43736. PsychProf - Nov. 9, 1998 - 6:40 AM PT
PP's Child Abuse Link Of The Day
43737. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 6:48 AM PT
PP
Stupid man, and even stupider woman.
The baby suffers for the sins of the adults. I hope the man suffers nightmares for the rest of his life. I hope the woman goes to jail for the rest of her life.
I wish women would tell men to go fuck themselves when they say their children get in the way.
43738. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 6:50 AM PT
Well, I suppose I shouldn't have posted that last comment quite that crudely, but it's what I meant.
And what a way to start a Monday.
43739. CharlieL - Nov. 9, 1998 - 6:50 AM PT
TM, we didn't have a gig on Saturday. We play this coming Friday and Saturday.
43740. TheDiva - Nov. 9, 1998 - 6:53 AM PT
Ms
Perfectly pithy, and perfectly appropriate. Both those evil animals deserve lifetime jail sentences.
43741. PsychProf - Nov. 9, 1998 - 6:54 AM PT
Missie....firstrate post. Message #43737
43742. CharlieL - Nov. 9, 1998 - 7:00 AM PT
The rule is:
Anytime a person in a relationship is confronted with the ultimatum "It's either your kid or me," the kid wins.
Every time.
43743. bubbaette - Nov. 9, 1998 - 7:03 AM PT
No question.
What's more, I'd tend to make that kind of response to almost any ultimatum delivered by a date.
43744. TheDiva - Nov. 9, 1998 - 7:13 AM PT
How on earth did she even become involved with such a person? What kind of mother was she? What kind of selfish, macho bastard was he?
Before Sweetie and I even went on our first date, I told him that he'd be getting a package deal if we got involved - me *and* my daughter.....that she was my first priority always.....that I expected him to treat her with kindness, compassion and patience....and if that was a problem, there was no room in my life for him.
43745. PsychProf - Nov. 9, 1998 - 7:17 AM PT
Chuck is right and when the kid wins all win.
43746. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 7:20 AM PT
The article mentioned that neighbors never saw any abuse, however, the woman had just aborted the boyfriends baby. From the wording of the story, I got the impression that the boyfriend wasn't involved in that decision, and was unhappy about it.
What does this suggest? That the boyfriend would have wanted the baby and would have helped her? Does it suggest she was fundamentally unconnected to her child? That her seemingly unwillingness to have another child thrust into her world was an indication that she wanted neither of them?
I don't know, I only know that the line between acting humanely and like a monster must be very thin for some people.
43747. PsychProf - Nov. 9, 1998 - 7:34 AM PT
I find this to be so every morning in the fall: Leaf Story
43748. ChristiPeters - Nov. 9, 1998 - 7:35 AM PT
"Anytime a person in a relationship is confronted with the ultimatum "It's either your kid or me," the kid wins."
ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY!!!
43749. ChristiPeters - Nov. 9, 1998 - 7:36 AM PT
I know I said I never swear ...
I guess I lied
43750. ChristiPeters - Nov. 9, 1998 - 7:37 AM PT
Seamus -
I'm sorry I missed your birthday ...
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!! (late)
43751. CharlieL - Nov. 9, 1998 - 7:45 AM PT
The article also said the woman lived with the child in an apartment with a TV and "not a stick of furniture."
That doesn't sound like the type of person I would trust with a child.
Everyone can at least buy a chair. Did the child sleep on the floor? Did they sit on the floor and eat on the floor while watching TV? Not much of a life, if you ask me.
43752. CharlieL - Nov. 9, 1998 - 7:46 AM PT
I have another rule, also:
Anytime a person in a relationship is confronted with the ultimatum "It's either your dog or me," the dog wins.
Every time.
43753. bubbaette - Nov. 9, 1998 - 7:49 AM PT
Same with "it's that hairstyle or me" the hairstyle wins.
43754. tmachine - Nov. 9, 1998 - 8:03 AM PT
Chuck--sorry, I must have misread your post about the gig. But I'm sure it WILL go well on Fri AND Sat.
43755. ChristiPeters - Nov. 9, 1998 - 8:05 AM PT
CharlieL -
I actually have a friend who encountered that attitude after she was married. The man married her knowing she had horses, cats, and dogs. When the relationship started to go sour, he admitted that he was jealous of the animals. He felt that she couldn't love him enough if she loved the animals, too - as if each person has a fixed supply of love in their soul which is divided up. Most people know that love is limitless and multiplies with more people/beings a person has in their lives to love. She couldn't convince him of that and they ended up divorced. So sad.
43756. PsychProf - Nov. 9, 1998 - 8:08 AM PT
Christie...interesting story...I would guess the issue was "control", not love...
43757. bubbaette - Nov. 9, 1998 - 8:13 AM PT
I agree. Unfortunatly, some folks believe that there is always a winner and a loser in any relationship -- the one on top and the one taking orders. IMO, both people lose in that case.
43758. ChristiPeters - Nov. 9, 1998 - 8:17 AM PT
(sung to the tune of "Goodnight Ladies")
Goodbye Newtie, Goodby Newtie,
Goodbye Newtie! We're glad to see you go!
Merrily we sing this song,
Sing this song, Sing this song
Merrily we sing this song,
We'll never miss you Newt!
(repeat)
43759. ChristiPeters - Nov. 9, 1998 - 8:18 AM PT
PP -
So many, many times the issue is Power.
Arguing about money - the issue is Power.
Arguing about sex - the issue is often Power.
Arguing about how to parent - the issue is often Power.
Arguing about ...
43760. HCaulfield - Nov. 9, 1998 - 8:25 AM PT
PP -- If you want to research this, I'll be your first volunteer.
43761. PsychProf - Nov. 9, 1998 - 8:33 AM PT
Holden...I'll sign you up.
43762. HCaulfield - Nov. 9, 1998 - 8:37 AM PT
PP -- If you want to research this, I'll be your first volunteer.
43763. conniemack - Nov. 9, 1998 - 8:37 AM PT
Not that I'm defending Ms. Arroyo -- not at all. I'm a proponent of harsh punishment re: child abuse and domestic violence of all kinds. I'm just intrigued by the tagline of one paragraph, that Ms. Arroyo fled her son's father in Texas. Was he abusing her? Had she fled that kind of existence? And she's 22 years old. How stable, mature is she? Was/is she clinically mentally ill? We can't truly pass judgment until we know all the facts.
There's plenty of people that would have taken in that sweet 3-year-old boy (all three-year-olds are sweet). She had options. It's a pity she didn't pursue them, or didn't realize she could. It's also a pity she was so invested with her boyfriend, she thought she couldn't live without him, even if it meant divesting herself of her only child.
43764. conniemack - Nov. 9, 1998 - 8:39 AM PT
correction: It's a tragedy she was so invested with her boyfriend, etc., etc.
43765. conniemack - Nov. 9, 1998 - 8:54 AM PT
Change of subject here.... Aside from the following's reference to 'god' being the influence -- being one not 'into' the insularity of secularity, I thought it was a nice piece. Don't know where it came from, though, so cannot accredit....
Then it seemed to stop making any progress. It appeared as if it had gotten as far as it could and it could go no farther. Then the man decided to help the butterfly, so he took a pair of scissors and snipped off the remaining bit of the cocoon. The butterfly then emerged easily, but it had a swollen body and small, shriveled wings.
The man continued to watch the butterfly because he expected that, at any moment the wings would enlarge and expand to be able to support the body, which would contract in time.
Neither happened! In fact, the butterfly spent the rest of its life crawling around with a swollen body and shriveled wings.
It was never able to fly.
What the man in his kindness and haste did not understand was that th
43766. conniemack - Nov. 9, 1998 - 8:59 AM PT
What the man in his kindness and haste did not understand was that the restricting cocoon and the struggle required for the butterfly to get through the tiny opening, were God's way of forcing fluid from the body of the butterfly into its wings so that it would be ready for flight once it achieved its freedom from the cocoon.
Sometimes struggles are exactly what we need in our life. If God allowed us to go through our life without obstacles, it would cripple us. We would not be as strong as what we could have been, and we could never fly. Have a nice day and struggle a little.
Note: I'm getting pissed off at either my browser or AOL 4.0 or slate or SomeBody, 'cause my posts keep getting cropped after having indicated they're all there. Sheesh!
43767. IrvingSnodgrass - Nov. 9, 1998 - 9:32 AM PT
Connie:
"Note: I'm getting pissed off at either my browser or AOL 4.0 or slate or SomeBody, 'cause my posts keep getting cropped after having indicated they're all there. Sheesh!"
Well, I'd tell you that "sometimes struggles are exactly what we need in our life," but I think you've heard it before.
43768. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 10:32 AM PT
I find it amazing that anyone blames the boyfriend at all. It was the mother, through and through. Sure, the boyfriend was a narcissistic fuck. But nothing to go to jail for.
The mother was entirely to blame. I hope she rots in jail forever.
43769. bubbaette - Nov. 9, 1998 - 10:33 AM PT
Diva
Incoming
43770. TheDiva - Nov. 9, 1998 - 10:37 AM PT
Ouch! Hit me square in the left temple!
43771. ChristiPeters - Nov. 9, 1998 - 10:41 AM PT
CalGal (P#43768) - "I find it amazing that anyone blames the boyfriend at all. It was the mother, through and through. Sure, the boyfriend was a narcissistic fuck. But nothing to go to jail for.
The mother was entirely to blame."
I agree completely. He told her to make a choice. She made the wrong choice in the wrong way. It's the old "well, if someone told you to jump off a cliff, would you?" question just about everybody's parent eventually brings up.
Even if she had to be so weak and stupid as to choose a boyfriend over her child, she didn't have to kill the kid. Don't get me wrong, I think any mother who would choose that way is wacked, but she made the worst decision for the circumstances.
43772. TheDiva - Nov. 9, 1998 - 10:45 AM PT
The worst you guys are going to hang on this jerk is narcissistic?
He's evil, evil, evil. Those two are a match made in hell, and they deserve each other.
43773. PsychProf - Nov. 9, 1998 - 10:49 AM PT
I have found myself agreeing with CalGal on a significant number of posts as of late. Will I get over this or is it a permanent change? Virus or Bacteria? What is happening to me? Will I recover? Is all lost?
43774. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 11:14 AM PT
PP,
We have always agreed on parenting issues.
However, I just laughed at a post of yours, which is a first. Virus or bacteria, it must be contagious and I blame you entirely.
Diva,
He may be evil, but it is irrelevant. The mother is solely to blame. To blame the boyfriend in *any* way is to imply that the mother is less than responsible for her choices. Even if the boyfriend *told* her to kill the baby, it would still be entirely her fault.
But in this case, he just gave her a choice about her life. It's not even a close call. And I hope very much that the jury does *not* figure the boyfriends in any way to blame and lets her off easy as a result. I hope they crucify her.
43775. ChristinO - Nov. 9, 1998 - 11:15 AM PT
I've found that ultimatums like "It's suchandsuch or me!" really come down to "You give up whatever it is that you value to prove that I'm more important". It's not about the thing you're told to give up it's about the giving up itself.
43776. TheDiva - Nov. 9, 1998 - 11:23 AM PT
But he gave her the idea.....he gave her the choice. Would she have done it otherwise?
43777. bubbaette - Nov. 9, 1998 - 11:30 AM PT
Diva
Doesn't matter. We all face choices all the time. In this case, if the woman only did it because she was told to do it by her boyfriend, then she is too stupid to live. (IMO)
43778. ChristinO - Nov. 9, 1998 - 11:32 AM PT
Diva,
I think the guy's a barbarian at least from what I read, but I don't know enough about it to say he really bears any responsibility for the death of the boy. He might be telling the truth that he intended for her to send the boy back to his father or he might have said something truly awful in a rage of grief over the abortion, but either way for him to suggest that she do such a thing doesn't really make him guilty. I've said often enough that Andrea Dworkin needs her mouth sewed shut, but god forbid some nut should actually do it and I get arrested.
Another possibility here is that she knew what a creepo this guy was and didn't want a child to tie her to him, but felt such remorse after having the abortion that she felt she really ought to be prosecuted as a murderer so she killed her son.
Now, of course this is total speculation and rather far-fetched, but it is an alternative.
43779. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 11:44 AM PT
Diva,
As I said, even if he *told* her to kill him, I would still hold her entirely responsible. But he didn't even do that.
No, she looked at her world without a boyfriend and didn't like it. So she killed her son.
I can see no reason to say anything other than the boyfriend is a fuck.
In fact, the motive is completely analogous to the Susan Smith .
Christin,
If she felt guilty, she is most welcome to off herself. Given the alternative she came up with, I wish she had.
But there are too many cases of parents allowing hideous, horrible things to happen to their children--or cause them directly--for me to think that she did this out of guilt.
She wanted to preserve herself. And I think it's time we start holding women *completely* responsible for their actions, and stop blaming external factors.
The boyfriend, truly, has no bearing on the situation at all.
A mother killed her son.
43780. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 11:44 AM PT
"to the Susan Smith case."
43781. ChristinO - Nov. 9, 1998 - 11:47 AM PT
I agree with you, CG. Not a bit of hesitation for me. She is responsible and there is no excuse for her actions I was just musing on how else she might have rationalized it if she did so at all.
43782. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 11:50 AM PT
Christin,
I know. And I also know I come across like the wrath of God on these issues. But to me, it utterly negates the concept of "parent" to consider any extenuating circumstances.
43783. Fraaank9 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:02 PM PT
An undiscovered joke among my incoming mail from months ago...
Four catholic ladies were sitting around sipping tea:
First lady: " My son is a priest. Whenever he enters a room, he is addressed as,' Father '."
Second lady: "My son is a bishop.Whenever he enters a room, he is called ,'Your Grace'".
Third lady: "My son is a cardinal. Whenever he walks into a room, he is addressed as,'Your Eminence'",she proudly beamed.
Fourth lady (Quietly sipping her tea) : " Well ?" cry the first three women as they wait for her contribution. "Well,my son stands 6'2", has broad shoulders, muscular arms and an extremely tight ass. Whenever he enters a room, the women shout,'Oh My God!'".
43784. Fraaank9 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:06 PM PT
I'm gone...out to lunch,but I just thought I should try to liven up this thread a bit after that horrible post from PP.
Unfortunately,there never seems to be a dearth of those stories, no matter where we live.
Gotta run
43785. TheDiva - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:21 PM PT
Whooaaaaaaa........have I been misread here, or what?
I'm not saying there are extenuating circumstances. I'm not saying she isn't totally responsible for her actions. Not at all. Of COURSE she is....she's an evil, horrible, reprehensible bitch who thinks nothing of killing her children.
But IMHO, the guy is culpable in some measure (though not to the extent she is, unless it comes out that he helped her kill the baby) because he even brought up the issue of choosing between them. She'd already shown herself capable of selfishness. What the hell did he expect her to do?
ARGH!
43786. CoralReef - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:24 PM PT
Message #43785 An accessory before the fact, to some extent? It's certainly worth looking into if there's any way they can.
43787. CoralReef - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:30 PM PT
Where's 109 with his legal terms when you need him.
43788. Raskolnikov - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:33 PM PT
He is morally an accessory if not legally. Asking a mother to choose between him and her daughter is unconscionable. More than one person can be guilty in any crime, and partially blaming him removes no blame from her.
43789. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:33 PM PT
Diva,
"But IMHO, the guy is culpable in some measure (though not to the extent she is, unless it comes out that he helped her kill the baby) because he even brought up the issue of choosing between them. "
I can't see how. He was basically telling her he wanted to break up. That's a crime?
43790. TheDiva - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:34 PM PT
CR
I was just thinking the same thing.
Maybe it's bloodthirsty of me, I don't know. I just don't think these people can suffer too horribly for what they've done. To harm a child (and that includes resenting the child's existence to the point of issuing the ultimatum that this jerk did) has to be one of the wickedest things ever.
It *almost* makes me rethink my stand on capital punishment.
43791. TheDiva - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:35 PM PT
Cal
Because he KNEW she'd already killed one baby. Where's the stretch here?
43792. ChristinO - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:40 PM PT
Div,
I didn't get the impression that you were excusing her in any way. Not at all. I understood you to mean that the boyfriend should also be held accountable for even mentioning such a thing. While I think morally he's deficient, I just don't see that he can or really even should be held responsible if indeed all he really did was say "The kid goes or I go".
It's too vague to be prosecuted without opening the door for all kinds of abuse. It could have severe repercussions on freedom of speech. NOT that I condone what he said, but it's too tough and too tricky to try and prosecute someone for saying something foul.
43793. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:40 PM PT
I'm amazed. Possibly--POSSIBLY--if he were the child's father, you could make such an argument.
But to hold a boyfriend responsible for saying him or me? When she kills him? Unreal.
Maybe the law sides with you. But to even place those two acts in the same orbit--no matter how much you claim one absolves the other--unreal.
43794. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:42 PM PT
Diva,
She had an abortion. If it was a standard early abortion and you're equating the two, then there is really nothing to be said.
In any event, there is no comparison. The boyfriend is a jerk. The mother is evil and the reason I oppose the death penalty is because I would have *no* problem with her being stood against a wall and being blown to bits with a shot gun.
43795. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:43 PM PT
"no matter how much you claim one absolves the other-"
should read
"no matter how much you claim one *doesn't* absolve the other"
43796. TheDiva - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:46 PM PT
Chris
Well, that's a relief.....I can't imagine anyone thinking that I'd excuse the bitch. I didn't really see this as a freedom of speech issue, and your point is well taken.
Cal
No, I'm not saying they're in the same orbit....there are varying degrees of sin here. And in no way does one absolve the other. That's not what I meant at all. It's just that he bears some measure of responsibility for bringing her to the point. Would she have done it if he hadn't issued his ultimatum? We'll never know.
In any case, rant over. I'm not always rational when it comes to the topic of child abuse.
43797. CoralReef - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:46 PM PT
Why is husband different from boyfriend? The point is not the legal status of their relationship but the emotional status of it.
43798. TheDiva - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:48 PM PT
cp, Cal....another relief!
Yeah, I'm equating the two, I'm one of those foaming-at-the-mouth pro-lifers. :-)
43799. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:52 PM PT
I don't know why you guys insist on these absolutes. How can a woman go from being a passable parent (according to public view) to being evil?
Certainly what causes a woman to turn on her children for the sake of the affections of another man is more complicated than just a nice easy "she is evil".
How do you know it isn't biological in some way? We observe this behavior in the animal world, where felines allow males to kill their litter from another mating and then end up mating with that male.
And how does this relate to our view of children as property? Women, particularly young women, know they can have other children (or think they can) that replace lost ones. Children as produceable products?
In any case, it's way to easy to point the finger and say "she is evil", then avoid seeing her image in us.
43800. CoralReef - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:53 PM PT
a new kind of clock
squirrel fishing
43801. PsychProf - Nov. 9, 1998 - 1:58 PM PT
Reefer...Haha...very funny with the rodents....actually, my oldest son went to college right there, and I have seen the little devils many times...they pay no tuition and are your basic freeloaders.
43802. TheDiva - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:00 PM PT
Oh, I'd say she saw her children as produceable/expendable products. That's obvious. As for biological etiology......could be, but the article didn't say. Manic-depression? Post-partum depression?
I don't see evil as a nice, easy thing, either. It's horrible. Nor do I see her image in me, particularly. My child comes first.....the entire time I was single, the first thing I considered whenever a man approached me was "Is this someone I'd want her to know? Would he be kind to her?"
No-one remotely resembling this guy has ever gotten near me. I've never had to face so blatant a choice, and I doubt I ever will, but if I do.....no contest.
43803. TheDiva - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:02 PM PT
Now I'm REALLY done ranting.
Good night, all.
43804. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:07 PM PT
Ms,
The first thing you said, on reading the link, was "Stupid boyfriend, even stupider woman."
The discussion then went on to how rotten he must be to do such a thing.
To me, I read that and saw that a woman killed her child. I don't care why. She is evil. Were I to kill my child, I would be evil. There is *no* excuse.
To discuss the two subjects--the boyfriend being an asshole and the woman killing her child--as if they are somehow related is just.... nauseating.
43805. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:10 PM PT
Yes, yes, Diva, granted we cannot relate. But because we can't relate, the only way we can understand is to demonize her. This woman was a product of *our* culture. What made her believe that killing her son was an acceptable option?
What made her believe that the attentions of a man were more important than her biological offspring?
What made her believe that her children were expendable?
Where did she learn these things? These believes? These ideas? They must be somewhere in our culture for her to have found it so possible to act as she did?
And what about that young man? What elements of our culture would have supported his actions?
I see these two as products of our own culture, and their actions are actions we must all face.
43806. 109109 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:10 PM PT
Okay.
Everybody relax.
Nobody move him.
I'm a lawyer.
What is the question?
43807. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:15 PM PT
Niner,
Go see Psychprof's link in 43736.
Diva thinks the guy is at least partially responsible. Coral thought he could be held as an accessory.
43808. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:17 PM PT
Ms,
I really don't care why she did it. What I want is for women like that (or men who kill their kids) to never, ever be excused or to have their actions mitigated in *any* way.
43809. 109109 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:20 PM PT
Stay with him or stay with me =
No criminal implication at all, at least, on the facts of the article. Of course, he won't win a Nobel Peace prize.
The woman in NC who drowned her kids drowned them because she was dating man who didn't want kids.
She, on the other hand, will be quite a nice fry.
43810. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:20 PM PT
Calgal
I did not participate in that conversation about the boyfriend other than my initial comment.
I hold by that. He was an idiot. But I agree with you that the main responsibility falls on her shoulders, hence my last comment in that initial post.
I just find it too easy to say someone is *evil* for killing their child. What do you mean by evil? What are the parameters?
What about the man who leaves his wife and children without economic or emotional support? Walks off. He doesn't *kill* them outright, but he endangers them. How come society doesn't see him as evil?
Or reverse it. What about a woman who walks away from her children? She doesn't kill them, but she endangers them. Actually, society tends to judge women who do this much more harshly than the male equivalent. I wonder why?
43811. HCaulfield - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:22 PM PT
I think at least one of these guys needs a lawyer.
43812. 109109 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:23 PM PT
MsIt
Your last post is intellectually interesting, and absolutely dangerous in terms of scoietal control, for if killing an abortion doctor can be equated, somehow, with deaths of a non-overt nature (i.e., failure to fund transplants), then you devalue the outright murdered because there are killer everywhere, theoretically.
A killer of a child is particularly evil because children are particularly weak and vulnerable.
43813. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:23 PM PT
Ms,
My reaction to your remark was utter and profound disbelief that you even *considered* the boyfriend in your comments. And that everyone followed up in discussing him. He was completely out of the equation as far as I was concerned.
A man who leaves his wife and children is a scum. A woman who kills her children because she can't support them should be sent to jail forever and rot in hell when she dies and no, the father is not an accessory in my books. Reverse the genders, my stance is the same.
You have kids, you are responsible for them. One parent walks, too fucking bad. You're not ready to raise them by yourself, don't have them to start with.
43814. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:24 PM PT
Niner,
43812--yes. Exactly.
43815. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:31 PM PT
109
Balderdash. Dangerous to societal control? Please.
There is a continuum of actions that are within the same class, and all stemming from cultural clues and values about children, women and men.
The point from approving of a man who remakes himself with a second family, to a man who kills his family in the hopes of remaking himself isn't that far apart in my moral/ethical book.
Your comment that it cheapens murder is not correct in my view. Rather, to consider anything BUT outright murder acceptable behavior, and tolerated, is to cheapen the lives of children except when they are killed.
43816. elliot803 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:32 PM PT
The woman's responsibility for the crime may be mitigated in several ways. Certainly, if the boyfriend had some kind of control or power over her, he may also bear some responsibility for the killings, and the woman's responsibility would be mitigated accordingly.
43817. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:36 PM PT
"Your last post is intellectually interesting,"
I just caught the whammy from this little gem. HAHAHAHA
Thanks so much. I can't tell you how honored I am that you finally saw a post of mine as intellectually interesting.....
43818. 109109 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:37 PM PT
MsIt
Balderdash? What are you tryin' to do, make me go crazy here?
"There is a continuum of actions that are within the same class, and all stemming from cultural clues and values about children, women and men. The point from approving of a man who remakes himself with a second family, to a man who kills his family in the hopes of remaking himself isn't that far apart in my moral/ethical book."
Okey dokey. That is your ethical book and you are entitled to it. It is a bit extreme, so I merely make sure that it does not gain any wide acceptance.
elliot
"The woman's responsibility for the crime may be mitigated in several ways. Certainly, if the boyfriend had some kind of control or power over her, he may also bear some responsibility for the killings, and the woman's responsibility would be mitigated accordingly."
Agreed. But it is murky. His power may have been total, and he may have said it in a manner to punish her. For that, he will have a heavy conscience for his involvement.
But, in an attempt to avoid a good frying, she will maintain that the boyfriend psychologically controlled her.
And I hope it meets with same success as the little charmer in Texas who, along with her boyfriend, killed the young girl after the boyfriend slept with her.
She too argued that the boyfriend psychologically controlled her.
43819. 109109 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:38 PM PT
MsIt
"I just caught the whammy from this little gem. HAHAHAHA
Thanks so much. I can't tell you how honored I am that you finally saw a post of mine as intellectually interesting....."
My pleasure.
43820. davidmeyer - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:39 PM PT
This sort of tragedy is directly related to gender norms; femininity is based on submission and irrationality. So long as women are taught that the primary reason for their existence is to please a man, this sort of behavior will take place.
I blame society just as much as the mother.
43821. 109109 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:40 PM PT
davidmeyer
As long as society doesn't do the stint or get the voltage, I'm with you 100%
43822. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:43 PM PT
"It is a bit extreme, so I merely make sure that it does not gain any wide acceptance."
Actually, depending on your point in history, it has had wide acceptance.
And it isn't just a matter of my own personal standards. The continuum itself changes over time, and is subject to some amount of ethical examination.
I repeat, if a female abandons her children in the desire to remake her life, she endangers those children, she has harmed them. How is this *very far* apart from outright murder in order to accomplish the same thing?
It's really only a matter of where we've drawn the line in the sand. Ethically, they aren't very different at all.
43823. elliot803 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:44 PM PT
If the boyfriend did "psychologically control her" and used that power to influence her to kill the child, it would be unjust not to hold him at least partly responsible for the crime.
43824. davidmeyer - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:49 PM PT
109109:
We are lucky that the crime didn't occur in Texas. Society would actually be at risk of execution, I imagine.
Society in Denver has received a worse punishment - their airport.
43825. Raskolnikov - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:51 PM PT
"So long as women are taught that the primary reason for their existence is to please a man, this sort of behavior will take place. "
If this is what society teaches, I think I will have to sue society for malpractice since they haven't done it very well, in my experience.
If anything, society says that the primary reason for a woman's existence is to take care of her children, and I'm not even sure how strongly it delegates that task solely to women anymore.
43826. 109109 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:52 PM PT
MsIt
"I repeat, if a female abandons her children in the desire to remake her life, she endangers those children, she has harmed them. How is this *very far* apart from outright murder in order to accomplish the same thing?"
In one instance the child is breathing, and has a life without a Mommy. In the other, the child is not. I'm not sure you could find something more far apart - me typing now, a product of a broken home, or me . . . neck broken and dead at age 6.
elliot
"If the boyfriend did "psychologically control her" and used that power to influence her to kill the child, it would be unjust not to hold him at least partly responsible for the crime."
Agreed, and the law recognizes that. From the article, he said "him or me."
43827. 109109 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:54 PM PT
david
"We are lucky that the crime didn't occur in Texas. Society would actually be at risk of execution, I imagine. Society in Denver has received a worse punishment - their airport."
Ha ha ha. Very nice.
43828. bubbaette - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:56 PM PT
Niner
Hmmm, your option number two does have it's attractions (g)
43829. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 2:58 PM PT
109
You keep ignoring my point. It is an ethical continuum. Yes, in one instance the child is breathing, and in the other, not. But the abandonment of a child can lead to death, and in that case, who's responsible? At what point, ethically, are the two acts comparable?
You are so jesuit in your thinking.....
43830. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 3:01 PM PT
Again, what is evil?
What constitutes evilness in one case but not the other?
Calgal says abandonment is evil, as well, but how evil? Evil enough to spit on anyone who has done so?
I must say, I've never seen this happen in our modern society (though it did happen in earlier times). So, inherently, we must judge the abandonment of children to fed for themselves as less "evil" than the outright killing of them.
Again, this is simply a continuum. A line drawn in the sand. And somewhat arbitrary if society doesn't step in to provide the safety net that keeps these abandoned children alive.
43831. 109109 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 3:03 PM PT
bubber
Hag.
43832. davidmeyer - Nov. 9, 1998 - 3:10 PM PT
Raskolnikov:
So femininity doesn't entail subserviance? I think some Southern Baptists might disagree. It is perhaps a bit too early to say that femininity has evolved away from this trait.
43833. Raskolnikov - Nov. 9, 1998 - 3:18 PM PT
Even Baptists don't require women to submit to their boyfriends. I think some case has to be made that she believed she was supposed to submit to the wishes of her boyfriend due to some societal pressure before you can really blame society to any significant extent. I don't think it is fair to society to ignore the much more powerful pressures it places on women to try to be good mothers.
43834. bubbaette - Nov. 9, 1998 - 3:29 PM PT
"So femininity doesn't entail subserviance?"
I don't know, I'll go ask my husband.
43835. 109109 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 3:35 PM PT
bubber
You better be sweet.
43836. AzureNW - Nov. 9, 1998 - 3:52 PM PT
Raskolnikov -
"I don't think it is fair to society to ignore the much more powerful pressures it places on women to try to be good mothers."
Without such powerful social pressure on her to be a "good mother," I wonder if she would have given the child away years earlier instead of finally killing him?
43837. AzureNW - Nov. 9, 1998 - 3:55 PM PT
I think anyone who is seriously outraged by the abuse of unwanted children should adopt or sponsor an unwanted child. There are plenty of them to go around.
Put your money where your mouth is!
43838. Philistine - Nov. 9, 1998 - 4:08 PM PT
DavidMeyer -
The Denver Airport!
43839. elliot803 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 4:11 PM PT
If the woman was legally insane she may avoid some or all legal responsibility for the killing.
American Psychiatric Association on the Insanity Defense
43840. marjoribanks - Nov. 9, 1998 - 4:12 PM PT
Wow, that is one weird link.
43841. marjoribanks - Nov. 9, 1998 - 4:13 PM PT
I meant the one in 43838, linked by Philistine.
43842. MrSocko - Nov. 9, 1998 - 4:47 PM PT
Ivory:
I guess the reason "society" thinks worse of women who abandon their children is the same reason why the courts tend to give women an easier ride when it comes to child custody. Wrongly in my view, Western societies generally holds to the views that woman are naturally better caregivers and should therefore shoulder greater rights and responsibilities as a consequence.
43843. CalGal - Nov. 9, 1998 - 4:54 PM PT
I agree that it's wrong. I think it's unfair that women are blamed more than men when they do abandon their children. As Socko points out, women then are given advantage over the men who *do* want to have more time with their children in custody decisions.
All of this has nothing to do with killing children. There is no continuum. A child who is abandoned can be saved.
43844. CoralReef - Nov. 9, 1998 - 5:03 PM PT
I had a thought similar to socko's but it sounded more like this:
Ibory: I guess de reason "society" dinks worse of women who abandon deir children is the, ERRRR, same reason errrr, why the, errr, courts tend t' gibe women an easieh ride when it comes t' child custody. Wrong in my biew, uh uh uh uh uh uh, Webuhstehn societies genehal holds t' de biews dat woman are natural betteh caregibehs 'n shudd dehef'e shuddeh greateh rites 'n reponsibiltibies as a consekess.
43845. Philistine - Nov. 9, 1998 - 5:08 PM PT
Funny, Coral! And I agree.
43846. AzureNW - Nov. 9, 1998 - 5:08 PM PT
The excessive romanticism surrounding motherhood in our society encourages people, especially women, to conceive children they don't really want and to cling to children they know they can't take care of. I've seen parents hang on to children they were abusing because they would not face public criticism for their failure as parents. I bet everyone else here has seen it, too.
43847. CoralReef - Nov. 9, 1998 - 5:09 PM PT
Message #43843 courtesy of the dialectizer.
ah agree thet it's wrong, acco'din' t' th' code o' th' heells! ah reckon it's unfair thet wimmen is blamed mo'e than min when they does aban'on their chillun. As Socko points out, wimmen then is given advantage on over th' men who *do* be hankerin' t'have mo'e time wif their chillun in cestody decishuns. All of this hyar has nothin' t'do wif killin' chillun. Thar is no corntinuum, dawgone it. A chile who is aban'oned kin be saved
43848. Philistine - Nov. 9, 1998 - 5:18 PM PT
post 43847, double dialectized.
ah agree det it's wrong, acco'din' t' d' code o' d' heells! Right on! ah reckon it's unfair det wimmen be
blamed mo'e dan min when dey duz aban'on deir chillun. 'S coo', bro. As Socko points out, wimmen den
be given advantage on upside d' dudes who *do* be hankerin' t'have mo'e time wif deir chillun in cestody
decishuns. All uh dis hyar gots nodin' t'do wifwastein' chillun. 'S coo', bro. Dar be no co'ntinuum,
dawgone it. Man! A chile who be aban'oned kin be saved
43849. ChristinO - Nov. 9, 1998 - 5:22 PM PT
Azure,
I think you're right about the romanticizing of children. I think it goes even further than that, though. Many people feel they have a "right" to have children as if children were some commodity and always secondary to the desires of the adult.
43850. AzureNW - Nov. 9, 1998 - 5:48 PM PT
Good point, ChristinO. I think some people are quite surprised to learn that their children are not simply extensions of themselves.
43851. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 6:08 PM PT
Socko Message #43842
Yes, that's it alright. In the case of custody issues, men are given less voice, but then are excused more readily when they abandon their children. I agree it's foolish to attribute more "caregiving" to women and less to men, however, that isn't so easy to correct, either legally or culturally.
I'm of two minds on it myself, and rest uneasy at the thought that I'd have to "compete" for caring for my child. However, I do see that this is precisely what men have had to do in the modern era (when they cared about it, that is).
Calgal
"All of this has nothing to do with killing children. There is no continuum. A child who is abandoned can be saved."
The possibility of being saved in the case of abandonment does make it at a point farther up the continuum, but doesn't negate that the continumm exists. It is an arbitrary line, however, and is dependent on what the conditions of the culture are at a specific point in time. The ethical question brings forth revolves around who is considered responsible for the lives of children. Their parents or society.
If society is ultimately responsible (as we are increasingly becoming in developed nations), then it isn't much farther to go before society begins demanding "fitness" on the part of parents. We haven't been willing to go that far yet. Instead we (as a society) address this issue by building a sort of vague partial answer where we reluctantly provide some kind of safety net for children, but ultimately leave their physical well being under the control of their parents.
If it is the parents who should be (or are) responsible, then abandonment is clearly one step closer to indirectly killing children, since elimination of the care of the parent thrusts the children into a very dangerous (and likely perilous) situation.
43852. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 6:09 PM PT
It's not hard to think back to a time when there was no societal safety net for children. Then the continuum I speak of (abandonment being an indirect step to probable death) was more visible and apparent.
Your rejection of the notion that this is a continuum doesn't make much sense in this case, and unless you accept full responsibility for the children of all others, doesn't correspond with history.
43853. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 6:13 PM PT
Christin
"Many people feel they have a "right" to have children as if children were some commodity and always secondary to the desires of the adult."
Yes, this goes back to the points I made in Message #43799 and Message #43805. I refer you to them.
43854. 109109 - Nov. 9, 1998 - 6:37 PM PT
The contiuum is too elastic for service.
1. Start with marrying too young;
2. Go to birth of child when you are poor;
3. Go to separation, then divorce;
4. Go to one spouse leaving;
5. Go to other spouse hitting your kid because you are "over tired";
6. End at poisoning or drowning your child.
Does the contiuum start at 1 or 4?
43855. Msivorytower - Nov. 9, 1998 - 6:40 PM PT
109
The continuum starts at
1) the birth of a child.
The circumstances are less important than the event itself.
43856. JJBiener - Nov. 9, 1998 - 7:52 PM PT
Azure - "I think anyone who is seriously outraged by the abuse of unwanted children should adopt or sponsor an unwanted child. There are plenty of them to go around.
"Put your money where your mouth is!"
I have adopted an abused child and been a foster parent to many more. What have you done to help?
43862. CalGal - Nov. 10, 1998 - 6:56 AM PT
Ms,
Your talk of a continuum is pretty much ridiculous for the reasons Niner pointed out. I agree the line might be arbitrary, but not as much as all that. And right now, at this time, the line is not where you are trying to draw it.
Nonetheless, you read that article and managed to associate the boyfriend's actions with the mothers. And you called them both "stupid". I find that utterly astonishing and, as I said, nauseating.
43863. TheDiva - Nov. 10, 1998 - 6:57 AM PT
(oh shit.......guess not.)
43864. Adrianne - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:08 AM PT
MsIt
Your talk of a continuum is interesting, and I think worthy of discussion. However, the poles of evil or "wrong" in this case are far, far apart. The mother, as far as we know, is guilty of murdering her child. Period. Yes, imo, it's interesting to discuss the whys and wherefores of the case, but I think that the murder of a child affects people so viscerally, that unless that unequaled horror is acknowledged at the outset, no useful discussion can ensue. It's simply too horrendous for most people to contemplate rationally without the comfort of condemnation.
43865. Msivorytower - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:09 AM PT
Calgal
What is nauseating is your continued attempts to create a black and white situation, where everything is neatly compartmentalized. The mother is the only one responsible in this situation, according to your view, and thus the boyfriend is a nonentity. Should be ignored.
Sorry, it's not that easy. The mother *is* responsible, no doubt, but your insistence on these black boxes that separate us from others is ridiculous itself. The action is interdependent with the values of the mother AND her companion. One could not hold the boyfriend legally culpable, since the mother took it upon herself to do the terrible deed, but he is surely morally culpable.
His comment to her suggests he also believed as she did: that children are expendable, and can be throw-a-ways. The only difference between them is that he believed she could just toss the kid aside to some other caregiver, like a dog or cat one no longer finds convenient to have in their house. Just find another owner.
To me, these are NOT very far apart at all, although legally, they certainly represent a magnitude of difference.
43866. Msivorytower - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:13 AM PT
Adrianne
I agree completely. My initiation of this discussion was to spur some thought about HOW CLOSE the line is between acting humanely with children and becoming monsters.
I don't think this woman is inherently "evil", I think she is a product of our culture, and as such, must exhibit some of the undercurrents of it's values and ideas. To so neatly compartmentalize her as an isolated case, with no connection to either her boyfriend or the larger society which influenced her is to deny the diseased side of our own culture.
43867. CalGal - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:19 AM PT
Ms,
Sorry. You are completely wrong.
"The action is interdependent with the values of the mother AND her companion. "
This is not true. The boyfriend was not the father. As I said, had he been the father, I still don't put their actions in anywhere near the same orbit, but you could at least maybe get away with this bullshit about him being morally, if not legally, responsible.
As it is, the boyfriend has no responsibility at all. And nothing mitigates the woman's actions. Certainly not the boyfriend's request.
I also have this hunch that, had it been the girlfriend--even a mother--had said "kids or me, guy", you'd be moralizing about the fact that, as a woman, she had fewer choices and was struggling for her identity or economic freedom or some such nonsense.
IOW, I feel that you look at this with a mind to excuse--in any way--a mother who killed her child because it has something to do with, god save me, a feminist viewpoint.
But to call a woman who killed her child "stupid" is, quite frankly, offensive. Which is what aroused my nausea in the first place and why I posted. It wasn't just you--many people then focused on the boyfriend after you made that comment. As if there is *any* connection. There is not.
43868. Msivorytower - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:27 AM PT
Calgal
"IOW, I feel that you look at this with a mind to excuse--in any way--a mother who killed her child because it has something to do with, god save me, a feminist viewpoint."
What bullshit. In no way did I seek to excuse this woman, and my post was not taken by any but YOU as such. In fact, I stated in the original message that
"I hope the boyfriend has nightmares for the rest of his life. I hope the woman goes to jail for the rest of hers."
Now, tell me HOW I legally blamed anyone but the woman. It is clear from the beginning of my comments here, that I found the woman fully responsible. However, that does NOT then release the man from his part, regardless of whether he has any legal responsibility.
My final comment in that FIRST message, that sent you in such a nauseous tizzy, was that
I wish women would tell men who want them to abandon their children to go fuck themselves.
(or words to that effect)
That others took off on the man is irrelevant to my post. I was clear.
Finally, I could have called the woman "evil" as you did, but I don't find such easy labels so gratifying. The woman acted in ways that represent some of the undercurrents of our societies beliefs about children. This woman did NOT grow up in a vaccuum, you know.
43869. CalGal - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:41 AM PT
Ms,
When I said the mother was evil I was describing her in comparison to the boyfriend, and I was also being clear this was my visceral reaction. You can disagree and I would not quibble. But her actions were evil, and that is a far, far, far cry from stupid.
I cannot imagine reading that article and having the boyfriend's actions play a part in my reaction at all. I've never questioned that you thought the mother should be held legally responsible. But to me, thinking of the boyfriend's request at all--as if it had *anything* to do with it--is amazing. I attributed it to your feminism because it's kinder than any other explanation I can come up with.
When you focus on *any* aspect of her "reasoning" behind it, it makes no sense.
People do not kill their children because their boyfriends or girlfriends threaten to leave. Or because they don't have any money. Or because they are feeling desperate.
They kill their children because they see it as a solution to a problem. The minute you have a person like that having a child, it's a time bomb waiting to happen. The boyfriend is irrelevant. She wasn't driven to desperation. She had a problem, and she solved it.
There is, I contend, something wrong with people who kill their children to solve a problem. I don't think they are evil, actually, once I get past my visceral reaction. I think they are deeply and probably irretrievably flawed.
43870. Adrianne - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:49 AM PT
CalGal
*YOU* are focusing on her "reasoning behind it" with your "flawed" explaination.
Why is it so threatening to you to discuss what goes into the makeup of a human being that would commit such a horrific crime? I think it's interesting, and damn healthy, to spend time thinking about and discussing what "went wrong" with a human that can do such a thing.
It's easier, surely, to dismiss, say, serial killers, with a tossed-off "their just crazy", but how helpful is it?
You, of all people on the Fray I would think, would be interested in the personality characteristics and mental positionings of someone so "flawed." (Because you are so interested in classifying personality traits, not for any other more unkind reason, of course).
43871. Msivorytower - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:51 AM PT
"People do not kill their children because their boyfriends or girlfriends threaten to leave. Or because they don't have any money. Or because they are feeling desperate.
They kill their children because they see it as a solution to a problem."
Your two sentences make no sense here. And again, reflect your habit of trying to creat independence between related events. The problem can be any one of the things you mentioned. The solution they choose is predicated on what they think is acceptable. It is entwined with their beliefs about children, and their inability to see beyond their own needs.
They are surely flawed, but unlike you, I don't believe flawed individuals just pop up randomly in the culture, they are connected to it in some way. They may even live out some of the unwitting messages and values of the culture that are not tempered by any balance or reason.
You can disagree with my choice of words, but frankly, you've built a mountain out of a molehill here. All because you think the woman was "evil" rather than pathetic and stupid.
As I said before, it's far more disturbing for me to think how close we are to such lines in the sand. No, I wouldn't kill my child, but then, that doesn't mean I can't see how a woman got there given the contradictory views and values we, as a society, exhibit toward children.
43872. CalGal - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:54 AM PT
Ad,
I have no objection to discussing it. I think it was entirely her own internal makeup. I think it's been fairly well established--although PP would be the one to answer this--that parents (usually mothers) who kill their children, or allow someone else to abuse or kill them, are insecurely attached.
It is the Ms' suggestion that external factors have anything to do with it that I find objectionable. In this case, extremely objectionable because the boyfriend wasn't even morally culpable, imo.
43873. JJBiener - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:55 AM PT
MsIvory - "I don't think this woman is inherently 'evil', I think she is a product of our culture, and as such, must exhibit some of the undercurrents of it's values and ideas."
I agree that it is not productive to label this woman as evil. It is a meaningless term that is badly abused these days. I don't see how you can claim her actions were somehow influenced by our culture. Our culture does not teach that children can be disposed of if they are inconvenient. This may have been a product of the woman's upbringing or it may have been the result of mental illness. It is wrong to blame the rest of society for her actions.
43874. CalGal - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:57 AM PT
Ms,
I don't think flawed individuals pop up randomly at all, and have never said so. Quite the opposite, in fact.
And I've said that my calling her evil was a visceral reaction. Her actions *were* evil. But pathetic and stupid is, really, not anywhere close.
43875. elliot803 - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:58 AM PT
CalGal:
"As it is, the boyfriend has no responsibility at all. And nothing mitigates the woman's actions. Certainly not the boyfriend's request."
You can't possibly know this to be true. You're rushing to judgement about a situation without knowing all the facts. The boyfriend may well bear some responsibility for the crime. The woman's responsibility may well be mitigated on account of her mental condition.
"People do not kill their children because their boyfriends or girlfriends threaten to leave. Or because they don't have any money. Or because they are feeling desperate."
Yes, sometimes they do kill their children for those reasons.
43876. ScotusAntonovich - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:58 AM PT
I dunno.
Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle. Maybe some people, through genetic makeup, are more susceptible to the pressures of popular culture than others.
Thus, society and internal makeup are important to look at in this case.
43877. Msivorytower - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:59 AM PT
"Our culture does not teach that children can be disposed of if they are inconvenient."
Oh, I disagree with this. I think there are several undercurrents in our society that promotes this view. It may not be given recognition, but it's there in many subtle ways.
What makes you think otherwise?
43878. elliot803 - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:00 AM PT
CalGal:
"And I've said that my calling her evil was a visceral reaction."
"Visceral reactions" are not a good guide to the true nature of people, nor are they a sound basis for rational judgements about criminal responsibility.
43879. Msivorytower - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:04 AM PT
Calgal
Again, external factors must be a part of the equation, if only for the fact that the woman was raised among us. That is, she did not exist in a vaccuum.
I have no intention of BLAMING anyone but the female involved, but to deny that she was a functioning individual connected to a larger culture is foolish. And simply wrong.
43880. BunEBear - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:04 AM PT
Intersting discussion. CalGal: As an avowed agnostic, I am wondering why you would even use the term "Evil" and think that it is a useful way of describing the meaning of a person's actions. If Vic or Jenerator were to call an action Evil, I would understand that they meant that they were somehow a result of satan's influence through a person, or other's who beleive in some sort of God might think that Evil is some sort of incarnate "bad force" which motivates people. Personally, I don't find the term useful at all. In my eyes most of the suffering in the world is in fact due to shear stupidity.
43881. CalGal - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:05 AM PT
Elliot,
No, what I'm saying is that the Ms does not have to ascribe to my immediately expressed notion that she is "evil"--something that I've already admitted is a visceral reaction and don't expect anyone to agree with--to move well beyond "pathetic and stupid".
In actual fact, I think she probably was narcissistic--using it approximately in the clinical sense, which again, PP can probably state better, whether he agrees with me or not. Which is usually what I think when I hear of mothers killing their kids as a solution to a problem. (as opposed to abuse situations.)
43882. JJBiener - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:05 AM PT
MsIvory - Please be specific. What do you see as the undercurrents that could lead someone to the conclusion that children are disposable? Actually I can think of one, but I am sure you won't like it.
43883. BunEBear - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:07 AM PT
I also agree with Elliot that the mental condition of the woman isn't being given enough consideration here. It is hard for me to see an action like this coming from a person who is functioning normally mentally.
43884. Adrianne - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:08 AM PT
So, let me see here.
CalGal has insinuated that the Ms is (being a feminist) predisposed to excusing child murder, (and let's not forget that the "feminist" buggarbear is only Cal's "kindest" excuse - I wonder what her UNkind thoughts include? The Ms as a child-murderer herself? A satanist?).
After some puffing about being nauseated by The Ms, Cal acknowledges that her reaction is "visceral." Fair enough.
Then, it appears that Cal's reaction to the Ms is because of the words used in her initial post - they weren't strong enough. Now, Cal herself admits she shouldn't have used "evil", but her basis for anger and "nausea" at The Ms is because she used the words "pathetic and stupid".
So, this all boils down to Cal objecting to The Ms' word choice?
What a todo about nothing.
43885. CalGal - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:09 AM PT
Okay.
I was utterly nauseated at the conversation the other day, and carelessly said the woman was evil. That is *not* a good basis for discussion; I was using it in comparing her actions to her boyfriends.
As a practical matter, the mother is not evil. She is sick. It is her sickness that makes her do actions that I consider horrible enough that when I'm emotionally involved I call evil.
I will be happy to move it back to "horrible", if it moves us out of the religious realm. (g)
BunE, I hope this answers your question. To me, evil is an adjective with no religious connotations.
43886. CalGal - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:12 AM PT
Ad,
No. I was objecting to the boyfriend being brought into the discussion at *all*.
To say the boyfriend is stupid, the mother stupider, puts their actions on the same plane.
The word choice, on both sides, is not the issue except that it demonstrates the difference as to how we view it. Were the Ms to now say that she didn't think the boyfriend's actions had anything to do with the mother's decision, I would then say, oh. Silly thing to call pathetic and stupid, but no big.
That's not what is happening.
Also, I think this discussion has been interesting. So if you don't, then move on.
43887. JJBiener - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:12 AM PT
MsIvory - "Again, external factors must be a part of the equation, if only for the fact that the woman was raised among us. That is, she did not exist in a vaccuum."
This is an invalid conclusion. I will grant you that external factors must have influenced her throughout her life as they do all people. But we are not the sum total of those factors. There is more to us than just the by-products of society. If you want to draw some kind of causal relationship between society and an individual actions you have to be specific about what in society caused those actions.
43888. PsychProf - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:13 AM PT
Dispositional("she is evil") and situational("she was affected by a complex interaction of societal factors") are being discussed here in fine fashion. It does seem to me that BOTH of these causal explanations have to be considered if we want to understand, explain, and predict...hence curtail and prevent...such an event.
43889. CalGal - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:14 AM PT
Ad,
"and let's not forget that the "feminist" buggarbear is only Cal's "kindest" excuse - I wonder what her UNkind thoughts include? The Ms as a child-murderer herself? A satanist?)."
No. My unkindest thought of someone who could state her case as such is that she is stupid. See, I generally come up with stronger words for child killers.
But I don't think the Ms is stupid. Just wrong. And yes, I do think it is her tendency to look at things from a "feminist" viewpoint that causes her to come to these conclusions.
43890. PsychProf - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:15 AM PT
JJ...I am impressed, delighted, and in awe of what you are doing for the children under your care.
43891. CalGal - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:15 AM PT
PP,
I agree. In the end, it always comes down to that, doesn't it? And the Ms is always the societal cause pusher and me the psychological one.
I just feel very strongly that the psychological one is overwhelming here. Where I think societal influences come into play is in the creation of such a person as that mother. But once created, I think society's role is miniscule to non-existent.
What are your thoughts?
43892. CalGal - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:16 AM PT
43891 is to 43888.
But I agree, JJ is wonderful. (g)
43893. Adrianne - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:17 AM PT
Cal
I'll stay as long as I choose, thanks. My "todo" comment was made in disappointment, really. I thought you had a point other than poor word choice. You say you do, and perhaps you do indeed, but from where I sit you're not articulating it very well.
I think it's been interesting also, btw. But I also find interesting your flailing attack on the Ms, which as far as I can tell, has been about word choice. It seems you got pretty wrought up, not to mention more than a little rude, about something so trivial, and are calming down a little now, maybe seeing that you were overreacting.
Is that a SDNFKDSMN thing?
43894. Msivorytower - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:20 AM PT
JJbiener
First, I object to the term disposable, since I used the word expendible, and I think it more accurately captures what I mean. In any case.....
1) Certainly the existence of abortion is one.
2) The approval and acknowledgement that abandonment of children is okay, by simply ignoring it if known to be a part of an individual's past. Take the current sadness about Gingrich. No one even cares that he abandoned a wife and family at a critical time. If they do, they have never voted their conscience on the issue.
What about Dole, we think him a hero, and yet, he virtually abandoned his child, although he was there financially.
Then there are all these children of divorce, the majority of whom have at least one parent who disinvests themselves of their well being and care. We certainly make no value judgements about that at all. In fact, we make heros out of people (mostly men) who come to their senses (usually after age 40) and want to start all over with raising a family and "do it right" this time. As if those original kids just disappear into the sunset.
3) The underinvestment we make in children in this society is another. We are not very concerned, as a society, with the plight of inner city children, nor do we think it our obligation to see they have a better life than the circumstances they were born into.
We partition our society into haves and have nots, and as such, implicitly suggest that some people, some children, are more worthy and valuable than others.
These are just off the top of my head, and I'm not a sociologist, but they stand as indications of our society's own collective ambiguity about children, how valuable they are, and who's ultimately responsible for them.
43895. Adrianne - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:21 AM PT
JJ
There isn't any real difference between "Again, external factors must be a part of the equation, if only for the fact that the woman was raised among us. That is, she did not exist in a vaccuum."
and your comment: "If you want to draw some kind of causal relationship between society and an individual actions you have to be specific about what in society caused those actions."
In fact, that last sentence doesn't support the rest of the paragraph (that's ok, though, 'cause I agree with it!)
43896. CalGal - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:23 AM PT
Ad,
?????
I have no objection to the Ms. If you wish to present the debate as such, feel free. Or, just as an alternative, focus on the subject at hand.
43897. elliot803 - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:24 AM PT
CalGal:
"I just feel very strongly that the psychological one is overwhelming here. Where I think societal influences come into play is in the creation of such a person as that mother. But once created, I think society's role is miniscule to non-existent."
But social influences are part of what shapes a person's psychology. Also, you have repeatedly said that the woman's responsibility is not mitigated in any way, but mental condition (i.e., the woman's psychological state) is central to the matter of responsibility.
43898. PsychProf - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:25 AM PT
Cal...the father in me agrees with you and the professional in me agrees with the Ms...it is doubtful that the woman is a Psycho/Sociopath, so we need to look at the context of her behavior. For example, wouldn't an individual(woman here) who is "economically independent" be less likely to commit the act under described circumstances? I am forced to look at the context of the act, even though a good part of me wants to say "most, by far, don't do this, so it must be an act that bears personal responsibility only".
43899. Adrianne - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:26 AM PT
CalGal
I have less than NO idea what that post is about.
43900. JJBiener - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:27 AM PT
PP & CalGal - Thank you for the kind words. However, I don't see what I do as being exceptional. It is my belief that we all have the personal responsibility to care for one another. I don't believe we have the option of farming that responsibility out. I am merely following through on those beliefs. Besides, the rewards I receive far outweigh what I put in.
43901. Msivorytower - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:28 AM PT
"I agree. In the end, it always comes down to that, doesn't it? And the Ms is always the societal cause pusher and me the psychological one."
Actually, I'm interested in the macro issues involved, and am less disposed to assume neat, individualized actions that occur outside the environment one exists within.
I am a strong proponent of individual responsibility, but temper that with a need to understand HOW some people end up with the ideas they have, and pursue the actions they take. To me, this is larger than a single individual, and I want to understand the connections to that larger picture.
It's a system thing. Given that you seem to describe yourself as a "big picture" thinker, I'm surprised at your repeated microlevel analyses.
And, for your information, I think you're the wrong one here. (Well, not wrong, actually, because I'm persuaded that she's a very sick woman, but excessive and extreme in your need to individualize everything.)
43902. IrvingSnodgrass - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:40 AM PT
I have created a new thread exclusively for the Child Abuse topic. This debate is very interesting, and deserves its own thread. You may now move it over there.
43903. CalGal - Nov. 10, 1998 - 8:42 AM PT
PP,
"Cal...the father in me agrees with you and the professional in me agrees with the Ms...it is doubtful that the woman is a Psycho/Sociopath, so we need to look at the context of her behavior."
I haven't said she was a psychopath.
Susan Smith had a job and a rich boyfriend. The boyfriend said he didn't want the kids, she offed them. I don't recall any claim that the boyfriend was morally responsible.
I believe there have been studies done about mothers who kill their children and the high numbers of them who were considered to be insecurely attached, or bonded, to them?
Most women, poor or not, do not kill their children. Some women, even though they are wealthy, kill their children. It seems that SES is not the deciding factor, nor is the role of women in society.
As I said, I think we will eventually prove that parents who views killing their child as a solution to a problem will have something in common and that will turn out to be something of a psychological nature.