Fathers Who Kill

Their Children

(Note: This piece will show you how the media and  psychologists twist their propaganda this way and that way in order to demonise men quite horribly and also to exonerate women by forever portraying them as victims.)

Fathers Who Kill Their Children In the week when one father murdered his four children, and another was jailed for life, Lorna Martin investigates the motives and twisted minds of the men Americans call 'family annihilators'. Are they driven by hatred, revenge or mad, possessive love? Lorna Martin

Research from the States shows that family annihilators rarely have a prior criminal record. However, many experts believe there is often a prior pattern of domestic abuse.

Hardly surprising, eh? After all, these killings usually occur when relationships are breaking down. And so they do not come out of the blue. As such, one might well expect the amount of interpersonal abuse to escalate during such insecure times.

only a fool or a feminist would suggest otherwise.

In fact, only a fool or a feminist would suggest otherwise.

I certainly cannot really imagine how I would feel if it looked as if my wife was going to leave me; taking away the home and the children - especially if these were my 'everything'.

But I reckon that 'murderous' would very likely be a good description of how I would feel.

Notice, however, how Ms Lorna Martin tries to fob off the very idea that men have any justification for becoming enraged over the prospect of losing their homes and their children.

I suppose she reckons that they should just shrug it off! ...

the irrational rage and the blaming of others

These men are 'irrational'!

These men treat their partners and children and, presumably, their homes as their 'possessions'!

How outrageous, eh? How strange! What kind of insanity possesses these men?

And women, of course, would never do or feel such things, eh? 

No Sir. When women fight tooth and nail to keep hold of their homes and their children - through fair means or foul - they are not treating them as 'possessions'. No Sirree. They are victims. 

But here we have Ms Lorna Martin and the Guardian newspaper trying to demonise men for reacting badly when they are undergoing almost unbelievable torment.

I would love for people to see how women would react if the laws were suddenly reversed

I would love for people to see how women would react if the laws were suddenly reversed and they stood to lose everything should their partners decide to leave them. And then I would like to see how women would feel when the media started reporting their violent reactions as being simply the result of them seeing their partners, their children and their homes as 'possessions' - and, further, that these violent reactions were indicative of nothing more than their unpleasant 'controlling' personalities.

Oh look, ...

Dr Alex Yellowlees, consultant psychiatrist and medical director of the Priory Hospital in Glasgow, said there were distinct differences in the minds of men and women who harm their children. Women, he said, tended to be mentally ill, often suffering from postnatal depression. In contrast, men tended to be struggling to deal with feelings of rage, jealousy, revenge and hatred.

So, here we have yet another example of women being portrayed as 'mentally ill' whenever they behave badly, whereas men who do the very same things are portrayed as being just plain wicked.

Indeed, merely having a baby can, apparently, make women 'mentally ill', but being threatened with the loss of home, children and partner - a partner and/or children whom you might actually love very deeply -  does not!

But if people like Ms Lorna Martin really cared about women and children then they would look closely at how the current family laws might be affecting the behaviours of these men.

This is such an obvious course of inquiry that the very fact that people like her do not embark upon it reveals just how bogus are their true concerns for women and children.

Ms Lorna Martin and her ilk are just out to demonise men. They have no concern at all for women and children who find themselves in these situations.

if men are extremely attached to their families then they are quite likely to become mentally deranged at the thought of losing them

Indeed, it must be obvious to even the most stupid of people that if men are extremely attached to their families then they are quite likely to become mentally deranged at the thought of losing them - especially when this is coupled with what they might see as a profound 'betrayal' by their partners.

And women would feel exactly the same way if the law placed them in the same situations.

Notice also how the effects of the environment (e.g. the law) are suddenly disappeared from view when it comes to such matters. Yes, the environment; the thing that the feminists have always stressed was the most important factor of all when it comes to accounting for behaviour.

 the environment must suddenly disappear

But, in order to keep up their campaign of hatred against men, the environment must suddenly disappear. And so the problems - the violence - are simply deemed to be intrinsic to the nature of the men involved.

Environment not important!

These people clearly have only one aim - to stir up hatred towards men and to portray all women as victims. And, to this end, they will twist the evidence, hide the facts, make false claims, widely exaggerate, shift the goalposts, completely reverse their stance on their most fundamental beliefs, and lie and lie and lie.

Men Bad, Women Mentally Ill Psychologists agree that the majority of women who kill their children are seriously mentally ill, but fathers who do so rarely are. Olga Craig

How strange, eh? - because, as far as the fathers who kill are concerned, ...

"One major element that almost all have in common is that, hitherto, they have been well-respected and well-known in their communities," says Dr Ashcroft. "Inevitably, one always hears shocked descriptions afterwards of how he was 'a devoted dad' or ‘a loving family man’.

And that's a bad man!?

"... almost all are the sort of men who place enormous value on their role, or perceived role, within a family."

Ah yes, I can now see the badness of these men written all over them. They value their families and their roles within them.

How wicked! How appalling! How disgraceful!

And what's this? ...

"Often those who kill their children fall into one of two categories, says Professor Kevin Browne, the director of the Centre for Forensic and Family Psychology at the University of Birmingham. A minority suffer from personality disorders —the mentally ill. But there is a majority who have a history of violent and abusive behaviour, the so-called "generally violent".

Whoa! Hold on a moment!

Whoa! Hold on a moment! We were just told that that these same men were 'a devoted dad' or ‘a loving family man’. And now we are told that they have a history of violent and abusive behaviour, the so-called "generally violent"?

In one paragraph, these men are loving family men. In another paragraph, they have a history of violence!

What the Hell's going on?

Well. I'll tell you.

The 'psychologists' who investigate these matters are riddled through with politically-corrected hokum. (And I should know, because I am a psychologist.)

Now, have a look at this, and notice how the loss of home and children - and everything that these men have worked for - is completely ignored. Instead, the talk is simply about experiencing distressing circumstances such as relationship breakdowns or financial problems and at how wonderful women are at dealing with such things.

Loss of home and children, not mentioned! ... 

"Men and women go through life experiencing distressing circumstances such as relationship breakdowns or financial problems, and they develop strategies to deal with them," says Dr Alex Yellowlees, a consultant psychiatrist and medical director of the Priory Hospital in Glasgow. "Women tend to talk to their friends, go out and drink too much or maybe chop off the sleeves of their husbands' suits. (My underlining)

"Others, in particular these fathers [who kill], have not developed those coping skills. They have low self-esteem, they are very controlling and less able to handle rejection. They can't talk about it: it is as if they have failed, and they cannot accept that."

The sheer enormity of losing one's home and children is completely disappeared from sight. Instead, we have distressing circumstances ...  relationship breakdowns ... financial problems.

Well, I have had all these things in my life - many times over - distressing circumstances - YEP - relationship breakdowns - YEP - financial problems - YEP, but I have never had to undergo what many of these fathers have experienced.

What you see here, therefore, is a sleight of hand. The ground is suddenly shifted to more generalised descriptions of bad circumstances - "distressing circumstances" - "relationship breakdowns" - "financial problems" - instead of loss of home and children - while suggesting that these fathers are killing in these more generalised circumstances (which they are not) and while suggesting also that women would not behave in such a manner - which, of course, they mostly wouldn't - during these more generalised circumstances.

Indeed, apparently, "Women tend to talk to their friends, go out and drink too much or maybe chop off the sleeves of their husbands' suits."

 the reader is being hoodwinked

But, of course, the reader is being hoodwinked, because, by sleight of hand, the author - Mz Olga Craig - is not talking about women who are about to lose their homes and children.

Also notice the hokum spuriously linking the notion of 'madness' with knowing right from wrong.

"Make no mistake," he says, "these men know the difference between right and wrong. And these are well-planned executions. A few may be insane, but generally that is simply not the case."

But the positively gaping flaw in this psychologist's ludicrous statement is that the link between insanity and knowing right from wrong does not work both ways.

It might be the case that not knowing right from wrong is indicative of 'madness', but it does not follow that 'madness' means not knowing right from wrong.

In other words, you can be mad and still know that killing people is wrong.

any psychologist who tries to insinuate that knowing right from wrong is a hallmark of sanity is, in my view, not fit to be a psychologist.

And, quite frankly, any psychologist who tries to insinuate that knowing right from wrong is a hallmark of sanity is, in my view, not fit to be a psychologist.

I would also add that what constitutes right and wrong depends rather crucially on one's perspective. For example, for some people, abortion is murder, pure and simple. For others, it is not. 

As such, those psychologists who believe that abortion is acceptable must surely be viewed as being insane by most of those psychologists who think that abortion is not acceptable. After all, if you do not know right from wrong, then you must be insane!

This is ridiculous.

They are masquerading as psychologists but, in fact, trying to foist their own politics and morals on to the public

And this is not just an academic point, because if you follow the trail you end up discovering that 'sanity' and 'insanity' get caught up with both the politics and the moral stance of the psychologists who are defining the terms. And when it comes to gender differences, this can be seen very clearly indeed. As such, these people are not to be trusted. They are masquerading as psychologists but, in fact, they are simply trying to foist their own politics and morals on to the public under the guise of explaining psychological phenomena.

And they do this in order to get funding and climb higher in their careers..

Furthermore, a more pertinent question in these terrible situations relates to whether or not these murderous fathers were in their right minds at the time of the killings. And the fact that they often planned them well is neither here nor there. People can often become so obsessed over something - or someone - that they lose touch with reality (i.e. they are temporarily 'insane') while being perfectly capable of making "well-planned executions".

As such, the argument that simply because people can muster the wherewithal to carry out "well-planned executions" means that they cannot possibly be 'insane' - which is what this psychologist is implying - is complete and utter nonsense.

Of course you can be insane and carry out well-planned executions!

Of course you can be insane and carry out well-planned executions!

However, I would also say that losing one's temper and becoming mentally deranged with anger and hatred over the prospect of having what you hold most dear taken away from you was rather normal. So, yes, I would agree that most of these fathers are probably not permanently 'insane', but I simply cannot believe that most normal human beings can undergo the awful prospects of losing their homes and their children without becoming temporarily 'insane'.

Indeed, if ever there were any powerful hallmarks of 'insanity', then, surely, killing your own children would be one of them!

But, nah. Not according to these 'psychologists'.

Killing your own children is only a hallmark of 'insanity' when it comes to women.

Killing your own children is only a hallmark of 'insanity' when it comes to women.

When it comes to men killing their own children, 'insanity' suddenly disappears from view.

Far more common, however, is the revenge killing logically carried out by the father who blames his spouse for all his problems, a reaction commonly triggered by separation or divorce.

"The man feels his wife is deserting him so he wants to eliminate everything she loves. That includes the children," Professor Levin explains.

But, of course, if the law was on his side, rather than the woman's side, then he would not feel the need to kill the children, would he?

As it is, it is she who has the power to "eliminate everything [that he] loves. [And] That includes the children". And it is she who is eliminating everything that he loves.

Indeed, when it comes to divorce, it is usually she who succeeds in eliminating everything that he loves - rather than the other way round.

In other words, she can eliminate everything that he loves with impunity.

But Professor Levin does not seem to notice this.

But when he tries to eliminate everything that she loves in response to her doing the very same to him, he is a vicious basta#rd.

In summary; the whole media discourse currently on 'fathers who kill' is, clearly, nothing more than the usual attempt to demonise men who are reacting violently to the most enormous duress while portraying women as victims whenever they react similarly.

And, as usual, there is no attempt whatsoever to discuss the fact that men will undoubtedly react more aggressively than women in these situations because, quite simply, they have much more to lose when there is a relationship break up.

the very fact that this is not even being mentioned ... tells you just how utterly dishonest are those politically-corrected media people who are currently talking about this issue.

Furthermore, the fact that fathers have so much more to lose must be so blatantly obvious to people - especially to those who would claim to be 'experts' on such matters - that the very fact that this is not even being mentioned as being a highly significant factor in the mainstream media tells you just how utterly dishonest are those politically-corrected media people who are currently talking about this issue.

And for those of you who still might think that it is only those working in the media who distort the psychological findings, rather than the psychologists themselves, I also re-post a piece from a couple of months ago ... 

...

Psychology Has Been Taken Over By Politics We interview Dr. Nicholas Cummings, a past President of the American Psychological Association about the injection of politics into mental health in general, and the American Psychological Association in particular. Plus, why men are disappearing from the psychological profession. - a 30-minute MP3 podcast which can be located under the date "March 15, 2006".

In brief; western psychology is being increasingly corrupted by left-wing, politically-corrected politics in much the same way that so many other areas of study have been corrupted.

In this particular case, the American Psychological Association has threatened to 'disbar' psychologists who offer help to gays who might wish to become heterosexual; the grounds being that by offering such help, psychologists would be tacitly admitting that there is something 'wrong' with being gay.

This position is completely untenable and it exposes just how corrupt, dishonest and politically-motivated are those who run the American Psychological Association; as is further evidenced by the fact that they see nothing wrong with psychologists providing help even to those who actually seek complete gender 'reassignment'; e.g. through surgery.

In other words, if a man wants to become a woman, or vice versa, then this is fine as far as the APA is concerned.

And if a person wishes to receive some kind of help in dealing with the fact that they are gay, transsexual, or whatever, then the APA sees no problem with psychologists helping them to accept these relatively uncommon conditions.

But when it comes to giving help to those who would prefer to be normal heterosexuals, the APA says, No.

In a nutshell: Psychologists who are providing help to people who want to be something other than 'normal' or heterosexual are supported by the APA, whereas psychologists providing help to people who want to be 'normal' or heterosexual are likely to be struck off.

In other words, this is simply the politics of hatred and discrimination (against 'normality') that we have come to expect from phony professionals who are determined to foist their own ideas concerning gender on to everyone else.

---

Another example of the APA's almost complete lack of integrity comes in its denial of Parental Alienation Syndrome - the result of a custodial parent alienating the children from the non-custodial parent.

 it is almost inconceivable that warring couples do not often attempt to get the children 'on their side'

And yet it is almost inconceivable that warring couples do not often attempt to get the children 'on their side' following, during, or immediately prior to, custodial disputes or hostile divorces - which are, in fact, often accompanied with totally false allegations of 'abuse' - but the psychiatrists in the APA seem to deny that such things ever happen, or that they have any effect on the children!

A more blatant example of their dishonesty and their lack of professionalism could hardly be imagined.

But political correctness dictates that the women involved in such horrible circumstances must be protected from the view that they might be harming their children by alienating them from their real fathers.

And so the APA toes the line by denying that such alienation ever happens.

Nothing must stand in the way of the view that women might be responsible for harming others - and men and children must never be portrayed as having been harmed by women.

Now, for a politician or a feminist to follow such a dishonest course is bad enough, but for professional psychologists and psychiatrists to do so is completely and utterly unacceptable - and I hope that this will wake some of you up to the nonsense that so many of them espouse.

...

Finally, I do urge you to read my piece Depressed Females to understand one common technique through which psychologists manipulate the findings in order to pursue their own ambitions when it comes to gender differences and questions about being 'mentally ill', clinically depressed etc.  

Also see, ...

Depressed Females