have to make the best decisions in life based on the information that is available to you at the time you make that decision. Just because someone is depressed doesn't mean they are murderous.
I don’t believe that the critics of Russell Yates have fully thought through the implications of their statements. Because if you believe that Russell Yates is accountable, then you should also believe that women with a history of depression or suicidality should not be given custody of children in divorce proceedings, either.
If you believe that, then if I divorce my wife and I know she had a history of depression, I should subpoena her medical records, introduce them in to family court, and deny her the right to unsupervised visitation of her children. This is all in the best interest of the kids, of course.
Hindsight is always 20/20. No one, I repeat, no one had the capability to determine whether or not Andrea Yates was homicidal before the stated events took place. Not her psychiatrist, not her husband, nobody (except perhaps, but not necessarily, Andrea Yates.)
I’m surprised that advocacy groups for the mentally ill have not been railing heavily against the backlash against Russell Yates. Perhaps they were, which may explain why many women’s advocacy groups have been so conflicted about the case.
But the fact remains true that the vast majority of women and men with major depression are not a threat to their kids, and that they in most all circumstances, spending time with their children is a highly therapeutic opportunity for them.
It’s true that Yates’ depression was severe, as evidenced by her evolving psychosis. However, I don’t think that Russell Yates, without medical training, can be held accountable for not being able to fully assess the extent or meaning of her psychosis, particularly after she was evaluated by her psychiatrist only two days before, when she was taken off her antipsychotic medications. Most non-medically trained persons would interpret this as evidence from an authoritative source that she was doing better, not worse.
The amount of confusion circulating in the press and in discussion groups supports the fact that he should not be held accountable. Most people have never heard of, nor know how to distinguish, psychotic depression from schizophrenia. I have heard numerous people refer to her as being “schizophrenic” which according to my understanding, is untrue. How many of you, honestly speaking, had any understanding of what psychotic depression was, until this particular case showed up in the press (how many of you know even now?) Do people with psychotic depression present a greater or lesser risk to others when left alone? How many of you who are not nurses, psychologists, or doctors are able to make that honest assessment? Can we penalize Russell Yates not being a psychiatrist?
I can imagine Russell Yates being completely flabbergasted by his wife’s illness. I can imaging his doctor explaining to him that she was exhibiting signs of psychosis. I can imagine Russell Yates asking her doctor if she was schizophrenic. And then I can image the psychiatrist telling him that no, she was not schizophrenic and that her symptoms were due to sever depression – which they apparently were – and she would within all likelihood recover. What is all this supposed to mean to Russell Yates? Is it okay to leave her at home with his family or not?
Finally, the entire premise of women’s advocacy groups defending Andrea Yates is that she had postpartum depression. The implication is that she was certainly mentally competent when she was not postpartum. The Yates’ were warned that having additional children could be risky (for her, not her kids). At the time Andrea Yates got pregnant, she was not postpartum. This of course means that Andrea Yates, and not just Russel Yates, was competent at the time she got pregnant. So, the idea that Russel Yates impregnated a psychotic, depressed, mentally incompetent person who was not able to consent to this decision likely does not hold. Within all likelihood, Andrea Yates was not severely depressed, and certainly not mentally incompetent at the time she fell pregnant. Or hey, it could just as easily have been an accident.
Whatever the case, this a tragic story of a freak accident that happened to people who coincidentally did not fully understand their illness, as is often the case. (Who really does understand it?) Just go to any family practitioners’ office and ask them how patients they have who have problems with their “prostrate.” You’ll get the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The substance of Young's complaint appears to
be the two paragraphs quoted below. I don't
think its reasonable to expect a husband to
simply remove children from his
wife's care. Exactly how was he supposed to
achieve this feat? we would hardly expect the
law to have been much assistance to Mr.Yates.
Furthermore, does it occur to Young that Mr.Yates
might have had other responsibilities (eg supporting his family) which would get in the
way of his manfully seizing full-time custody
of hs children?
This article confirms my negative opinion of
Cathy Young.
sd
This is a man whose wife had been hospitalized several times for psychiatric problems and had
attempted suicide at least twice. The psychiatrist who treated her for postpartum psychosis after
the birth of the couple's fourth baby had strongly warned them against having more children. Yet
Russell and Andrea Yates disregarded that advice, apparently deciding that since her condition
could be treated with a powerful antipsychotic drug, they could take the risk.
Shortly before the murders, Russell Yates tried to get psychiatric treatment for his wife. By his
account, he was displeased that she was sent home and taken off medication. Yet he let her
continue caring for five small children and home-school the older ones, staying alone with them for
extended periods of time.
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the first thing usually said about the whole Yates situation?
Come on, rack your brains ... carefully now...
..right wing Christian Fundamentalist cult...
See, I knew it'd hit you - or a variation on that theme.
It's very fashionable and trendy to bash Traditional Religions in favor of "more progressive" (Whatever the hell that means) and politically correct dogmas. This is a nice convenient little rubric, that like most lies, if it gets repeated long and often enough people eventually start accepting it as fact without questioning it.
The flame is fed by religious bigots who have an idealogical axe to grind. Christianity is a favorite whipping boy of the pheminists because it supports the two-parent family, commitment in marriage, opposes libertinism and hedonism, homosexuality, and advocates eternal moral standards.
These tenets are regarded as anathema by the PC Nazis, and hence are derided as "nutty." Such morality is dangerous to them because it dares to use the "four letter words" of "right" and "wrong." When you use those words, you are being "judgmental." So you're obviously a religious whacko. Because if you're not a whacko, you have to be given basic consideration, and afforded a presumption of respect.
Reread a lot of these stories - how many of them don't imply he belongs to some fruitcake cult? Hmmm? It begs the question for me - is it because of what he did, or what he believes, and I have no doubt that if Russel Yates had some kind of impeccable American Politically Correct Liberal credentials, he'd have a lot easier time of it.
I've visited and read some of the sites about this sect, and while I disagree with them profoundly on theology and eschatology, and foursquare stand against a sola scriptura exegesis of scripture, what's nutty about them?
They don't like public schools? They believe that sex roles determine responsibilities in a marriage? Sex is for procreation? They can't find the amphiboly in the command "Go forth and Multiply?"
Criminy, folks, it's no crazier than the notions advanced by countless other creeds, up to and including evangelical atheism. Sacrificing chickens, dancing naked in the moonlight, smoking pot as a sacrament, casting spells - these can seem fairly looney tunes themselves. In fact it's really easy to isolate a doctrine or two out of any belief system, carry it to an extreme, and then bash it. It's called the Straw Man fallacy, and it's piss-poor lazy thinking.
A common theme from these real whackos is to piously intone that "something needs to be done to rein this in." Okay, what prey tell? Subjecting a "religion" to an inspection of beliefs? By whom? What if they fail it? Do we outlaw it? Confiscate property? Burn their sacred writ? Round up the people and send them to re-education campts, or internment if they refuse to renounce?
And then when we get sick of paying for this, do we get to apply a final solution? Oh Please? Can I push the button, please? ( --- This is sarcasm, here, BTW and FYI).
Think about agendas for a moment. A proper politically correct "male" would do penance, get counselling, advance the wimmyn's cause, and be forgiven after serving as an object lesson. Rusty Yates is getting double slammed, and Cathy Young in this article, while using good reasoning, is basing it off of flawed premises. This is akin to the logic of "All Irishmen are Drunks, Mike is an Irishman, therefore mike is a drunk." A logical syllogism, to be sure, but proceeding from a false premise. Cathy, like many, has been snookered.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
