Why do women kill their own children more often?

:eyes:

j/k ;-)

Methinks this is in response to the "why do men go postal thread"

What I wonder is: why must we insist on tit-for-tat

in vaster numbers.
the children of war and the warrior children we send there.

not excusing anything here, but let us get some perspective of mass murder.

A: Because we're immature little children?

:shrug:

they are generally around them and in charge of them for a much higher percentage of the time than men.

Besides, there are many men who kill their children too. Not just children, but their wives along with the kids.

I know. That's not an answer to your question. But I just don't think women kill children "more often".

SORRY. :(

I doubt it's right wing though it could be. Maybe it's just factual.

I've found no ties to any right-wing organizations yet, and nothing on the website seems to support that conclusion.

"Socially conservative", then.

You have to excuse my reaction. I just get so wary these days. So many things have been manipulated by so many people and groups. *sigh* :(

doesn't want to waste *his* resources on a genetic rival to his own offspring.

This trait is seen in the animal kingdom. When all is said and done, humans still have animal instincts.

the same reason male lions, monkeys, etc - kill the babies of other males.

Thanks.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm#osex

Welcome

I am aghast at much I've seen in these threads today.

Better social work in our country is in dire need. Be it due to poverty, mental illness, poor parenting skills or drug abuse (which I feel is often related to mental illness and an attempt to self-medicate) or whatever the cause. If even only a few of these people could be helped before something this drastic occurs it's worth the money.

But instead we're spending billions upon billions killing people in foreign countries.

And totally belies the OP. Thanks.

I didn't know the OP's actual agenda when I posted that. I thought this was going to be an anti-choice thread to be honest. However, the truth works to set the record straight here as well as it would have there.

Does not the OP have the privilege of defining the subject of the thread?

From the Department of Justice:

"Homicide trends in the U.S. - Infanticide

Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2004 --

* 31% were killed by fathers
* 30% were killed by mothers
* 23% were killed by male acquaintances
* 7% were killed by other relatives
* 3% were killed by strangers

Of those children killed by someone other than their parent, 81% were killed by males.

Most of the children killed are male and most of the offenders are male."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm

But hey, don't let me stop a post that uses infanticide to try to score some petty point at DU.

Petty point.

You're right though:

Relationship, from 1976-2004

As parent:

Male 5,112
Female 4,833

Total:

Males = 10283
Females = 6025

Males do indeed commit more child murders, but not by enough for females to get self-righteous about it.

The fact is, neither gender is perfect.

But the premise of the post was wrong. And it seems like this was posted as some sort of reaction to threads about the recent violence against women, and I do find that a bit petty.

Why are we even surprised, Marie?

but it does make me feel a bit uppity. x( I wish people could engage in honest discussion w/o needing to play games on issues that are this serious.

Using the issue is playing games.

using this issue to post flamebait is playing games. I'm glad we agree.

And shouldn't be surprised at a lot of the reaction it gets.

They were children.

that this thread was an attempt to "get back" at the threads inspired by the recent school shootings? This wasn't posted because of a real interest in the (important) subject matter of the OP? OK.

But it turned into a war of the sexes, as usual and another chance to slam the mens.

Look, it's obvious to everyone what the real point of this post was - pure flamebait. The OP was intentionally posted to rankle posters so you could then whine about how they're "slamming the mens." :eyes: Hey, everyone needs a hobby. But it's disingenous and unfair to the people who responded sincerely, and it's unfair to use this important issue in this fashion. I've made my point, so I'll allow you to continue w/the flamebaiting now. Have fun.

Then went downhill from there. No worries, all women are angels from now on and everything is the man's fault.

Yes, I learn well.

you win a cigar. Now stop with the devisive posts. It was an experiment to catch many of you men haters in your own hypocrisy. Seems it worked.

I haven't seen any.

You don't know anything about me, what I post, or what I believe. Instead, based soley on the avatar, you feel free to make numerous assumptions about me, including that I'm a "man-hater", or a hypocrite, or "caught." The OP is intentionally divisive - as you yourself say admiringly below, yet anyone who points out the divisiveness needs to "stop being divisive?" Ooookkkaay. What I have noticed about DU is a systemic, pervasive misogyny that is disturbing. Man-hating is bad, woman-hating is bad, hating is bad. My point (if you didn't read it), is that people need to STOP being intentionally divisive or inflammatory & instead attempt to discuss things in an honest manner. But it seems like people would rather fling flames around than actually attempt to communicate & understand each other. And that's a shame.

where you have defended men in many of the, agreed upon devisive posts, and I will have some faith that dialogue can go somewhere. I agree with you, hate is wrong, I am just tired of the obvious hypocrisy when it comes to men in here.

Perhaps you've got a lot of posts supporting feminism that you can point to? I do not hate men, nor do I blame men for all the world's problems, nor do I think that women are all perfect angels, or any of the other grossly unfair characterizations that are flung at feminists. Human beings are human beings, flawed and imperfect. What bothers me is the total hostility that any post on women's issues is met with here. What bothers me is that more men don't speak up against sexism. And honestly, what bothers me is the sort of seething resentment against women that many posters seem to have. For a liberal web-site, it can be very hostile towards women - and many women have said that.

For example, you recognized that this post was a divisive, inflammatory "knock on women" from the get go. Yet you then offer "kudos". Is that helpful? Is it helpful to mutual understanding? No way - but you're applauding it anyway. I pointed out that the premise of the OP is wrong (which it is), and am then called a hypocritical man-hater. Is that helpful? Is that an attempt to communicate, or an attempt to insult, demean & deride? The OP itself was posted solely in order to "get back at" people who had posted threads about male violence. The OP then instantly reverts to complaining about "the womens". Is that really necessary, or helpful, or useful in any way? No, it's an attempt to put people on the defensive, make people angry, and forestall a real discussion on the issues. And that is the typical response that posts about women's issues receive at DU.

Finally - If there's one thing I'd like all men to understand, it's that IT ISN'T ABOUT YOU! OK? If people are talking about sexist actions, or misogyny, or anti-abortionists, or harassers, and you are not in that category, rest assured that the post does not refer to you personally. It seems like, sometimes, men will take general statements about society as a personal insult when it isn't at all. And that, IMO, is one of the fundamental miscommunications. So there's my attempt to honestly address this issue, FWIW.

that is up for you to decide. As for the OP, I gave kudo's because it demonstrated the kind of devisiveness men often are on the receiving end in here. Again, my assessment was based upon intention. If he seriously intended it, then I don't agree with him and would seriously challenge him, but it was pretty obvious that it wasn't, I was just giving the readers my "clause" in the case he was serious.

We really can't enter into a discussion because no matter what I say, you will demean it, say it isn't about me or find some other way to slip out of the fact that on DU, the level of male hatred is common and is often overlooked or minimized. Comments that globalize MEN and that, if placed on the other foot, or in a racial or class context, would not be tolerated. This may not apply to you which is great but I am not going to shut up while someone who I might consider a bigot continues to post anti-male propaganda. Even if everything you said was true, I have every right to free speech, so do even go there.

I love the often parrotted, "it isn't about me" or "the male ego" that I hear in here. If you are globalizing MEN, it is about me. What bothers me most is the utter and total hypocrisy by women who call themselves feminists but who really are not. If someone globalized WOMEN, you bet your ass women on these boards would throw their hat into the mix and no one would be telling the "it isn't about you" or the "fragile female ego".

Honest attempts at dialogue are apparantly impossible on this board. Adios.

honest discussions are impossible when it comes to gender. That has been my experience as well. Adios and good luck to you.

methinks someone's penis doth protest too much. ;)

The womens are speaking.

:rofl:

Interesting, thanks.

The OP citation admits that men are more often the culprits when the child is over 1 year old. The problem with the study you site is that it includes all children up to age 5. The OP only says women do it more often with the child is under 1 year old. The two studies don't contradict or disprove eachother in any way.

No great mystery.

Oops. Meant as a reply to the OP. Sorry.

;-)

gets them out of the house and gives the parents a break....

(this is just :sarcasm: not to be taken seriously )

That's a no brainer, isn't it?

Granted, more opportunity means more murders, but if the debate is about preventing child murders, is that enough to ponder a solution?

addressing the question in the OP "why?"

The article states that this issue has been going on under various conditions throughout history. One can ponder all sorts of reasons why parents kill children, but the OP was specifically asking about why "women" kill their children.

Try and keep up with the times, will ya?

Granted more men are taking care of kids, BUT there are still far more single mothers than single fathers. Do you have another reason for the statistics the OP is touting?

with your premise. And even the courts are becoming much more favorable of paternal custody now. Though lord knows they have a long damn way to go.

But don't now narrow your premise to be solely about single parents, cause it wasn't to begin with.

Fathers take care of their children every single bit as much as mothers do, and in today's day and age some even more so.

Sorry, but those days of women owning the 'care giver' meme are fading fast, with all due respect.

As I said, welcome to the 21st century.

You don't have to agree that women are better at care-taking, but the fact is that there are far more single mothers than fathers. It's not a matter of sexism, it's a matter of nature/biology/fact.

The number of single parents continues to increase but at a more moderate rate.

The number of single parents went from 3.8 million in 1970 to 6.9 million in 1980, increasing at an average rate of 6.0 percent per year. By 1990, there were 9.7 million single parents, but the average rate of increase during the 1980's was a more moderate 3.4 percent per year. There were an estimated 11.4 million single parents in 1994, and their number has been increasing by an average of 3.9 percent per year since 1990, a rate not significantly different from that for the 1980's. Thus, single parents continue to increase but at much more moderate rates compared with the 1970's. About 7.3 million or 64 percent of all single parents in 1994 were White, but the incidence of one-parent situations is much higher among Blacks than Whites. Single parents accounted for almost two-thirds (65 percent) of all Black family groups1 with children present (one and two parent situations combined), compared with 25 percent among Whites.

Mothers account for the vast majority of single parents. In 1994, there were about 9.9 million single mothers versus 1.6 million single fathers. Thus, single mothers represented 86 percent of all single parents, which was about the same as their share in 1990 and only slightly lower than their proportion in 1970 and 1980.

Most single parents have either never been married or are currently divorced. In 1994, about 38 percent of single parents were never married, and about an equal share were divorced. These two categories combined accounted for 3 of every 4 single parents. The remainder were either married but not living with their spouse (20 percent) or widowed (5 percent).

http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/hhfam.html

Further, even in THIS century - mothers are still far more likely than fathers to remain home to care for children:

It might not surprise you to learn there are nearly 8.5 million stay-at-home moms, but did you know there are 1.4 million stay-at-home dads and that number is growing?

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=59028

Regardless of the century we're discussing - 1. the numbers of moms who are primary care takers is still far greater than the number of stay at home dads and 2. the article we are discussing uses HISTORICAL data to make the case against "mothers" so no matter what time period we're discussing the mothers as caretakers is relevant.

I do agree that there is some sexism taking place here, but it's not on my part. The OP posted an inflammatory question, and did so intentionally.

When it comes to two parent families, more than ever the fathers are as involved or in many cases more involved in the well being of the children as the mothers are. When the number of fathers equally or more so involved with the child's care giving rises to such a number as it is today, it is no longer applicable to issue a statement that women are the primary caregivers. Nowadays, in two parent families, BOTH parents are the primary care givers. And I noticed you also did not include any stats whatsoever for dual income households, which make up a HUGE percentage of households these days.

But like I said, fathers are more involved with their children's caregiving then any time before. A broadly generalized statement such as 'women are still the primary caregivers', that seems to leave an impression that the majority of fathers aren't, is just quite simply not valid anymore.

and that is by TODAY'S standards. However, I commend anyone who decides to care for children full time, mothers, fathers and others. My remarks, however are in response to the question posted above - and I maintain that my original answer is correct.

How bout coming up with those stats about dual income families.

it's about infanticide through the ages around the globe.

Good grief, pay attention.

Fathers can and do spend lots of time with their children and are at times the BETTER caretakers, I am NOT saying "women should be the primary caretakers" I am making a realistic observation about the FACT that women are and have been the primary care providers for children through the ages.

I don't give a shit about the article. I give a shit about the statement that 'women are the primary caregivers'. I call bullshit on that statement. That may have been the case years ago, but is no longer truly the case today. Now I really don't care if you want to make that claim for 20 years ago. But then agree that it does not apply today.

Furthermore, when you try and defend that statement by including limited stats that bolster an even further false statement of women being the primary caregiver 8 times more often, than you bet your ass I'm gonna call bullshit on it since you COMPLETELY failed to include any numbers for dual income families, which by the way, make up something like 70-80% of all family households nowadays. Out of those 70-80% of households with both parents working there is no reason to believe whatsoever that the father doesn't care for the child every single bit as much as the mother. So to not include those numbers in your defense of your statement is pretty glaring. So all in all, I'd say that pretty much would crush the shit out of your 8 times more likely bunk.

So I'll repeat, nowadays BOTH parents are likely to be the primary caregivers to their children.

Oh yeah, let me just add: FATHERS ROCK! (lord knows we're under appreciated. :P )

And, to all parents who are deeply involved with their children BRAVO!

:toast:

Sorry if I was a bit passionate in response to that statement, but as a father it gets really frustrating being regarded as the one supposedly without the 'maternal' instinct, or natural caregiving ability. My wife is beautiful with the children and as loving as can be; God bless her. But I must say when it comes to the natural instinct of how to handle them in certain situations or the strong sense of nurturing I'm easily equal to if not even better at that in some ways. And it isn't just me. I know a ton of other fathers who are every bit as much a parent as the mother. So needless to say, it gets mighty frustrating that society still has this false perception that the mother is naturally the best caregiver for the child or the one that does the majority of the nurturing and caregiving. I believe that firmly is not truly the case anymore. The modern man has come a long way since years ago, and I think society needs to catch up a bit with its mentality towards that. For instance, I love reading parents magazaine, parenting magazine, nick kids magazine etc... and learning everything I can from them. But I have to gnash my teeth often while reading them due to so much of the stuff implying that the mother is capable and the father is not, or a kind of patronizing tone towards fathers. So when I see statements that tend to put forth a meme that mothers are the better caregivers, or more likely to be the caregiver, it kinda sets me off. Because from what I've seen with my own eyes, more and more fathers are becoming equal players in that field and it's hell about time we're regarded that way.

But anyway, God bless ya. I'm tired, sick and off to bed. Take care!

men are essentially forced to work. They are told from the time they are kids that they must earn money to have a family, earn money or they won't find a wife, etc.

Not really surprising that women do most of the kid-watching... Oh yeah, they have titties, too!

stay home I've said several times I'd love to be a stay at home dad while she worked. Her reply each time is along the lines of "Fuck that, you're the man, you go out and work. If one of us stays home with the kids it'll be me!".

Many times women don't realize that they're guilty of sexism every bit as much as men are.

Or I misunderstood. I though that was a book site and a summary of the book. The Justice Dept. stats are probably more accurate.

Even though we hardly trust Alberto for anything else.

eom

The article/summary looks at the topic in its full context: world, historical and by nation.

Same kind of question, same kind of answer--garbage in, garbage out.

Regardless the reason for the OP, I'm going to post this just in case someone actually wants some information. And disclaimer -- I can only skim the surface on this subject in a single post.

There are a lot of reasons why women kill their children, not all of which are present in each and every case.

As the snip in the OP offers, poverty is one reason, but the superficial comments hardly suffice. Women who are poor are often (not always, but often) not well educated, not well trained in child care. They are often (not always, but often) young at the age of child-bearing and therefore even less well educated, less trained in child care.

Poor women who are under-educated often (not always, but often) have self-esteem deficiencies. A woman who does not see herself as a good person, never mind a good woman or a good mother, is often (not always, but often) disinclined to put forth the effort to make herself a good mother.

Women -- whether they are poor or not -- who are themselves abused often (NA,BO) transfer the abuse they receive to someone else. If they are poor and have no other outlet for their frustration and emotional pain, their children are the unfortunate recipients. Poor women who are abused are even more likely to abuse their children simply because the pressures increase: poverty, abuse, frustration. Add to this the inability of many poor women to afford adequate health care for themselves or their children: it's even more difficult to be a good mother if your and/or your children are constantly sick. And if you are raised to see abusive behavior -- slapping, hitting, throwing against a wall or on the floor, shaking -- as normal, you will not think twice about treating your own children the same way.

Men, on the other hand, have traditionally been much more able to leave the confines of the home and access outlets for their frustrations and anger. Whether it is just going out to work every day or going down to the corner bar or getting together with friends for a poker night -- men have traditionally had many more outlets. Betty Friedan's ground-breaking 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique, addressed the frustrations of educated, middle-class women who were unable to utilize their intellects in any venue other than the home. Friedan was criticized in later years for not addressing the problems of poor and working-class women, who often (NA,BO) worked outside the home but still had all the burdens of housework and childcare as well. The point Friedan made, however, was that the woman who is confined to the home and who is forced to find ALL her emotional, intellectual, and creative satisfaction within a very narrow and rigidly male-defined sphere, is often unhappy, and often doesn't even know why.

When this same frustration is shifted to the poor or working-class woman, who has even fewer outlets (no church club, no Wednesday bridge night, no pottery classes at the community college, no charge account at Macy's), it has no outlet and gets turned inward. Having little or no control over her own life, the woman who reaches the breaking point may often (NA,BO) strike out at the individuals she considers, even unconsciously, responsible for her misery -- namely, her children.

Often (NA,BO) these women do not see their spouses as responsible, because the culture in which we are raised still elevates the male partner in a marriage to the status of breadwinner. If he is working, even at a low-wage job, he is seen as having more value than she. It is not, therefore, his fault that she is unhappy. And again, I'm not speaking in specific terms, but in social theory terms. She can't, under those terms, blame him for her unhappiness. She can blame herself, but she is also essentially powerless to change her situation. The one aspect over which she sees herself having any control is over the children.

Now, that's one social theory of why women murder their children. But often there are exacerbating individual influences. In Susan Smith's case, she had been abused as a child, and she had a boy-friend who did not want her children. These are not excuses for what she did; they are, however, explanations. Perhaps if she had not been abused and perhaps if she saw herself and her children as more worthy than the relationship with the boyfriend, she would not have killed them.

In the case of Andrea Yates, this was a woman who had been diagnosed after the birth of her fourth child as suffering from severe post-partum depression. Despite this, her husband pressed her to have more children -- either directly telling her "The Lord wants us to keep having children and you'll do it whether you want to or not" or by simply applying the subtle pressure of "You'll be okay, honey. We'll make it. We'll pray and God will help us. You know you love the boys, and wouldn't it be nice if we tried just one more time to have a little girl?" In spite of the prayers, Andrea Yates had a fifth child and went into even more severe depression. Essentially, her brain chemistry was altered in a way somewhat similar to a "normal" person's when they drink too much. We all know that alcohol affects the way we think. We get silly or we get weepy or we get belligerent. Then we quit drinking and we stop being silly or weepy or belligerent.

For the woman who suffers PPD, the mood swing is no more under her control than if someone were injecting her with vodka. She may be relatively fine one day, and curled in a fetal ball sobbing the next day. Not all women suffer it, not all women suffer it the same way. But it's very, very real. For Andrea Yates, already emotionally fragile and then emotionally bludgeoned with a religion that told her she had to make her children perfect or they would go to hell, the PPD was overwhelming. It doesn't matter that she methodically held the little children under the water until they stopped moving; she may very well have *known* what she was doing, but she still didn't have the mental capacity to stop herself.

Her thought processes simply weren't "normal."

Most women do not kill their children. Many women endure extremes of frustration and stress and poverty. Many women who were themselves abused as children become loving and caring mothers. But just as women commit only a small fraction of the murders in this country, they also commit only a little over one-third of the child murders. Generally it is their own children, since they are more likely to see their own children as having a negative impact on their lives. It is also generally their own children because women are statistically less likely to have access to the "public" sphere than men.

Women will also kill their children sometimes because of custody disputes, but without looking up the stats, I suspect it is more often the male partners who kill both the children and the mother in custody disputes. ("If I can't have you, no one will!")

Women today are still identified as wives and mothers. At a recent high school reunion (40 years; yes, I'm an old broad) I noticed that most women were asked if they had any grandchildren yet, where the men were still asked what they did for a living or how soon they were going to retire. Women were still seen essentially as brood mares.

And again, very little of these attitudes, either on the part of infanticidal women or society in general, is on a conscious level. Andrea Yates did not WANT to kill her children. Even Susan Smith, as heinous and cold-blooded as her actions were, did not think of herself as a monster. Did many of us think of these women as monsters? Probably.

There was a celebrated case here in Arizona several years ago, late 1990s. The young woman -- Elizabeth Whittle -- already had a small daughter, and I believe the daughter had Down syndrome. The woman was very poor, lived in public housing with her mother, IIRC. She had a boyfriend, but they weren't married, and she found out she was pregnant with quadruplets. There were various charities that donated cash and diapers and furniture and just about everything to this young couple. A few months after the babies were born, they turned up at the hospital ER with horrendous injuries, eventually attributed to shaken baby syndrome. Whittle and her boyfriend would be convicted of child abuse and sent to jail; the babies and the other child were taken away.

Whittle wasn't evil, and she wasn't wacko. She was poor and she was ignorant and she was overwhelmed by her circumstances. There were four or five adults, a six-year-old, and four babies living in a one- or two-bedroom apartment. No one worked, because everyone had to be there to help take care of the babies. They started crying one night, and a frustrated, untrained, overwhelmed Whittle shook them.

Does poverty absolve her? No, of course not, since there are many poor women who are excellent and caring mothers who don't abuse their children. But would Elizabeth Whittle have shaken her babies almost to death if she had been middle-class? Probably not. She'd have had help, she'd have had adequate housing, and so on.

I've only skimmed the surface here, and it's taken me so long to write this that I'm sure I'll end up either at the bottom of a thread that's already turned into a flame-fest :P or been locked! But just as I think it's important to look at the stats, look at the circumstances, and then TRY to understand the outside factors beyond just "she lost it and went wacko and now she should fry," I try to get my little bit of analysis in when I can.


Tansy Gold, over-educated and under-appreciated :evilgrin:

:sarcasm:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/father-planned-childrens-murder/2006/08/14/1155407742369.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/17/national/main607036.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/21/nh.missing.kids/index.html

I think your analysis doesn't quite pass the 'smell' test. There are plenty of examples that punches holes in most every assumption you're making.

I didn't say men didn't kill their children; I was answering the original post which was why do women kill their children.

Just because men in general have traditionally had more social outlets than women does mean all men always have had more outlets. Sometimes those outlets for men lead to violence against others, including other people's children.

Obviously, men do kill children -- and more often than women do, in fact -- and men do kill their own children. But generally for different reasons than women.

What I should have done, and I thought of it after I had posted, was to point out that the "more often" in the OP was too vague for an accurate response. If it was "more often" than men kill their own children, we don't yet have the stats to prove that's true. If it's "more often than they kill anyone else's children," then I'll stick with my analysis. The phrase "more often," being comparative, requires a "than what?" to complete the comparison.

Even without looking up your references, I suspect they don't shoot any holes in my theories but rather support others.

Of course, I could be wrong.


Or, I could just be

Tansy Gold

The factors of why either a mother or father kills their children isn't based just one one thing or another. There are trends such as father who kill their children do so for morbid revenge or a breakdown of the primary relationship. With mothers it's usually mental illness or being overwhelmed. While there are still exceptions to any of these, the writers of this article recognized the complexities that can lead to a parent murdering his or her children.

Maybe we're all right and we're all wrong at the same time :shrug: It could also be that as men and women many of us are still drawn into a good old fashion battle of the sexes :)

http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20010725hopewellsidebarreg9p9.asp

Exactly like men who kill. They're all just simply sick fucks. That's all it really comes down to. Sure, men murder more often, but the times when women do they are equally as brutal and equally as sick in the goddamn head.

Not sure what the gazzilion lines were for. Pretty easy to just sum it up in three LOL

three lines long, you're probably right.

But there are those who do prefer to get a little more information than "Then they're all just sick fucks."

The point is, however, that if we accept the "Then they're all just sick fucks" explanation, there isn't really anything we can do about it. The sick fucks are always going to be out there, often as unidentifiable as Charles Carl Roberts IV, and so we just have to accept that they're going to do horrible things. And then we can adopt a traditional, conservative, personal responsibility attitude of, "Oh, well, nothing I can do about it. Didn't affect me, so I don't really give a shit. Terrible tragedy, of course, for those affected, but hey, I don't want my taxes raised to fund research into PPD or see any tax dollars spent providing poor women with abortions on demand. . . . " Some of you may see where that goes, others probably won't. Oh, well.

And hey, nobody forced you to read it. You can even put me on ignore if you like. Won't bother me a bit.



Tansy Gold

doing the same actions. That applies to both men and women. I was simply just stating that at the core of these horrible actions, is a root cause of them being sick fucks. Whether men, or women. It comes down to them just being sick fucks. Each man and each woman who commits such atrocities has their own excuse and backstory, that if explored can lead to further understanding, but in the end they were just simply sick fucks weren't they?

As far as putting you on ignore goes, why the fuck would I? God, don't flatter yourself.

Why is violent crime, including murder, so much lower in other countries (where a war is not in progress, Japan, for example).

Far more devastating penalties for getting caught.

You'd be amazed at how fear even can affect sick fucks.

I do agree though, that society does have a huge impact on the potential for one to be a sick fuck, and that there are many contributions that go into someone being a sick fuck. I've made no claims that being a sick fuck is inherent upon birth.

My only point was that no matter what plethora of background excuses we want to make for the sick fucks, in the end they all are still simply sick fucks, whether male or female.

I try to avoid getting too bogged down in the details of what caused them to be sick fucks, cause in my opinion all that does is seemingly give some level of excusing justification for their sick actions. We've all had challenges in life, but most of us don't do something as cold, selfish and horrific as killing our children or our spouses. Those that do, regardless of their background, are just simply sick fucks in my opinion. ( I mean think about it, when you hear about some women drowning her kids in the bathtub, or some guy shooting his wife, do you say to yourself "now there's a woman who had post partum depression and couldn't handle the responsibility of parenting blah blah blah" or "now there's a guy who had flashbacks to his childhood when his evil stepmother would beat him mercilessly" etc, or do you simply think "Wow. What a sick fuck" LOL See what I'm sayin?

What's the evidence for that? I wouldn't characterize Canada and most of western europe as having far more devastating penalties than we do, and yet their crime rates are generally lower.

remember, the US and Japan are about the only two industrialized nations that still have the death penalty at all, and Japan has a MUCH lower murder rate than the U.S.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan#Statistics
Major crimes occur in Japan at a very low rate. In 1989 Japan experienced 1.3 robberies per 100,000 population, compared with 48.6 for West Germany, 65.8 for Great Britain, and 233.0 for the United States; and it experienced 1.1 murder per 100,000 population, compared with 3.9 for West Germany, 9.1 for Britain, and 8.7 for the United States that same year.

(I do not know why the murder rate is so high in Britain; I admit I was surprised by this. I do know that very few of those murders are committed with guns.)



Threat or fear of punishment does not usually enter into the decision to kill or not to kill. Some murderers honestly believe they will not be caught; others kill without major premeditation and therefore don't have time to give the threat of punishment much thought. And in some cases, the killers believe they are justified in what they're doing, that what they're doing is not in fact a crime at all. Consider the abortion clinic bombers in that group, as well as some of the mothers who kill their children rather than let them go into the custody of allegedly abusive fathers or fathers who kill their children rather than let them go into the custody of an unfaithful (ex)wife and her new husband.

Needless to say, those who engage in murder-suicide are not deterred by potential penalties, since they inflict the ultimate penalty on themselves.

And to put the lie to your last statement, when I hear of a woman killing her children, the very first thing I think of is PPD. The second thing I think of is abuse: was she killing her children to keep them from being abused by a spouse, ex-spouse, or other intimate partner? or had she been abused to the point that she lost her ability to make rational judgments?

Just about the last thing I think is "Oh, shit, there went another sick fuck."

THE UNITED STATES VERSUS THE WORLD

The United States recently became the country with the most people incarcerated and the highest incarceration rate of
any nation in the world. This high level of incarceration does not stem from abnormally high crime rates, but is
instead linked more strongly to our nation’s sentencing practices and drug policies, both of which have been
developed to be “tough on crime.” This “tougher” and harsher stance is not as effective as approaches other nations
use, which focus more on crime prevention and rehabilitation.

THE UNITED STATES IMPRISONS MORE PEOPLE THAN ANY OTHER NATION IN THE WORLD

During 2002, the United States prison and jail population exceeded 2 million for the first time in history.
1
In 2004, the nation’s prison population is counted at 1.47 million and the total number of people incarcerated is
.1 million. The United States has the highest rate of incarceration at 726 prisoners per 100,000 people.

The second highest are Russia, Belarus, and Bermuda, all with a rate of 532 prisoners per 100,000 people.

The third is Palau, with 523 prisoners per 100,000 people.

Western European nations have much lower rates, with England and Wales at 142, Germany at 96, and France at
91 per 100,000 people.

Many non-Western European nations also have significantly lower rates, with Cuba at 190 prisoners per 100,000
people, 8 China with 118, and India with 29.

More than three fifths of the world’s nations have incarceration rates below 150 per 100,000 people.

The current rate of incarceration in the United States is higher than the Soviet Union’s in 1979, which had an
incarceration rate of 660 per 100,000 people.

HIGHER CRIME RATES DO NOT FULLY EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN INCARCERATION RATES

Compared to other industrialized nations, the United States has similar rates of victimization. In many areas
American citizens are actually at less of a “risk of victimization than their counterparts in other nations.” Overall,
then, the United States does not have significantly higher rates of crime or victimization than other industrial
nations.

PDF: http://www.publiceye.org/defendingjustice/pdfs/factsheets/9-Fact%20Sheet%20-%20US%20vs%20World.pdf#search=%22murder%20incarceration%20rates%20world%22

is 21 years imprisonment, given for treason and very heinous murders. Usually they get 1/3 commuted for good behavior. Added to that they can get 10 years of security, where they are not in jail, but are monitored. We do not have anywhere near the numbers of infanticide, murder, etc as the US. Most other countries the US can compare themselves with, do not have capital punishment. Their murder rates are lower as well.

What we have, that the US doesn't have, is free abortion, 1 year maternity leave, 6 weeks (soon to be 3 months) paternity leave, child benefits (monthly state stipend given to all children under the age of 18), unemployment benefits, practically free health care and mental care, free pre-natal care, regular health check-ups for children etc, etc.

We do have sick f%¤#s as well, and tragedies are never completely avoidable, but still.

And it gets to the heart of the matter.

Which brings me to the reason for the OP.

Why is it so much easier to see the social and societal influences when a woman but when it's a man it's because lions kill the cubs or psychopath! or something else superficial?

In other words, there is a story and some understanding of that story when it comes to women, but men cannot have a backstory with an environment or a history.

More specifically, if you were to convert your insights into the man who killed the children, what would you come up with?

The other thread, where I posted a very honest answer, got locked. But since then I talked to my roommate again. We agree more than I thought.

The good news is, the man is dead. The bad news is, the man is dead. Meaning, we will have more trouble trying to understand it. We also agree that such a public and dramatic crime is trying to make a statement and in that sense it is a terrorist act, one we may never understand, and definitely will never understand if we don't try.

So maybe if we look, we will find powers and dynamics like you mention at work, and as you say they are never an excuse, but wanting to blame doesn't do us any good if the man commits suicide anyway. So our usual solution, punishment, will not work.

What will? I'm assuming your understanding above is meant to find solutions through understanding the dynamics involved. My point is, why should that be a one way street?

and that's why I posted long, serious, semi-academic posts in one or two of the other topics.

Would I have offered similar explanations for the horrific actions of Charles Carl Roberts? Yes, I probably would. Would any of my speculations have been correct? Maybe, maybe not. Would they have applied to every man who grabs a gun and mows down a half dozen defenseless people (of any gender, any age)? No, of course not.

But I'm going to come back to that same liberal vs. conservative stance: the traditional, conservative, personal responsibility position is that most murderers are sick fucks, we can't identify them ahead of time, and so we just have to put up with the carnage because to do otherwise would mean changing the way we look at the world and our own roles in what other people do.

The liberal position is that there are at least some societal factors at work, and societal factors can be changed or at least modified in ways that may help to decrease the numbers of tragedies.

Could any of these tragedies have been prevented if social circumstances were different? Well, we'll never know for sure. We can't go back in time and do it all over. But if we don't take the full measure of the events and then examine them for patterns, for clues, for reasons, then we won't ever be able to stop the next one.

And the thing is, there's such a strong connection between the Pennsylvania shooting and the Mark Foley scandal that we ought to be examining these issues much more seriously and with less flippant and flame-baiting rhetoric. Roberts left notes claiming that he had been an abuser at the age of 12, that he had abused relatives of 3 and 4 years of age. He was afraid he would molest someone else again. One way or another, his state of mind was so messed up that he ultimately killed several innocent people as well as himself, left not only his victims' families bereft, but also his innocent wife and three children to live the rest of their lives with this horror. So the questions remain -- who did he abuse and why? Was he also abused? By whom? Why? What options did he have in reporting such abuse?

And if abuse -- sexual or otherwise, but it appears in this case to be sexual -- lies at the core of this awful behavior, doesn't that make Foley's behavior even more repulsive, because he could have turned an otherwise "normal" young person into a "monster" at some point down the road?

What happens if one of those pages, unable to report that he was seduced by Foley for whatever reasons, internalizes the abuse and then takes out his guilt and shame and anger and self-loathing on someone else ten or twenty or forty years later? Because isn't that what Foley himself is now claiming, that he, too, was abused forty years ago? I'm not offering that as an excuse, because I certainly don't condone Foley's behavior in any way shape or form. But actions inevitably have consequences, sometimes not the consequences we intend or expect.

Tansy Gold

And not only because we agree, which makes you right. :)

And it is a good bet that you profoundly disagree with Nancy Grace, not because her cause is not a good cause, but because her views are so shallow - always after the fact and too late - with no solutions at all.

Of all the news, there was only one forensic psychiatrist that I heard talking about Roberts. He stated that there is a good chance the Charles Carl Roberts case could have been prevented, IF he had some place to go and work though it, If he felt society would allow it, IF it could have been the right thing to do. He also said that guilt probably drove him and he had no way to resolve it.

One reason could be the focus on pedophiles and how animal they are, beyond redemption and worthy of the death penalty. Maybe Roberts agreed but in some twisted sense of justice thought he had to murder before his own death sentence would be justice. Or maybe he felt so cornered he had no way out. Uh, oh, I'm defending pedophiles. Some of my previous posts expressed a fear it could lead to this. One problem is that mental health is now a branch of law enforcement. While the intent of that makes sense, how can anyone trust their therapist knowing they are really working for the state above their well being? Just another extension of prosecution at the expense of prevention.

These conjectures may be so far off as to be senseless, but any guess is better than psychopath! Case closed. Maybe we will learn more as his suicide notes and history are released. Maybe not, but we do know something is wrong. This instant, Glen Beck is blaming TV, video games and modernity.

Now to go hunt down some of your other posts.

Thanks again.

There's a big difference between "defending" pedophiles/sexual predators/murderers, and "explaining" their actions. I certainly don't defend them, but I do think there are rational explanations for their behavior. We just don't know what all the explanations are.

Is it possible psychopathy is genetic? Again, I suppose it's possible, but I haven't seen any definitive study that says there's a murderer gene any more than there's an accountant gene.

So if we don't have any conclusive evidence that behavior is entirely the result of genetics, what does cause behavior? Maybe it's chemicals in our brains, which goes back to what I was saying about PPD and alcohol: we know that some chemicals have certain effects on cognition, judgment, etc., so maybe chemical imbalances can have a significant effect. And that's why we have Paxil and Zoloft and Valium and heroin and so on, too.

But as I asked in one of my classes a few years ago, if it's all just chemicals, why hasn't the pharmaceutical industry come up with A Pill to fix it? (Soma, anyone?) Well, it's because the chemistry of psychopathy isn't completely known.

Nor, of course, is the sociology of crime entirely known or understood or agreed upon. But if we as a species didn't require some kind of "teaching" by others to survive -- meaning we can't get by on our instincts alone -- then there is obviously a socialization factor.

Years ago, I got into a heated discussion with my boyfriend about the definition of rape. (I know, I know, it's another thread, but I am NOT going there!) His mother had always told him, "You can't thread a moving needle!" meaning there was essentially no such thing as rape: any woman who claimed to be raped wasn't fighting hard enough and must have really wanted it and therefore it was all her fault. I was outraged that he could still believe this. So I asked him, "What about the young girl who is told by her step-father that if she doesn't let him do it, he will tell her mother that she's a bad girl? What about the woman who is threatened by her husband or significant other that if she doesn't give in, he'll beat the kids or kill the dog? What about the woman whose assailant holds a knife to her throat? Do you honestly believe that these women -- or men put in the same situation -- 'want' to be raped?" He was very uncomfortable and even defensive about his response. He didn't like the idea that maybe his mother was wrong and maybe he'd believed something for a long time that really wasn't true or right. But eventually, reluctantly, he understood and agreed. And because of that particular incident, he now is able to take a different perspective when I offer sociological explanations for (maybe) why people do things.

It's not the same as saying, "They can't help it, therefore you have to let them off." Not at all. What people like Mark Foley and Andrea Yates do is absolutely wrong. But if we are to evolve as a species -- and we are one of the few species, maybe the only one, that can consciously control our evolution -- then we need to be able to recognize our mistakes as a society and learn from them, then pass the lessons on to the next generations.

Tansy Gold

For example, the sun used to circle the earth. That made perfect sense and to question it was blasphemy.

In the 1800s, if the woman did not fight with all her might, she could not be raped. That was a matter of law, and all male juries were hesitant to convict if 1) the victim did not fight, and 2) the victim was not chaste.

The victim's rights movement accomplished a great deal by changing these attitudes, but I'm not so sure it was 100% the fault of a patriarchal society and repression of women, though of course some of that was involved. For example, any woman today who is an expert at martial arts that fights off an attacker would be worthy of praise. Did the laws then recognize that? Not saying that is so, and even kind of doubt it, but it should not be blasphemy to ask. And even chasity then might have more to do with health than repression, for example because syphilis then was an ugly, incurable disease, so maybe part of the intent was to limit sexuality to married partners who would not suffer a painful and tragic death. There was a major crackdown on sexuality until we found antibiotics cured syphilis. On an even sadder note, we knew even back then that very young children too often contracted STDs. So they witnessed then something similar with AIDS with the Right claiming God was punishing us for sinning and then the usual backlash of laws, some thought-out, some not.

Regarding genetics, part of what killed the eugenics movement at that period was the realization that it would take thousands of generations to "improve mankind." That was because so many potentially carried dormant "feebleminded" genes. Why? Why would God/nature be so deceptive as if sabotaging our good and Godly efforts?

Now we may know enough to be more precise and target specific genes. But how do we know if genetic engineering of one bad gene also would cancel out something we cherish, such as artistic achievement or the ability to question or even revolt? For example, would genetic engineering of a conformity gene related to crime in the 1800s have prevented the victim's rights movement because it was anti-social in relation to the status quo? Some genetics ethicists are very concerned about this. And some, like Kay Jamison, warn that we may average out the extremely exceptional that we praise as we control what could be, in the terms of whatever it is today, the extremely condemnable. What is most evil changes with the times, and if every generation were able to rule it out with genetic engineering, what would be left?

Hitler defined what was evil when he was in power and few questioned it even here in the States, but we had our own program in progress.

What is of most concern to me is the blasphemy of questioning anything. The neocons carefully propagated the view that psychology, sociology and criminology and most any study should be ignored and condemned. Science interfered with the myths of good vs. evil, and so to question the black and white framing of issues and to question the dominant view became enabling the evil, like "defending pedophiles" here, but that same mind control is at work throughout science, politics (terrorism! and any questioning defends the terrorists) and law. We can see this clearly with BushCo outside the states, but do not see the same mind control within the states. Thinking like yours used to get praise and now is condemned. Today, only sound-bites are right.

sometimes it is truly percieved as an act of compassionate desperation.

Look at the 'factors' that increase 'risk'- right back to, "Give me liberty or give me death, death is not the worst of evils"

I don't believe I could ever make that choice- but I understand it.

It could at times be a form of euthanasia. I've heard people say they wouldn't want to bring a child into this ugly world. Maybe this is an extension of that sometimes.

threads any more than you do, but I can't approve of this either. I know it's not my place to tell you anything, but I would be a hypocrite if I applauded you on this, just to give the women DUers a "taste of their own medicine". Sorry, Pal. You're on your own here.:hi:

And it's a fact that everything bad in the world is not ALL the fault of men. Until we get around that, no solutions are possible.

Considering it's the men who run 99% of the world. I would say that's what we need to get around. :)

It is for some.

Since women have more power now than they used to some blame for the world's problems can be shifted in our direction to a degree. But there is still some inherent thinking by both men and women that still remain.

My position is we can't ever begin to fix the world's problem until we treat everyone equal and have equality in power for all.

Maybe this is off topic, but I did watch a Nightline special some years ago with leaders from the Israeli govt and the Palestinians. There was an equal balance of men and women on both sides. When the men spoke it was all anger and the willingness to wage war on each other. The women were looking for ways to compromise and to find peace. It really was extraordinary to watch. I'll never forget it.

The point is, both men and women in that circumstance complimented each other very well. On both sides, it's primarily made up of men as it is in most governments. This Nightline special showed me how it could be.

...defending the mother's right to mutilate her baby? Graduating to castration I see.;)

It's a stupid assumption that about 3 or 4 posters on DU like to engage in to get their kicks from time to time. I just don't like the gender bashing lately, and if I think it's wrong for them, then it really should be wrong for us too.

I've defended men against broad brush aspersions in those other threads, and called some women on their prejudices too, but you know damn well that estrogen, ovaries, or women in general are not to blame for killing children. I know why your doing this, but this good for the goose shit is not productive either.

Hang in there Bud. One day being male will be accepted for what it is, and not what women think it should be.

It's evolving into a good conversation, I think, anyway.

... who kill other people are basically crazy. And there are crazy men, and crazy women. A lot of craziness is hormonally induced. Many women struggle with their hormonal balance in disarray after childbirth. Hence post-partum depression.

I think the vast majority of women who do this are basically out of their minds.

So is the Amish murders.

But is it really insanity or something else?

Sounds to me like the OP is trying to make a point. The point is the same whether or not the statistics are true or not. The tone of the subject title says it all. It is devisive, inflaming and a knock on women from the get go, similar to many of the ignorant posts by people who try to demean the masculine, especially in lieu of the insane men who chose girls as victims recently. That is not because they are men. They did it because they were insane.
Kudos to the OP if this was a social experiment.

Was to open a real duologue without the simplistic it's all men's fault. Everything is more complex than that.

:)

FINALLY :evilgrin:

Which leads to a question. How many have thought of it but didn't do it? "I could kill that kid," often said in jest of varying degrees probably has some truth to it.

sp

to everyone, everywhere. Most women actually know if they want to be mothers or not, and how many children they want to have, if any. Forcing women to become pregnant or to complete a pregnancy they don't want leads to the abuse of children and often infanticide. Some rise to the occasion when an unwanted pregnancy occurs, but many don't. When women are in charge of their fertility, studies have shown they will have wanted children that they are able to care for and raise.

Serious question. Is there anything that would work as effectively?

Vasectomies work, too. Reversable, but expensive.

I've read there is research into a birth control type pill for men. It's taken too long for this, IMO.

here. If men don't want babies, they have options, a vasectomy among them. If they want children, then they should make sure that the woman they plan on having children with also wants them and is on the same page about raising them. I have had women friends in the past who didn't want children and their husbands were okay with it. Some even getting vasectomies so as not to risk it. If a man is going to have casual sex, he'd better use condoms and insist that his partner is also using some method of contraception.

If in spite of all these precautions a pregnancy occurs, then this takes the problem to a different level as how both partners agree to deal with the pregnancy, whether they see it to term and for the next eighteen years or so, or if they want to terminate it.

I.e., that's where people are most of the time.

Similarly: because that's who kids are with most of the time.

That's my conjecture, at any rate.

historically, infantcide was mostly carried out by/was "the right" of the "fathers".

edit: added "by/was" .... for clarity

1) Some immature mothers may just "lose it" and take punishment too far
2) Mothers with postpartum psychosis
3) Mothers who are severely depressed, and cannot bear the thought of "leaving their children behind"

These are "reasons" I have heard/read about..

Isn't that what the Women's Studies professors tell us?

is still going despite people posting the data that shows the premise of the original question is flat out wrong. But you guys who like to thump your chests you just go right on ignoring the actual data if it makes you feel better about yourselves. :eyes:

Dr Milner actually did 10 whole years of research to back up his book: Hardness of Heart/Hardness of Life: The Stain of Human Infanticide.

He's responsible for the website. At this point, the Bookstore contains one (1) book. His. And he's glad to announce that it's available at Amazon!

How many sockpuppets did he rate his book a 5 out of 5 with on Amazon? :rofl:

dems, i doubt you'd consider the subject out of bounds and search furiously for one area where dems even come close the repuke rate. Look, when it comes to murder and other violent crimes, men commit the vast majority of them, which of course doesn't mean that all men are murderers, but it would be helpful to recognize that there is a pattern and try to find the cause. I understand why men would get defensive, but why don't they put as much energy in to reducing their violence rates?

So...more of the female vs male broadbrush musings. Still Flamebait.