What about the fathers? Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana said the Oregon shooter’s father, divorced and absent for some time from his son, was “a failure” who “owes us all an apology.” Fathers certainly have an equal responsibility. But it’s the mothers, in most cases, who know the names of their children’s teachers, who understand their deepest fears, who have a unique relationship.Hmm. The "unique relationship" the mother has is a consequence of the father's failure. If the point is to stop future harm, then all causal factors matter.
But Egan is doing gender politics and advocating for gun control. He's getting the NYT reader's attention by beginning with something transgressive. He dares to blame the woman. But then he drives a wedge, the wedge that men have driven through the ages: There are good women and bad women.
A group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, was formed after the Newtown carnage. It’s a good counter to the creepy cultists of the gun culture. Their best appeal is likely to be one of reason to the hearts of fellow mothers, rather than to heartless politicians at the legislative level.The bad women consort with the dirty men, the "creepy cultists." The good women have "hearts" — they are the wholesome bulwarks of goodness.
When a man makes an appeal to the womanhood of women, to the motherhood of mothers — be a good woman, be a good mother — that is patriarchy speaking.
पोस्ट्स
६६ टिप्पण्या:
Is patriarchy a bad thing?
But then he drives a wedge, the wedge that men have driven through the ages: There are good women and bad women.
Funny thing, I've heard women make the same distinctions, about other women and men. The wedge in question is not gender specific.
The new development may be the number of powerful (and power seeking) people who have a self interest in divisiveness. It's a gigantic growth industry, and a path to very high levels of economic and political power.
What is it when women don't acknowledge the huge importance of fathers in raising children?
These people are losers deciding to go out in a blaze of glory and finally be "famous."
How about blaming the media for feeding this with their manner of reporting and feasting in the gore of tragedies?
What is it when women appeal to the womenhood of women? When women appeal to the good motherhood of other women, for the purpose of political action?
It's just another phase of the "women's issues"/Republicans have a "war on women" rhetoric. It's women trying to signal to other women, and making it ok for people to pick up, the idea that the right kind of women have certain opinions.
Another aspect of this same game is how we've stopped hearing about historic it would be to have a female president, now that Carly Fiorina is polling so well. She's not really a woman woman.
I bet his first draft tried to blame George Bush.
Women should avoid the whole "Moms against" method of political action. We are people! We are moms!
The hand that rocked the cradle, and lived with Baby Boy till he was over 26, had a lot more influence on his actions than the father, but somehow that's his fault, too. The bitch even had the example of Nancy Lanza, and she followed it to a T, all except for the well-deserved death at her son's hand.
Where were their fathers, dammit!
Mothers are generally assumed, by default, to have good intentions and to be the best custodial parent for children. The courts certainly presume so in divorces.
Mothers who harm their children are assumed to be sick, rather than evil; the courts certainly seem to think so when it comes to sentencing.
There's the popular culture which insists that mothers are omni-competent and fathers are incompetent.
Not a lot of reality going around.
But in this case didn't the father leave when the "child" was 16? And he was 26 when he committed the crime. Whatever it is your parents have done to shape you is done by then--and studies suggest that heredity and peer groups do a lot more than parenting. Your best move as a prospective parent is to choose your spouse well and move to a place where it's most likely your child will grow up around decent people.
It's not rocket surgery.
Good women, good people, support the policies and the politicians of the Democratic party.
Bad people question those policies and politicians.
That's all you need to know. Now get out there and be good.
But there are good women and bad women, just like there are good men and bad men. Nobody disagrees on that. The contentious issue is what constitutes "good" and what constitutes "bad."
"the creepy cultists of the gun culture."
He should meet some of the creepy people commenting at the LA Times about the demonstrations against Obama's photo op in Roseburg, OR
This sounds like the 1950's psycho-mumbo-jumbo of blaming schizophrenia and such on bad toilet training.
The blame rests with a federal govt that has decimated the family through it welfare program of paying for single parent babies that relieve the sperm donors from monetary, emotional, and moral responsibilities.
You will always get more of what the govt subsidizes.
"Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America"
Better known as "Mothers Demand Action Against Guns That Kill White People."
They don't seem to bring up, say, Chicago much: just shootings that kill people that look like their precious children.
I am Laslo.
Bob Boyd is spot on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luUK-b6X0ik
Where was the State in all this, that organic tissue of the collective?
The one thing we all do together?
Excuse me, but the only on to "blame" are the shooters. And they were mentally ill. Truly. Should they have been placed in an institution? Tough questions. Many people are mentally ill and function in society without violence. Easy answers are not available.
The only blame on Lanza's mother is that she failed to deal with the obvious problems that he had. His father, as I recall, shares the blame because he was also aware of the problems Adam was having in school. Neither was 'bad". They were irresponsible.
Having read the article it is clear that Egan understands, but doesn't want to deal with the fact, that Lanza and Oregon were mental health issues as so many of these incidents are. A gun is an inanimate object. When in the proper hands it causes no problem. Tanks of propane (Columbine) are the same. Rather than write about guns - the easy way out - Egan should be writing about parent's responsibilities for their children's' mental health problems.
As a parent, you do the best you can, and keep your fingers crossed.
.
The problem in Oregon is that prostitution is illegal. If the kid had gotten laid now and again, maybe he wouldn't have gotten violent.
Or maybe he would have gone on his rampage anyway, and blamed something else besides his blue balls.
In other words, to draw a distinction between "good women" and "bad women" is sexist. Why is that? Because, as all sixties feminists know, "all women are good women".
(musingly) "Reason to the hearts of fellow mothers". Reason to the hearts.
"When a man makes an appeal to the womanhood of women, to the motherhood of mothers — be a good woman, be a good mother — that is patriarchy speaking."
When a woman tells a woman to manup... wait... when a woman tells a man to not wear shorts... uh... hold on... when a perfesser tells a stranger there is no difference betwixt a good mother and a bad mother, that is relativesticky.
The only reason Jindal went after Oregon's shooter's father is because Oregon shooter's father tried to brush off any guilt or responsibility he might have felt on "evil gun culture." Therefore he became fair game and the record needed to be corrected.
There's no reason to heap any more guilt on the shooter's mother at this point; I'm sure she feels it acutely, unless we hear otherwise. I'm not to the point where I think she should have known better to not take her son shooting. Lanza's mother paid for her mistakes with her life, so there's no need to dance on the grave.
When a woman makes an appeal to the fatherhood of men, to the fatherhood of fathers — be a good man, be a good father — that is par for the course.
...until she kicks you out to live on the lawn
There are good women and bad women, just as there are good men and bad men.
There are also terrible parents who either fail in their duties to provide a safe, stable loving environment for their kids or actively raise bad children.
None of this is new. The Left has successfully taken these questions off the table, but good for Egan for raising them again, regardless of his motives.
"Should they have been placed in an institution?"
Yes, next question.
Nothing creepy about the female gun-grabbers of "Moms Demand Action." Nothing at all.
"It’s a good counter to the creepy cultists of the gun culture. Their best appeal is likely to be one of reason to the hearts of fellow mothers, rather than to heartless politicians at the legislative level."
Goebbels couldn't have said it any better.
The overwhelming majority of people disagree with what they are trying to do. They were already in a "Gun Free Zone." No abridgment of the right to bear arms or regulation they have proposed would have done anything to stop this act. But a citizen with a gun would have. Anyone with half a critical thought sees that.
They will not accept an armed populace. I wonder why.
I'd like to second Hagar's comment at 8:57. The media and their reporting of these murders is definitely a contributing factor.......When I was younger, psycho loners tried to validate their lives by shooting famous people. Presidents, John Lennon, even Larry Flynt. I guess they did this because that's who the last psycho loner shot. Now they shoot up colleges because that's where the last psycho loner struck. Styles change, but the wish to achieve notoriety remains a constant. And so does the wish of the media to grant them their wish.
Michael K said...
"Should they have been placed in an institution?"
Yes, next question.
So you are happy to take away someone's freedom but not their guns?
"AReasonableMan" missed a few words.
I'd like to second Hagar's comment at 8:57. The media and their reporting of these murders is definitely a contributing factor.......When I was younger, psycho loners tried to validate their lives by shooting famous people. Presidents, John Lennon, even Larry Flynt. I guess they did this because that's who the last psycho loner shot. Now they shoot up colleges because that's where the last psycho loner struck. Styles change, but the wish to achieve notoriety remains a constant. And so does the wish of the media to grant them their wish.
Good point. I hadn't thought about this before. There WAS an assassination epidemic in the 60s and 70s...all long forgotten now.
"But then he drives a wedge, the wedge that men have driven through the ages: There are good women and bad women."
Yes, the notion that there are good women and bad women is a figment of the bad, bad male imagination.
"When a man makes an appeal to the womanhood of women, to the motherhood of mothers — be a good woman, be a good mother — that is patriarchy speaking."
When, as happens far more frequently, a woman makes such an appeal it is what? Mushy pandering? Faux feminism? An insult to human intelligence? Or just the residual effect of patriarchy, a sign that those bad bad men still control women's thoughts?
So you are happy to take away someone's freedom but not their guns?
If someone is committed to a mental institution, it is precisely because they are unable to exercise their rights, like the right to own a gun, responsibly. So we take away their freedom, and their guns. (or do you know of a mental institution where the inmates are allowed to own guns?)
The parents of Eric Harris did everything in their power to help him. They did all the right things and Eric seemed to be responding positively to their efforts. They were fully involved in his life, fully engaged, the father especially. But he was a full-blown psychopath, sly and cunning and smart, and he was able to mask his true nature and deceive everyone into thinking that he was doing well. He delighted in deceiving people, in playing the nice guy when in fact he was purely evil. He was Eddie Haskell on a satanic level. What do you do with a kid like that? What can you do? Can you blame the parents for the way he turned out and for what he did? Note as well: He had an older brother who turned out just fine.
And do you know why we put people who can't exercise their rights responsibly in mental institutions?
So that we don't don't have to infringe on the rights of those who do behave responsibly for safety.
The diff is, R&B, that you want to take away everybody's freedom, instead of curtailing that of a few who are the danger. It may not be perfect, but I'm sure you wouldn't even pretend that any level of gun controls would be a perfect solution. Make it as nice for the insane as possible, but the inmates can't run the asylum.
And I'm sure you appreciate the importance of not being nagged to death by womynz.
I'm a woman, and a mother (pregnant with #5), and a passionate advocate of gun rights, and it infuriates me when folks suggest that I should think with my feelings in defiance of obvious logic and support gun control because I'm a silly sentimental woman.
That is the father speaking. We have the same expectation of men, and do not resort to calling it a matriarchal demand. The construction of a mythical patriarchy/matriarchy is done for political leverage.
A fellow I worked with said this one time, "When a man does something wrong, all the women call him a sorry so-and-so and want him punished. When a woman does something wrong, they say, "Wonder what a man did to make her do that?"
ARM
"So you are happy to take away someone's freedom but not their guns"
If you do the former you do the latter in the cited case.
A reasonable conclusion.
Does Timothy Egan identify as a woman in a man's body? /sarc He certainly sounds like it. He/she says, "Fathers certainly have an equal responsibility. But it’s the mothers, in most cases, who know the names of their children’s teachers, who understand their deepest fears, who have a unique relationship." IOW, let's let fathers off the hook and further guilt trip mothers? How in the world can a father exercise responsible parenting if he is emotionally and psychologically absent and has no personal relationship with his child? It's not possible. I agree with n.n -- we have the same expectation of men and women and this call for mothers to lead the fight against guns is more politics as usual.
But all that is irrelevant as there is no reason to blame parents if their child is mentally ill, as severe illness is most likely physiological. I blame both parents for not seeing that their child's illness is treated. We need to hear more from parents who have mentally ill children and if our health care system serves their needs.
"A group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, was formed after the Newtown carnage"
Another front group that was funded by Bloomberg.
And I'll bet less than half are actually Moms. Or even women.
Mama, just killed a man
Put a gun against his head
Pulled my trigger, now he's dead
Mama, life had just begun
But now I've gone and thrown it all away
Mama, ooo
Didn't mean to make you cry
If I'm not back again this time tomorrow
Carry on, carry on, as if nothing really matters
Too late, my time has come
Sends shivers down my spine
Body's aching all the time
Goodbye everybody I've got to go
Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth
Mama, ooo (anyway the wind blows)
I don't want to die
I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all
Egan is doing gender politics and advocating for gun control.
I object. It should read something like:
Egan is doing gender politics and advocating gun control for fun.
Egan is doing gender politics and advocating gun control for Muslim terrorists.
Egan is doing gender politics and advocating gun control for the Pope.
note:The attorney advocates acquittal for his client. He doesn't advocate for acquittal.
Can we blame the mothers of these two shooters? Yes. Absolutely. We blame bartenders who serve too many drinks to a drunk who then kills someone in a car accident. We blame mothers (and fathers) who enable their crazy sons to have access to weapons. Why waste time reading some typically stupid left diatribe in the NYT which is nothing more than a communist and anti-Semitic rag house organ of the current progressive Democrat Party?
ARM as per usual gets it backasswards, people who are demonstrably and proven crazy have their rights diminished as to not be a danger to society in general. I know it might a stretch for him to understand but people who have been found guilty of DUI lose the right to drive and convicted criminals lose their freedom for a period of time. We don't ban sober drivers from driving and we don't imprison the law abiding to show even handedness to criminals and drunks.
"So you are happy to take away someone's freedom but not their guns?"
So, how many crazies in mental hospitals had guns the last time you were in one ?
You can't be that dense. You will not understand that most of these mass killings are by psychotics ?
Or don't you believe in mental illness ? It's just another lifestyle ?
Ezekiel 18
1 "The word of the Lord came to me: 2“What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel
“ The parents eat sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge?
3 “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.
5 “Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right.
6 He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife
or have sexual relations with a woman during her period.
7 He does not oppress anyone,
but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
8 He does not lend to them at interest
or take a profit from them.
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
and judges fairly between two parties.
9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign Lord.
10 “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things although the father has done none of them
“He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor’s wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at interest and takes a profit.
Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.
14 “But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:
15 “He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife.
16 He does not oppress anyone
or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
17 He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor
and takes no interest or profit from them.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.
He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
19 “Yet you ask, Why does the son not share the guilt of his father? Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.
25 “Yet you say, The way of the Lord is not just. Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will die for it; because of the sin they have committed they will die. 27 But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life. 28 Because they consider all the offenses they have committed and turn away from them, that person will surely live; they will not die. 29 Yet the Israelites say, The way of the Lord is not just. Are my ways unjust, people of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!"
The one at fault here is the murderer.
The murders are the fault of the murderer.
Bah, the end of that got screwed up somehow. "The one at fault here is the murderer" isn't part of Ezekiel. It's what I wrote, somehow I wrote it twice but using different words. Bah.
The "Pravda" (aka NYT) author does not seem to note:
1. The many-more thousands of the USA's people saved from murder, rape and other mutilations by the use OR "mere" display of guns
2. There are well over 150 nations, with stricter anti-gun laws than the USA, with higher murder rates;
3. That anti-gun Chicago (Obama's home town) has a very much higher such rate than very comparable AND gun-friendly Houston; And,
4. The mass murders (By gunfire) in those lands under Muslim-Terrorist (Pray excuse the redundancy) rule.
Michael said...
If you do the former you do the latter in the cited case.
Obviously, locking someone up in a mental institution is a much more extreme denial of liberty than not allowing them to own a gun. Why not start with the less extreme measure of making it more difficult to own a gun?
Obviously, locking someone up in a mental institution is a much more extreme denial of liberty than not allowing them to own a gun. Why not start with the less extreme measure of making it more difficult to own a gun?
Order of preference
1) Everyone has more access to guns, so when the crazies start shooting, they get shot quickly.
2) Lock crazies up in mental institutions.
3) A whole bunch of other stuff that people might think to come up with.
4) Making it more difficult to get a gun.
You may notice #4 is the worst case scenario. If more adults are armed and there are less gun free zones, we wouldn't have to worry about these mass shootings.
ARM
Obviously, locking someone up in a mental institution is a much more extreme denial of liberty than not allowing them to own a gun. Why not start with the less extreme measure of making it more difficult to own a gun?
Because the violently insane would still be insane.
BTW I am for gun confiscation and a 50 year mandatory sentence for anyone caught with one. You are going to love building those prisons and you are going to love who they will be filled with.
ARM
Obviously, locking someone up in a mental institution is a much more extreme denial of liberty than not allowing them to own a gun. Why not start with the less extreme measure of making it more difficult to own a gun?
Because the violently insane would still be insane.
BTW I am for gun confiscation and a 50 year mandatory sentence for anyone caught with one. You are going to love building those prisons and you are going to love who they will be filled with.
AReasonableMan said...
"Obviously, locking someone up in a mental institution is a much more extreme denial of liberty than not allowing them to own a gun. Why not start with the less extreme measure of making it more difficult to own a gun?"
It was already illegal to murder those people. Making it slightly more difficult or illegal to murder them would no effect on any of the people who have carried out these mass shootings. Not a single policy so far mentioned would have done anything about this tragedy. Certainly not more background checks as he had already passed them.
So your premise is to make it harder for me to have a gun. I have done nothing wrong. But you want to limit my freedom because of the actions of others.
On top of this I hear no calls for the federal government, state governments, or local governments to disarm. This in spite of the fact that governments have killed more people by many orders of magnitude than individual citizens have. If guns are so bad why are we not disarming the state? The school Obama's kids go to have armed guards. Why are his kids safer than my kids?
So it is given that you don't care about stopping mass shootings because none of your policies would have any effect on them. You don't want the government to disarm, but you want to disarm people who had nothing to do with the mass shooting. The only thing that can be ascertained from these observations is that you are either very stupid, or you have the same intentions as the Socialist Nazi Party had in Germany in the 1930's when they disarmed their populace.
Why not start with the less extreme measure of making it more difficult to own a gun?"
Because that infringes on the liberty and Constitutional rights of all of the rest of us.
That's like saying because somebody might use his right to free speech irresponsibly, no one should have the right to free speech.
or
Because somebody might drive while drunk, we should severly restrict the right to drive a car.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा