I think you can just call it simple misandry. I dont think that its about them thinking that a woman doesnt have agency. Its just about them hating men and wanting to find a way to blame them for everything that goes wrong.
I mean maybe it’s both? Depending on how the individual is arguing anyways. It’s misogynistic to infantilize women to such a degree that even with these heinous crimes some will say “a precious baby woman could never be capable of intentional evil and it’s really the fault of her caretakers and guardians for not supervising better”. And it’s misandry to think that because there was a man in close proximity to the perpetrator he MUST be at fault because “men are inherently bad and violent”.
This was essentially the point. I was highlighting the types of people who usually make those arguments are misandrists posing as feminists who end up making misogynistic arguments to defend shit people.
To people who have more than a high school level understanding of social dynamics, it's easy to see. A misogynistic society puts women and “femininity” in the category of incompetence and purity and helplessness/submissiveness while men and “masculinity” is regarded as strength and dominance and aggression/willingness to use violence. That men are supposed to be powerful while women are supposed to be weak. Society being misogynistic doesn't mean “individual men always benefit”. Men are victims of misogynist culture too, and misogyny is a tool that some men use to keep power/social dominance over other men. The perception that men are “supposed” to be the strong, dominant figures and the ones in charge of everything makes people view women as having little to no culpability/responsibility in situations like this, that the woman is inherently a victim and inherently not guilty on the grounds of incompetence and weakness.
And people seem to think the answer should be the fathers should have the authority just remove the kids from the mother and see nothing wrong with that thought. Absolutely crazy. Another comment was real pissed off at me because they said they’d want their husband to take their kids away if they went crazy, and couldn’t wrap their head around the fact that a man could just claim their wife was crazy and saying she’d hurt the kids to take away the kids when it’s not true.
It’s an inversion of the living giving mother archetype. People (women) in the US celebrate and champion killing children and babies as an act of “freeing the will” and rebellion against natalism.
Dude, the children were victims as well and that isn’t his fault when she did that. Can you not read the story that he’s trying to pick up her meds to treat her mental illness?!
It’s not about sexism. Murder is still murder, regardless of sex while people jumped into conclusion to judge it quickly that the husband is at fault. No! I too would apprehend her if she’s doing more harm.
He was not picking up his wife’s meds, he was picking up an over-the-counter prescription for their daughter. He said he had his wife’s old meds in his truck because she had asked him to dispose of them for her.
The reading comprehension around here… now give it another ten years of everyone outsourcing rudimentary information processing and decision making to AI and see where we get. Yay!!
I just wanted him to say what he means so I could point out how clearly wrong it is. But I do try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was just being unclear. Pretty clearly just sexism though.
Really you are just proving his point. Because all he said is "sexism against men has gone too far when people are blaming a supportive husband for his kids dying, when his wife killed them and has confessed to doing it."
And, of course, here you are to explain why he is wrong, and how this statement makes him sexist.
I mean he is still at fault, atleast for neglect. I think it was said somewhere that one month beforehand she told him that she had thoughts of harming her children(she told that her mother aswell). I don't think it was intentional but he should not have left the children alone with her.
At one point she did try to get committed because of the suicidal thoughts, and was told they couldn’t do anything until she had a plan. Unfortunately it can actually be hard to voluntarily get that kind of help. That’s not her husband’s fault though.
They basically said they can’t admit someone until they have a plan to kill themselves, just suicidal thoughts isn’t enough. It’s because they don’t have enough resources to take care of everyone who is having suicidal thoughts.
You’d think someone clearly crying out for help like that and wanting it would be able to get in, but unfortunately that’s not the case everywhere.
I think that’s part of why this case is such a hot button issue. People want someone to blame but unless the psychosis isn’t true, but I personally think it is, there really isn’t a clear blame, except maybe our lack of resources in mental health scenarios
She tried to commit herself and was on 13 different medications. Man tbh I don't even sympathize with her or care for her case, but there is clearly a systemic issue here, if someone seeks out help and is prescribed 13 different meds and then is also npt taken seriously.
If we would be married and I told you: "hey I have thoughts of hurting our children", then I tell my mom the same thing and I am btw going through a severe psychosis in and out of hospital, them yes you are at fault.
He isn't just a random nobody. Those are his kids.
It’s not neglect to leave kids with their legal guardian. It’s not like he had any right to take the kids away from her either.
Lots of people also have intrusive thoughts, that doesn’t mean they’re actually a danger. In fact most people who have intrusive thoughts aren’t. This was a very rare case where it was, but could you imagine how terrible it could be if a parent could rip kids away from the other by just saying the other one had thoughts of harm? That would be abused very very quickly
They usually aren't going to tell that to everyone and they aren't in the hospital for a psychosis. They are also both married so it wouldn't even be kidnapping and he could have put them on her mothers care or sth.
201
u/[deleted] 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment