The last thing they saw was their mother holding the scissors
A story of two young boys killed by mum with scissors. Its a bit historic now, but its a little bit of balance from Fairfax I guess.
Always easy to be judgmental when one doesn’t know all the facts. Media (especially when police fed) rely on headline grabbing stories to cement bias towards the alleged offenders. This story simply highlights the fact that any parent regardless of gender can harm their kids and the state does precious little to support parents. Young parents are often struggling financially, the state encourages separation/divorce because with DPB a one income family becomes two incomes (less ex-partner’s cost of rent) then CYFS persecute the solo parent so a vicious cycle commences and more often than not the defenseless kids suffer most.
True, but those types of understandings are not often extended to men. FYI, my position isn’t at odds with you on this as far as I can see. I feel that gender, race, age etc should not be the issue in these things. The same rules and assistances should be available regardless of those filters. It was good to see a bit of media balance however. There was another one a few days ago – maybe balance is catching on… I hope so.
I doubt that the reason family breakup is encouraged by the state is that there will then be two incomes. The DPB is a big cost to the economy. A more likely reason is that making people dependent on the state increases the state’s control over them. However, the main reason will be that feminist propaganda convinced the government and the population that women everywhere were being trapped in violent marriages and the taxpayer had to take over the role of the fathers in families in order to rescue all those women. While it’s true that there were women trapped in violent marriages and there needed to be some support for them to leave, the truth is that only a very small proportion of family breakups have anything much to do with violence. Most of them are due to the belief promoted by feminists that if a woman doesn’t feel ‘in love’, happy and totally satisfied with her partner then it’s his fault and she should pursue happiness elsewhere. A large proportion of others simply involve women being unable to resist some new sexual urge when the opportunity arises; after indulging the woman then rationalizes this as due to her partner’s inadequacies, and indeed women (and men too) will retrospectively invent or exaggerate resentments towards their partners and invent wrongdoings by the partner, in order to relieve the woman’s own guilt for infidelity. By and large, women do not like acknowledging their own wrongdoing.
Some really important aspects of this story about the mother who so violently killed two of her children and left the remaining one in a pig pen are as follows:
This woman was charged with infanticide, a sexist crime that only women can be charged with. This offence carries a maximum term of 3 years imprisonment whereas any male who committed exactly the same killings would face life imprisonment with at least a 10-year minimum before consideration for parole (but in practice male killers almost always are sentence to longer minimimum terms).
While it will be fair that this woman was acquitted on the grounds of insanity, any male who commits similar violence finds it more difficult to have that defence accepted. When women commit terrible violence there is a widespread assumption that this must have been caused by mental illness or some male in the woman’s life, whereas even very insane men are at risk of having expert assessors decide that they weren’t really unwell enough to be absolved of legal responsibility for their actions. Even for this woman there were likely to be aspects other than her mental illness that motivated her violence, such as resentment that she was parenting on her own and financial stress.
This woman was showing disturbed behaviour for some time leading up to her horrible killings of the children. The children’s father was so concerned about her condition that he contacted mental health services, but nothing much was done because the woman refused to attend the appointments! The failure by services to assess and intervene is is another example of sexism. If a man who was responsible as a sole parent for 3 very young children was reported to mental health services as showing serious psychotic symptoms, those services would ensure he was assessed one way or another. The risk he presented to the children would have been assumed and would have been a priority. (Every male who is a sole parent tends to be suspected from the outset by services, especially feminist professionals, of being abusive, irresponsible or inadequate with the children.) CYF would be notified and the mental health service would work closely with family to find a way of assessing him. But when it comes to a woman the widespread assumption that women are nonviolent, caring, ‘sugar and spice and all things nice’ means that this kind of official neglect is common and tragedies that could have been averted are common.
If you listen to ardent feminists you’ll hear different versions of the equation, but many will tell you the DPB is sacrosanct; the State is required to protect the rights of women, and provide the necessary financial support to –
protect a woman from male control
protect her right of control over her body
protect her right to reproduce
protect her freedom to raise HER children
love, emotional satisfaction, and all the other fluffy stuff, just happen into the equation in other variations of the theme.
The guts of it is ‘protection’ of a desired lifestyle, preservation of the political promise, to women. But I agree with you Man X Norton that some women do base their decisions solely on a level of personal satisfaction, because they believe it is their right to enjoy life to the maximum – even one of the Stuff journalists wrote a personal blog about exactly this recently, as a future explanation to her children.
Much of what happens then is consequential rather than premeditated by the state.
One of the serious consequences is that women, having obtained a protected species status, when they are not responsible for themselves, or not being responsible about their children, few people are prepared to step in for fear of the repercussions.
Children then have no protection, from either parent, and very little protection from the State, which struggles against the ethos of defending the women’s rights – even for the hopeless and incompetent as all women are equal.
We all know what happens if a man interferes. He’ll get nailed to wall for even verbal interference, let alone physical interference in such situations. Women are good at persecuting each other. If you’re not on my side you’re against me.
The incompetent women is very capable of isolating herself, even from her own family, not just the father of the child, because of the social situation that has been created, and the way the state responds.
The home invasion, by the Gang in Blue, hasn’t helped, the ‘Domestic Violence’ Department is growing rapidly.
Children are very easily placed in dangerous situations, and as a result there are fatalities, it’s only the worst cases we hear about.
The PC brigade continue with the same tired line, we must provide more resources to help these less fortunate women enjoy their rights, stuff the consequences to the children or the concerns of their father. The Police respond likewise, yes, we’ll get more staff on to the job.
Incompetence breeds incompetence. Responding in the way we currently do only intensifies the problem and increases the numbers involved.
These women are allowed to behave like children, stamp their feet and get away with it. Our female politicians don’t behave any better.
I don’t see the situation changing anytime soon, because women won’t give up what they think they have won, and they won’t give up the attitude anytime soon either.
Andrew, you sound a lot like us. No TV for me for more than 30 years (though I watch it some when away from home). Sometimes, when you see us use pop culture references here, it’s a self-consciously acquired habit, like putting a foreign phrase into one’s prose.I can say “J-Lo” with the best of them, but I don’t really know who she is…