Posted on 03/16/2002 7:41:28 AM PST by codebreaker
Sincere Regards.
For me, I spent my childhood near where this tragedy occured, and I found out that I couldn't have children the same week this happened. It hit me hard... very hard. For that reason, I have little sympathy for Andrea or Mr. Yates. Very little. I don't care if they are both clinicially insane... it was horrible. There are plenty of mentally ill out there... very few hurt anyone. I tend to go with the theory that even though illness, drugs, etc, may cause someone do something evil, there is something in them that was allowed to come out. Something that was already there before the sickness.
She was angry, frustrated, and depressed. The mental illness removed her self control... to do what she may have wanted to do even when well... and that was to change her situation at all cost. I would expect that the real Andrea Yates (even a healthy one) is/was a selfish and weak person. She didn't have the strength to improve her situation so she lashed out.
Many factors led to this... and Andrea's underlying selfishness played a part. The mental illness just allowed it to come out in force.
Hmm, looks like it is a woman. And a pretty one too!
This is exactly what I mean about theatrical productions--ESPECIALLY in the face of "incomprehensible" domestic disasters--like a mother chasing down and drowning five little children.
Any Freeper who has ever been in a court of law must be astounded at the gullibility being shown on these threads; the child-like belief that the carefully controlled flow of "information" has anything whatsoever to do with reality.
In particular, since the feminist cheering section on Free Republic seems to be growing by leaps and bounds, the portrayal of the, admittedly, unnatractive--even loathsome-- Mr. Yates as a "controlling" husband. As every heterosexual--and I'm assuming there are a few left on Free Republic---knows, the relationship between men and women is far more complex, subtle and indefinable than mere language can encompass.
And in this day and age when reason has been ousted by bumper-sticker slogans we are further than ever from an honest portrayal of the man/woman thing.
I'm sure everyone knows this in their hearts. I'm sure we all secretly know that in 8 cases out of 10, the "controlling" male is, in reality "the controlled".
But, being good little conservatives, we mustn't upset the apple cart and speak heresy. Women are victims, victims, victims. Men are demon gods. And that's a lucky thing 'cause we love to demonize them sooo much....
But, let me just continue on my heretical tac for one moment more by wondering if Mr. Yates isn't coming off so horribly precisely becuase his center of gravity, dare I say it--his controller--has just killed five little children and she's going to the big house for a long, long time and he's out and about without his leash. Just a thought.....
AND, a grand jury should find out if George W. Bush had anything to do with this fiasco. A fish stinks from the head, as we all know.....
That's exactly what I believe. It was he who was being manipulated and controlled by her. It's like the letter she wrote to her lawyers about her kids, extremely sick but also very cunning, to portray herself again as a loving mother.
To me, this is also laced with a form of thought control, for they're saying that you should have known (in your mind) that she wasn't right and, thus, you're responsible. If you ask me, it is only one more step being incremented in the total thought control. That is, where one can be arrested based solely on what they think.
His wife, however, should be punished. After all, she murdered her children, and she's going to have to accept the punishment dealt to her.
I really get tired of hearing the excuses for Andrea Yates behavior. Excusing the inexcusable, in my opinion, is wrong. Furthermroe, placing blame on the individual who didn't commit the attrocious act is placing the blame on the wrong person.
I can just see NOW coming out and speaking on behalf of this child murdered. Oh yeah, they already did that. My only guess is that they'll now villify the husband, and try to paint him as the bad guy.
In sum, no one knows what he was thinking prior to his wife murdering his children. Furthermore, it is most likely that he didn't expect any sort of action to take place. There are various degrees of psychosis and can you honestly say that you'd believe that your spouse would do something so attrocious, regardless if she was "mentally ill"?
I'm of the opinion that laws should be based on actions and not thoughts.
What are you talking about? Millions of children are committed to government-run institutions every year and forced, by law, to stay there for twelve years.
There are many people who should have their butts torn asunder for this entire mess. Going after Russell ALONE I think would be a travesty.
This has nothing to do with family lifestyle. It has everything to do with individual responsibility and common sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.