If Only We Could Understand These Women
What is it about this September that is bringing female baby snatchers and killers out of the woodwork? So far, a woman has had her throat cut by a woman and her baby stolen in Missouri (the good news--the baby was found) and now another woman in Illinois has been killed along with her fetus and three children by a female baby-sitter. What is suprising to me is that no one seems overly frightened or concerned by this behavior, possibly because these crimes were committed by women. Face it, if two similar crimes this close together had been committed by males against females and their babies (take the Scott Peterson case, for example), the press coverage would be different, with the horrors of the perpretrator being discussed -- and with good reason given the nature of these crimes. But with the female perpretrators, the first thing called for is a psychological evaluation and, of course, a little understanding:
I doubt very much that the female killer, Tiffany Hall, in the Illinois case will get death by lethal injection like Scott Peterson, despite possibly having killed five people. Tell me, if you can, what is the difference?
On Sunday, the community turned to prayer to understand the slayings at a service for the slain family.
“This is an opportunity for people to turn to God,” said Debra Kenton, a member of the New Life Community Church. “Who else can explain things like this?”
I doubt very much that the female killer, Tiffany Hall, in the Illinois case will get death by lethal injection like Scott Peterson, despite possibly having killed five people. Tell me, if you can, what is the difference?
posted by Helen at 12:18 PM
36 Comments:
Right now we know nothing about Tiffany Hall.
The months after the Laci Peterson disappearance we learned more about Scott and Laci and Amber than we wanted. A court of law and 12 jurors, along with public opinion decided that Scott was sane and deserved to be found guilty of murder.
We have a long way to go to make that same judgement about Tiffany. However, since the murder victim in this case doesn't include a cute white girl, I doubt the national media will tell us much about what motivated Tiffany to kill.
It'll be interesting to see what happens. Tiffany Hall didn't use a boat. Certainly a heinous crime deserving of capital punishment unless there is strong evidence of insanity which, somehow, almost always seems to be the case when women kill.
My pet theory about why women abusers and killers get less attention is as follows: It is too damn scarry to think about. So we do not think about it.
OK, I am sure that part of it comes from the "men bad, women good" feminist schlock, but I think part of it comes from simple denial. Who has the most access to children? Who is supposed to do the nurturing? Who is supposed to have the better bond with the children because they were a part of her? Women. And it is very comforting to not think about dangerous women having access to and torturing and or killing children. Men have less access to children and are "supposed" to teach children to be independent and spend more time with them as they get older. But who takes care of children when they are at their most vulnerable (well at least post delivery), women. OK, this is leading my thoughts to how embracing abortion may have changed the cultural expectations of mothers, but I will not go there, or any further there in this post.
My point is that considering mothers as dangerous is so frightening that we would prefer them to be crazy. So we do the testing and find out that "of course they are crazy, no woman in her right mind would do that" while we men get identified as potentially dangerous from the get go. And I am ok with the last part, because I certainly am potentially dangerous and damn proud of it. God help the person who puts my family at risk, because I will get dangerous as hell to stop it and protect my family.
Also, we men tend to do things in a direct, sometimes blunt fashion. When we attempt suicide, it is in a more potentially lethal fashion, we get the job done mmore often that women in that regard. Nature or nurture, who knows, but I bet testosterone has something to do with it. So it is easier to see our blunt abuse than the more insidious neglect perpetrated by women. And since it is too scarry to consider, we ignore that the neglect is more deadly. So when women act like men with knives and stabbings etc, well then they must be crazy. Or we would be frightened stupid.
What do you think?
Trey
The thing is, Trey, we don't ignore it, not Helen, and for the most part, not anyone who posts here, even those who lean toward the feminist direction.
The people that ignore it are the media, including those "fair and balanced[**cough**]" folks at Fox. It's been a well-know fact that women are responsible for more abuse being foisted on their children than men, but for some reason, be it chivalry or the Lace Curtain, the truth is not being told in anything vaguely resembling a fair and balanced way.
If it were, we'd see that men and women are far more equal than we'd realized, and not necessarily in a beneficial way.
My gut feeling is that the most plausible of all the explanations offered for the difference in coverage is the "men bad, women good" angle. It's a myth that goes back long before feminists, however; it's deeply ingrained in our culture.
My own feeling is that someone crazy enough to deliberately and unjustly kill is dangerous enough to be put down. I would prefer to restrict the insanity defense to cases where the person is so looned out that they aren't aware they are killing someone. IANAL, but I think that's what the law was before Freud came along, and there's a lot of sense in it.
Trey,
I do think you are right, to some degree. Everyone has a mother and everyone--no matter how bad their mother is, wants to believe that she loves them, no matter what. I think it is a biological need--to feel that a mother loves us, in a way that is even deeper than the need for a father's love, perhaps (not always). Therefore, it is scary to think that the one who should love us, would harm or kill us. It is not imaginable. However, it happens and we have to face the reality that women can, and do harm children and others. I do not bring these issues up to focus on the badness of women, but because I believe women to be autonomous human beings who feel and engage in the full range of human emotions. To say otherwise is to be sexist--it is expecting women to be above the human condition.
Women can be filled with anger, aggression, fury and hate, just like men. They tend to express it differently at times, usually in the context of a relationship or with a friend etc. rather than with strangers. But as the entitlement of our society gives women more permission to engage in violence with it's "you go girl" culture, we will see more girls and women engage in senseless acts of violence. But as anonymous 2:07 above points out, the media does not vilify women for their violence, the way they do men. Probably because their ratings would drop. Say something bad about women--and you will get an earful of hateful email, letters etc.
Take a look at what some people say to me if I voice an opinion about "feminists" who support Clinton and imagine what happens to a television or news program that advocates that women may not be the angels they wish to see themselves as--too much of a backlash.
Hmmm, really good point about what happens if you criticize or disagree with a feminist. And I would prefer to NOT read that stuff again! I guess they do not cover Ad Hominum attacks in women's studies programs.
I agree about the biological need for a mom's love. I mean, for MUCH of our most vulnerable time, she is it. I am at work too much of the time, and it is up to my wife to love and protect the kids most of the time. I could do it without her, and she without me, but no thanks! We do OK on our own, but we rule as a team.
Also, I have never noticed any anti-woman prejudice in your posts. But like issues of race, even commenting on the pc status quo seems to invite slanderous attacks from the pc crowd. But I wonder if that biological need for moms makes the thought of neglectful and/or dangerous women too much to stand for many, maybe most people.
Trey
Helen said:
"Take a look at what some people say to me if I voice an opinion about "feminists" who support Clinton and imagine what happens to a television or news program that advocates that women may not be the angels they wish to see themselves as--too much of a backlash."
*sigh* I could've let it go, until I read that.
Do I think this Tiffany Hall woman deserves the death penalty if she is convicted of murdering this woman and her children? Of course. Do I think society in general is reluctant to see women as potentially violent and evil? Yes.
But you're going to paint yourself as some sort of victim? Give me a damn break. You expressed your opinion, which you're entitled to do. Others expressed the opposing opinion. And....? You don't get to mouth off and then expect others to clap their traps. They're just "voicing an opinion" too. Were some folks rude? Sure. But you and some of your supporters here are plenty rude at times too. Are you going to let Feministing cast herself as your victim as well? After all, she is only "voicing an opinion".
Was there any reason for folks to bring up your breasts? No. And as far as I can tell, they look like quite nice breasts. But was there any reason to discuss Feministing's breasts or the outfit she was wearing or the way she was posing? Uh, no. It was a cheap and childish shot. And unfortunately, your blog is rife with such. Seriously, I wish you would learn a few things from your husband. Though there are many times I do not agree with him, he maintains a level of intelligence, rationality and credibility that I must perforce respect.
Play with fire and you're going to get burned. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
And all those other cliches.
Andrea
Trey,
I think the psychological aspect as we discussed is only part of it. The rest of the resistance to female violence is that the current "feminist" agenda is a political one, not necessarily one that is good for women or fair. The main point of many of these "feminist" organizations these days seems to be special treatment for women in the legal and political arena and enhanced rights without responsibilities. Therefore, in their eyes, female murderers are not really responsible, they are victims of the system and kill only in self defense or for mental reasons--such as Andrea Yates. To be held responsible means that you can be punished like men and this is reprehensible to the "feminist" agenda. I think much of it started with the likes of Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin--both of whom were very destructive, in my eyes, to the real reason for feminism--equality between the sexes. Instead, their dogma sees women as children in need of "specical help"--the kind only they and their "feminist" sisters can provide.
Andrea or Greg Kuperberg sock puppet:
Do you just wait around here with baited breath to jump on me for whatever I write? Really--get a life.
Andrea, nice lecture on the benefits of constructive debate in a blog format.
I only wish you had read that point before starting your point. See, I can take your entire 'watch how big I am' moment and simply change a few words to be as condescending as you were.
'Seriously, I wish you would learn a few things from your [prior posts]. Though there are many times I do not agree with [them], they [seek to] maintain a level of intelligence, rationality and credibility that I must perforce respect.
Play with fire and you're going to get burned. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
And all those other cliches.'
Really, Helen is right with this one....get a life.
Andrea,
It's really kind of funny to watch you sputter when you see Helen or anyone else criticizes some woman's behavior ("Oh you're right, you're right, she DOES deserve her punishment {or some such claptrap}...) But...
Ahhh, yes. There's always a "but."
The thing is you've established a pretty consistent pattern of attacking, not the viewpoint, but the purveyor of the viewpoint. Kind of gives you some basis to claim the high ground, but not really. You don't actually attack the point because you can't. But by God you trash the source of the point as best you can. It the typical feminist/liberal tactic. It works best in live debate, but once you actually put it down in print, it fails miserably.
Andrea, if you can attack the point, then attack the point. But if you can't then STFU
Rusty
Helen, anon 4:13 and Rusty:
Yeah, thanks for addressing my point and telling me to shut the fuck up. Speaks volumes. Really.
You're saying I'm bitchy to Helen? Ok, I'll cop to that, if it'll make you feel better. But isn't that a little rich, in light of her response here? "Get a life"? That's her measured response? Hey, I was only "voicing an opinion".
And I'm not the one whining on here about "what they say to me" when I speak my peace.
Andrea, the problem is that your opinions are predictable and not very bright.
Which I guess is why Helen thinks you're a Kuperberg sock-puppet.
To get back to the point, I do think there is a defense mechanism protecting women and it's not just feminists doing it.
No person no matter their gender can easily wrap their psyche around a hateful, abusive mother. Husbands and fathers don't want to believe that while they are away the children (or mor likely, one child) are being subjected to harsh, inhumane treatment--or worse. No woman who leaves her child in the care of another woman wants to imagine an abusive environment.
The helplessnes of children at the hands of a deranged woman, mother is not a picture anyone wants to imagine. It obliterates the madonna-whore female dichotomy. It obliterates the feminist self-view as women being lovingly superior. Women don't do violence.
Well, guess what, women can be just as vicious and callous, as men. It just seems worse when women are endowed biologically with hormonal protective mechanisms to prevent this kind of behavior.
The rationalization is this: mom must love me, there must be something wrong with me. Transfer that to society and psychotic women murderers get off the hook.
Personnally, I hope she fries. There is no rehabilitating this empty shell of a human being. Thank God for her moral military boy friend!
*sigh*
Again, this is rich. Helen is as predictable as teats on a sow. She's a one-trick pony. And the trick ain't real impressive.
And again, you make my point. That the attacks are equal opportunity around here.
And I've come to expect little better so that's fine. She wants to be a one-trick pony who makes no pretense at fair-mindedness--fine. But she wants to claim some victimhood? That she's been put upon? Or that others are hypocrites?
Seriously, the lack of self-awareness and personal insight is jaw-dropping.
The bottom line is this: you think my opinions are predictable and not very bright? Fine. This is precisely my opinion of Helen. We're all entitled to our opinions. But let someone like me express THOSE opinions, something that doesn't go with the party line around here and NOW who's on the attack? Why it's Helen herself and all her buddies who were just now bemoaning the lack of tolerance on the left!
Don't wanna be tolerant? Fine, I don't give a damn. I don't NEED your tolerance. All I'm asking is don't give me the sob story about how YOU'RE not getting any. You can't have it both ways.
I think part of the reason why women give other women a pass on horrible crimes is that we are so good at empathizing. And because the only way we could imagine ourselves doing something so horrible would be if we were totally and completely insane, the woman who does this type of thing must be insane.
I also think it has not been politically correct to label behavior as evil. If there is no evil then there must be another reason for the behavior.
evil hr lady,
Yes, many people cannot put themselves in the mindset of a killer--they find it hard because they expect other people to share the same values for life etc. they have. Unfortunately, many people, including women, not only do not care what they do to others, but sometimes even get satisfaction from hurting others. Empathy has its place, but believing that all people think and feel like us is a mistake and one that leads people to ascribe motives to others that "make sense" rather than see them sometimes for what they are--heartless, evil, cruel, and capable of inflicting pain on others without remorse. I learned a long time ago in my work to put myself and my feelings aside in order to learn what makes someone else tick. It is a good skill to have, regardless of one's profession.
For a parent, a child can be a literal example of a royal screw up forever. Step parents see the child as their spouse's royal screw up and resent it. Since the stupid kid is the only thing between my happiness and a perfect life (couldn't possibly be my stupidity), I'll take it out on the kid who looks just like, acts just like the thing I hate most--probably about myself.
Keep in mind, in this case, the murderer was a female babysitter jealous of the life this woman had, ostensibly. She was not a mother to these children. She was a cold-blooded mass murderer.
The Cinderella story is iconic because it nails a stereotype. And it wasn't the step-father that was torturing the child.
"...
Look at how easily Andrea Yates was able to play the "I have a mental illness"
Excuse me as I laugh at this statement. If you call suicide attempts, committment to a mental facility, and psychotic drugs 'playing I have a mental illness' then perhaps you also have one.
Let's also look at motive. Peterson killed because he did not want to be burdened with a wife and kid. Yates because she thought she was 'saving' her children. These women because they want a child. It really doesn't matter to the victims, they are dead. But motive is a mitigating factor.
Interesting that Agamemnon was never forgiven, for mudering Iphegenia, by the gods or Clytemnstra. While Medea, at least in Euripides, killed her children and yet lived to return to her home without any punishment, divine or human. Maybe this is an argument older than Oprah.
We are told that women are better at emphathizing, sympathizing, and identifying with others.
Suppose it's true.
I saw a situation in which the chief of an organization was committing a low level of sexual harassment--looking at porn on his office computer so that the two women who worked in the area could see it--and in the ensuing meeting of the rest of the group, the men were dead set against having him around and the women were far more sympathetic. I am sympathetic, in the sense that I think I understand what was going on with him, but I don't have the slightest interest in having him back.
Maybe men are more capable of separating identification, sympathy and empathy from their logically-derived conclusions as to the necessary action.
So, in this case, I'd expect men to be far more interested in seeing Tiffany Whozits get the big dirt nap, but smart enough to keep their mouths shut about it.
The other thing about sympathizing, etc, is that it is always the most obvious person who gets the benefit. The dead kids ought to deserve a little sympathy, but they'll be ciphers in no time, if they're not, already. And this is probably more a phenomenon with women than with men.
Think of the OJ trial. Who was the popularly-anointed victim? Which gender wanted him put down, or, I should say, which gender had more people wanting him put down?
When you figure one of the vics was his wife (female, here, female, all you feminists, she was a female), all you can say is...go figure.
The Gonzman said...
Which also conversely implies that women don't - or don't bother - to empathize with men. Hmmm.
I think feminists have been so good at convincing people that women=good, men=bad that that certainly can be the case. However, I've seen a lot of women empathizing with deviant men. Look at women who do horrible things to their children so they can keep their new boyfriend?
I used to participate in an online forum where the mindset was largely liberal. Someone posted a newspaper article about a wheelchair bound woman who was mugged. Turns out the woman was armed and she shot the mugger. I was amazed at the number of people who attacked the wheelchair bound female in favor of the male attacker. "He doesn't deserve the death penalty for mugging someone," they chanted.
Helen said
I learned a long time ago in my work to put myself and my feelings aside in order to learn what makes someone else tick. It is a good skill to have, regardless of one's profession.
That is a marvelous skill. I'm actually working on developing it myself. Being in HR, it can also come in handy. Right now I'm responsible for layoffs and I've learned pretty rapidly that how I would react to losing my job is not how everyone (or even most) people would react.
Graham Strouse (6:19) wrote - a really nice long, thoughtful post. Thanks! When I was scrolling up to find where I left off last night, I saw this long post scrolling and scrolling and scrolling and thought "Shit, another mindless rant."
Boy was I wrong. Your post clarified some mistakes I was making and helped me take a better, more accurate view of the issue. Again, thanks.
Trey
Americanwoman wrote: "But motive is a mitigating factor" in comparing Andrea Yates and Scott Peterson. I am not sure I agree. Peterson is a slime, and Yates was a nutcase. But using their motivations to distinguish between deserved punishments does not work for me. They were and will be punished because they killed, not because of what they thought. It was their actions.
While I think that psychology is a wonderful tool to understand why people act the way they do, I do not think it should ever be used as an excuse. Peterson is no doubt Narcisstic and perhaps antisocial, both debilitating disorders. So what? That explains how he could do what he did, the psychic mechanism, but it should not excuse the murders. Same for Yates as far as I am concerned. Motive does not enter into it for me. Planning does, in terms of first or second degree murder or manslaughter, but not motive, that is only helpful in proving a case, not imposing punishment.
What do you think?
Trey
P.S. American Woman, the Guess Who song is a scathing attack against women. I am curious why you chose that as your screen name. Or perhaps I am showing my age in knowing the song and it predates your birth!
I think she *will* get the death penalty, and I think its premature to lament how she is treated differently from a selfish sociopath male.
She wanted what she wanted when she wanted it, and she killed multiple others others to cover her own lies.
Barring a history of previous pshychosis and evidence of full on psychosis during the murders, her personality disorder will not save her from lethal injection.
Not in this case.
trey, I can't really disagree with your comments, except that Yates was diagnosed and under care and medication for serious issues BEFORE her crime was committed, which to me, leads to at least some question of negligability by her doctors and husband (in letting her out of the hospital and alone with children).
The diagnosis on Peterson is not in question since he pled innocent and not insanity.
Oh, and I picked the name not really for the song, but I do like the song, and it's kind of an 'FU' to people who feel that way about Americans in general.
Update: Today I was seeing a 10 year old boy for a psychosexual evaluation. Something did not sit right in the interview. So I got the DCS interview and report sent to me. What I read and found out floored me.
When the boy was 8, he was sexually abused by a 12 year old girl. They were having full intercourse at her request and knowledge. She encouraged him to touch his sister, 5, which he did. So did the 12 year old, more than touch her. The 12 year old engaged in sexual exploits that I have never tried, and would frankly fast forward through if it were done by two adults in a porno vid. The 5 year old described the acts in detail and said "Oh yeah, and my brother touched me twice."
The boy is sent for an eval and threatened with court, his statements are rock solid in line with what his sister reported. Everything points to him being victimized and acting out a bit, sad, but very treatable as he is fessing up. The 12 year old girl was not sent for an eval or to treatment because she denied it all.
I am dumbstruck. Two younger children made detailed and believeable statements about a girl who was 4 years older and 60 lbs heavier than her oldest victim, and the boy gets identified as the perpetrator while the girl is not a concern to DCS. I know the leader of the county, and we will have a talk tomorrow, but this is astounding to me.
I thought that more boys did not disclose sexual abuse because we are afraid of being victimized or think it means we are gay if it is a male perp. Now I wonder if DCS workers can identify a male victim of female sexual abuse. I felt like vomiting, not over the perpetration, but over the fear that hundreds of boys have been falsley identified as perpetrators when they are acting out their own perpetration at the hands of females, but DCS could not conceive that such a thing could happen.
Anonymous 11:44:
I am very dismayed to hear about your evaluation and hope DCS will hear what you have to say. I fear they will not. I have had several run-ins with DCS and case workers and have to say, they do not hire the best and brightest or they hire those with a rescue mentality that precludes the facts of a case. I had an evaluation where a teen age boy was perpretrating against boys and girls in a group home. I wrote it up in the report and reported the abuse to the head manager. The result? She came to my office, chewed me out and told me she would no longer send me business. My response..."fine." Her program was later shut down--I must say, I was happy to hear it.
Sometimes, all you can do is try to educate these workers and hope that they hear you. In my opinion, they often have too much power over children and parent's lives on one hand and do not intervene when necessary, on the other. Good luck with your case.
but dont you realise it must be a man that made them kill those women and children.. women are innocent angels unable to do anything bad on their own..(sarcasm off).
The erudite Graham Strouse mentioned "zoological data analysis" about blended families and violence. I seem to remember that male lions who take over a pride first kill the cubs.
Also, in difficult divorces (what an interesting phrase, it offers that there are easy divorces) the child from the previous marriage will likely remind the new couple of the previous spouse. Can be a recipe for disaster, as it was here in Tennessee where a developmentally delayed child from the previous marriage was chained to a bed and starved almost to death.
Trey
Oli wrote: "Drawing conclusions from disparate species (like using birds for social implications of humans) is not only fraught with possibility for mistake, it is simply stupid."
You missed my point. I was making an interesting comparison, that is different from drawing a conclusion. And for the record, mammalian brains (lions and humans) are MUCH more similar than insect and mammalian brains in most cases.
"Yes, the Tennessee case is horrible. Happens with birth parents too." Agreed. The abusing father WAS the birth parent, and I bet things for their birth children were not much better. But, bio fathers are the safest men in a child's life. Statistics again, but factual. Why is that so? I am interested in thinking about it. Why not think about it with us?
Your post reads as if you thought I was condemning step parents. Sorry if it came out that way, that was the farthest things from my mind. I was thinking out loud in reaction to a post. For the record, my wife is a step parent, and she is a loving, kind person who loves our daughter from my first marriage with all her heart. I thanks God for her every day.
I thought that the most interesting part of my post was where I talked about the unconscious identification of the step child with the divorced spouse. Isn't that an interesting thought?
Trey
Hey Oli, I am confused (sadly a common occurance with me.) Are we agreeing about the lion behavior being interesting when considering human behavior or are we disagreeing? I think it is an interesting point for consideration, and it reads like you do too. I am thinking that lions are closer to us in terms of brain comparisons than birds. I bow to your expertice in this area, am I correct in that?
I do not give people slack in terms of abuse either, we agree. But I do think that for many people there are un or preconscious issues in a blended family. I may be a little more cynical than you about the mental functioning of people, but then I see a skewed sample for my work.
So, did I misread our disagreement?
Thanks for your patience.
Trey
Oli wrote: "Get me going on the distributed processing aspects of insect nervous systems and their expression of instinctual and intelligent behavior sometime."
Can we remain friends if I don't? (shudders)
My interest in brains comes from being a psychologist who has and works with interesting brain dysfunctions, ADD, dyslexia, dysgraphia. I routinely talk about some types of anxiety being a reptilian processing. But insects and sea slug nervous systems are beyond the big toe I have dipped in neurology. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Later!
Trey
Just hours prior to the Amish School Girl massacre, a 31 year old mother murdered her two girls, aged 1 and 3, in Barrie Ontario Canada. She is said to have been involved in a custody battle. On the same day, Newfoundland issued a report on the Turner case where the mother, facing extradtition to the US for the murder of her son Zachaery's father, drowned herself and one year old Zachaery.
Links for these on my weblog http://paintthemirrorblack.blogspot.com
a咆哮小老鼠麗的情色小遊戲台灣情色網視訊 美女 168論壇情色遊戲情色小遊戲情色小站情色影片情色貼片美女視訊18禁地少女遊戲巨乳童顏巨乳玩美女人影音秀視訊美女情色視訊bt論壇色情自拍s101成人大喇叭免費視訊視訊聊天kk777視訊俱樂部18禁成人網ut影音視訊聊天室13077ut男同志聊天室免費視訊聊天aio交友愛情館
Post a Comment
<< Home