 |
|||||
 |
       |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children Dissertation: |
Feminist Infantilization And Filicide
Feminists want it both ways. In the same ideological breath, feminists claim women are just as capable and competent as men—in fact they contend women are identical to men—while also insisting women need special consideration during “certain times.” The Andrea Pia Yates filicide case in Texas is the latest example of this feminist contradiction. Back in the 70s, and definitely before that time, it wasn’t unusual to hear offensive remarks from some men that went something like this: “A woman can’t be trusted to be president, with access to ‘the button,’ not with those monthly mood swings and fluctuating hormones… .” Such inanities were generally met with anger and condemnation, as they should have been. But three decades later, chauvinistic utterances no longer emanate from the mouths of most men; they wouldn’t dare. Instead, proclamations that infantilize women burble today from the pouty lips of the hormoned ones themselves, the “womyn” of NOW. Take the Andrea Yates case, for instance. Yates is the confessed, quintuple child murderer and, believe it or not, the latest feminist cause célèbre. No sooner had the cold, lifeless bodies of the five little Yates children been put in the ground than the feminists were running to Andrea’s defense, asserting the “hormone excuse,” calling for compassionate understanding, and even seeking money for her legal fund. Apparently, thirty plus years of “liberation” have given women the right to proclaim “the hormones made me do it.” But here are the facts of the Yates murder case as provided by the media: Andrea Yates thought about killing her children over a several-month period, decided to do it for sure the night before, waited for her husband to leave for work, and then began drowning her children one by one in the bathtub. Her oldest boy caught her in the act of drowning his little sister, and ran for his life. But Mother Yates chased him down, dragged him back to the bathroom kicking and screaming, and finished her grisly acts by drowning him as well. Once the deeds were done and nary a child breathed life in her home, Andrea Yates calmly summoned the police and then her husband. The question now being debated is whether Andrea Yates was insane—a legal term in Texas meaning she did not know what she was doing was wrong—at the time of the murders? I don’t know the answer to that question; I haven’t examined her. But insanity will be incredibly difficult to prove given the facts uncovered thus far. Consider Yates’s premeditated, multi-month contemplation of the crimes, her waiting to murder the children during the limited time frame between her husband’s departure for work and the arrival of the grandmother to help care for the children, as well as her call to the police only after the murders were a fait accompli. Generally speaking, if one doesn’t know what one is doing is wrong, then one has no compunction against committing atrocities in the presence of others. But this wasn’t the case with Andrea Yates; it appears she waited to murder her children during a window of opportunity and only called police once all five children were dead. Moreover, the very fact that she phoned the police at all, seems to indicate knowledge of wrongdoing. But in spite of these facts, feminists and their celebrity mouthpieces want the public to feel sympathy for child-killer Andrea Yates. After all they shriek, she had been so depressed she even tried to commit suicide twice. But what about sympathy for six-month-old Mary, two-year-old Luke, three-year-old Paul, five-year-old John and seven-year-old Noah Yates who experienced terrifying and agonizing deaths at the hands of their own mother? Where is the hue and cry by feminists for that? And am I the only one that finds it suspicious—at the very least ironic—that Andrea Yates, a trained nurse, had difficulty choosing successful suicide methods but no such problem when it came to homicide? It’s obvious that the compassion-for-mothers-who-murder-their-children crowd (aka feminists) would like America to follow the lead of countries like Great Britain, Canada, Italy, and Australia. These giants of moral enlightenment disallow murder charges—at most they allow manslaughter charges—against a woman who, under the influence of postpartum hormones, murders her child before said child reaches one year of age. And, in a few of these countries—grab the tissues—in a display of compassion that reaches even more touching heights, the same law holds true for a mother who kills her older children as well, as long as at least one of her offspring has not yet celebrated a full year of life. If feminists get their way and America adopts the hormone-excuse already embraced by the aforementioned European countries, then American women, during “certain times,” will join the legal ranks of other less-than-fully-accountable humans—such as minors, the mentally retarded, and the feebleminded—when facing justice for heinous crimes. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that’s what the suffragettes had in mind. So which is it? Either women are full-fledged adults in control of their actions and can therefore be trusted with doomsday buttons, as well as with children—even under postpartum distress—or they can not. It’s time for feminists to choose; they can’t have it both ways. ### |
||||
 |
|||||