Why do men kill their children when relationships break down?

First topic message reminder :

In UK News SM posted a story of a Utah policeman who shot dead his British wife, her mother and their children when she found videos that showed he had been drugging her, raping her while she was drugged, and filming it.

Then on Sky there was this one:


Father Kills Four Children Before Surrendering
A gunman kills four of his children and two adults before a dramatic three-hour stand-off in a suburban area in Texas.
A father has shot dead four of his children after opening fire at a house in Texas.

The suspect also killed two adults and critically wounded his 15-year-old daughter before armed officers chased and cornered his silver car in Spring, a Houston suburb.

The suspected gunman eventually surrendered after a nearly three-hour stand-off with police.

First, he led police on a nearly half-hour pursuit, then his car was sandwiched between two police trucks in a residential cul-de-sac a few miles from the scene of the killings.

Despite being surrounded by marksmen, the suspect remained "cool as a cucumber", Sergeant Thomas Gilliland said.

There were "two hours of constant talking with a man armed with a pistol to his head and who had just killed six people", he said.

After lengthy negotiations the suspect emerged from the vehicle with his hands raised, sinking to his knees before being arrested and detained.

When police arrived at the scene at around 6pm, they found two adults and three children dead.

Another child later died at a hospital.

The victims were two boys, aged four and 14, and two girls, aged seven and nine. The dead adults were a 39-year-old man and a 33-year-old woman.

The gunman and his wife are estranged, and she was out of state at the time of the killings. Two of the dead children were adopted.

Assistant Chief Deputy Constable Mark Herman said: "It appears this stems from a domestic issue with a breakup in the family from what our witness has told us."

Authorities did not release the victims' identities and did not say whether the adults who were killed were related to the children or their father.

The wounded teenager was able to call 911 and later warned deputies that her father planned to go to her grandparents' home to kill them, Sgt Gilliland said.

http://news.sky.com/story/1298299/father-kills-four-children-before-surrendering



Now, I'm not saying that women never do it, but time and time again you read of men doing this. Why? Revenge? Or is it more complicated. It's something that happens so many times I think it should be studied to find out what the triggers are (excuse the pun) so that the deaths can be minimised.

sphinx wrote:

Nems wrote:

Society or the judiciary?
There is the chivalry factor at work in the judiciary as well as worthy victim status etc.
Women's extreme behaviour can be explained  by hormones or post natal depression etc. Is there an equivalent defence for men?

There should be - men are affected by the same hormones as women.  Men get depressed.

It is not just the judiciary though - it is society.  The very media themselves who will present a man kills children and self with him as bad guy while presenting a woman kills children and not herself as her suffering from something and being a victim.

Even ordinary people - is the title this thread about people or parents killing their children?  Is there reference to the woman on trial right now for killing her children while their father was away?  No - it is about men and references men.

I dont like that.  (in case you hadn't noticed lol)

I noticed!
And I agree with a lot of what you say.
Do you think our patriarchal society is a big factor?

No - I think if you look back to Victorian times when society really was patriarchal (except for the monarch herself of course) women who killed their children were more reviled than men who did so.

I think the reasons are to do with increasing scientific investigation. Starting from Victorian times it was considered far more abnormal for a woman to kill (anything not just her children) than a man so as the sciences developed they studied the obviously abnormal first - and did come up with possible explanations (incidentally a woman truly suffering post partum psychosis genuinely does not have a choice - or knowledge of what she is is doing)

At the same time men were naturally associated with aggression and violence so people assumed they already knew why men killed and did not bother to study it.

That is actually changing as we write - scientists have started studying men killing their children and guess what? The evidence strongly suggests that actually selfish natural violence and punishment of women (the normal assumptions about it) are not the correct reasons at all. Men do have hormonal changes - and it does affect them.

My personal point of view is we need to study each case on its own merits. There are going to be times when women kill when they have mental health problems - but there will also be times when they kill for other reasons and mental health should not be an automatic defence. There will also be times when men kill for mental health reasons - and the defence should be as valid in their cases as it with women.

I actually tend to have more sympathy with a bloke who has had a woman remove his home, his partner, and his children from him and basically destroyed his life who commits murder suicide than I do with a woman who is definitely not psychotic who kills her children and not herself while claiming mental problems.

I think that some women, and I stress some, are, as you put it 'let off', not because of post natal depression but because of Postpartum Psychosis, which is very different and a very acute mental illness.

What is postpartum psychosis?

Postpartum psychosis (or puerperal psychosis) affects thousands of women in the UK each year. It is a severe episode of mental illness which begins suddenly in the days or weeks after having a baby. Symptoms vary and can change rapidly. They can include high mood (mania), depression, confusion, hallucinations and delusions. Postpartum psychosis is a psychiatric emergency. You should seek help as quickly as possible.

Postpartum psychosis can happen to any woman. It often occurs ‘out of the blue’ to women who have not been ill before. It can be a frightening experience for women, their partners, friends and family. Women usually recover fully after an episode of postpartum psychosis.

It is much less common than Baby Blues or Postnatal Depression. It occurs in about 1 in every 1000 women (0.1%) who have a baby.
How do the symptoms of Postpartum Psychosis differ from Postnatal Depression or Baby Blues?

Many women experience mild mood changes after having a baby. It is common to feel many different emotions.

Over half of new mothers will have the 'Baby Blues'. This usually starts 3 to 4 days after birth. You may have mood swings. You may burst into tears easily. You can feel irritable, low and anxious at times. You may also over-react to things. It usually stops by the time your baby is about 10 days old. You don’t need treatment for Baby Blues.

Postnatal depression affects 10 to 15 in every 100 women after childbirth. The symptoms are similar to those in depression at other times. These include low mood and other symptoms lasting at least two weeks.

Postpartum psychosis is different from postnatal depression. It is a more severe illness. There are many different ways the illness can start. Women often have symptoms of depression or mania (see our leaflet on Bipolar Disorder) or a mixture of these. Symptoms can change very quickly from hour to hour and from one day to the next.

There are many symptoms that occur in postpartum psychosis. These may include: ·

   feeling ‘high’, ‘manic’ or ‘on top of the world’
   low mood and tearfulness
   anxiety or irritability
   rapid changes in mood
   severe confusion
   being restless and agitated
   racing thoughts
   behaviour that is out of character
   being more talkative, active and sociable than usual
   being very withdrawn and not talking to people
   finding it hard to sleep, or not wanting to sleep
   losing your inhibitions
   feeling paranoid, suspicious, fearful
   feeling as if you’re in a dream world
   delusions: these are odd thoughts or beliefs that are unlikely to be true. For example, you might believe you have won the lottery. You may think your baby is possessed by the devil. You might think people are out to get you.
   hallucinations: this means you see, hear, feel or smell things that aren’t really there.


http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/postpartumpsychosis.aspx

The women who suffer from that literally do not know what they are doing.

I don't think a man ever gets it.  

If you notice Sassy I have already clearly indicated post-partum psychosis is a very different situation. A woman with post-partum psychosis is as not responsible as is a man with any other form of psychosis

My issue is that you can take a man who has clearly had a traumatic emotional experience who kills his children and himself and call him a selfish monster who was just trying to ruin the mothers life while taking a woman who has been feeling depressed but is other wise loved and supported who kills her children without killing herself and call her a helpless victim.

I would never say a mother who killed her children to 'get back' at an ex husband should be anything other than condemned. But how many times does that happen in comparison to the number of times men do it, and they normally don't just kill the children, but the mother and members of her family.

sphinx wrote:No - I think if you look back to Victorian times when society really was patriarchal (except for the monarch herself of course) women who killed their children were more reviled than men who did so.

I think the reasons are to do with increasing scientific investigation.  Starting from Victorian times it was considered far more abnormal for a woman to kill (anything not just her children) than a man so as the sciences developed they studied the obviously abnormal first - and did come up with possible explanations (incidentally a woman truly suffering post partum psychosis genuinely does not have a choice - or knowledge of what she is is doing)

At the same time men were naturally associated with aggression and violence so people assumed they already knew why men killed and did not bother to study it.

That is actually changing as we write - scientists have started studying men killing their children and guess what?  The evidence strongly suggests that actually selfish natural violence and punishment of women (the normal assumptions about it) are not the correct reasons at all.  Men do have hormonal changes - and it does affect them.

My personal point of view is we need to study each case on its own merits.  There are going to be times when women kill when they have mental health problems - but there will also be times when they kill for other reasons and mental health should not be an automatic defence.  There will also be times when men kill for mental health reasons - and the defence should be as valid in their cases as it with women.

I actually tend to have more sympathy with a bloke who has had a woman remove his home, his partner, and his children from him and basically destroyed his life who commits murder suicide than I do with a woman who is definitely not psychotic who kills her children and not herself while claiming mental problems.

Interesting points about Victorian society.
I wonder how far along they are in studying what factors are involved in these male hormonal changes. Very interesting Sphinx

sphinx wrote:If you notice Sassy I have already clearly indicated post-partum psychosis is a very different situation.  A woman with  post-partum psychosis is as not responsible as is a man with any other form of psychosis

My issue is that you can take a man who has clearly had a traumatic emotional experience who kills his children and himself and call him a selfish monster who was just trying to ruin the mothers life while taking a woman who has been feeling depressed but is other wise loved and supported who kills her children without killing herself and call her a helpless victim.

I wouldn't.

Not sure most people would tbh?

Sassy wrote:I would never say a mother who killed her children to 'get back' at an ex husband should be anything other than condemned.   But how many times does that happen in comparison to the number of times men do it, and they normally don't just kill the children, but the mother and members of her family.

Exactly.

There you go - even when people agree that stories indicate men are more likely to kill themselves and their children (the ones killing the mother too are even less usual) while mothers just kill the children, they are still sure that the men will be doing it for selfish violence reasons far more often than the women do.

In fact they cannot even envision a woman killing her children to get back at a man - possibly because it is never ever suggested by anyone that they could have that as a reason.

So tell me why did the woman on trial right now for killing 3 of her children while her husband was away do it?

sphinx wrote:There you go - even when people agree that stories indicate men are more likely to kill themselves and their children (the ones killing the mother too are even less usual) while mothers just kill the children, they are still sure that the men will be doing it for selfish violence reasons far more often than the women do.

In fact they cannot even envision a woman killing her children to get back at a man - possibly because it is never ever suggested by anyone that they could have that as a reason.

So tell me why did the woman on trial right now for killing 3 of her children while her husband was away do it?

If a woman has custody of the children I suppose she wouldn't feel the need to kill them to get back at her ex because he doesn't have the children.

Yet women do kill their children

sphinx wrote:Yet women do kill their children

Maybe for different reasons. Tania Clarence's children were disabled, so maybe she just couldn't cope any more, or she thought about how difficult life would be for them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:Yet women do kill their children

Maybe for different reasons. Tania Clarence's children were disabled, so maybe she just couldn't cope any more, or she thought about how difficult life would be for them.

What would you have thought if the father had killed them while she was away?

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Maybe for different reasons. Tania Clarence's children were disabled, so maybe she just couldn't cope any more, or she thought about how difficult life would be for them.

What would you have thought if the father had killed them while she was away?

Mrs Clarence apparently gave up her job to care for them, and Mr Clarence carried on working, so maybe she had more day-to-day stress about their disability than he did.

It was very unlucky that the twins also inherited the condition. She maybe could have coped with one child with it, but to have two more with the same condition was probably pretty distressing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

What would you have thought if the father had killed them while she was away?

Mrs Clarence apparently gave up her job to care for them, and Mr Clarence carried on working, so maybe she had more day-to-day stress about their disability than he did.

It was very unlucky that the twins also inherited the condition. She maybe could have coped with one child with it, but to have two more with the same condition was probably pretty distressing.

Or maybe she was jealous her husband had the freedom to go away.

Unlike many thousands of women who dont kill their disabled children they were in the position that they could have hired help for her if she was finding it too stressful.

Of course everyone is going to go with the poor stressed woman who snapped scenario - and even if found guilty it will be "while balance of mind disturbed" and in a couple of years she will be health happy and free - and those who do know her history will be commiserating with her tragedy.

Who is going to dare consider the idea that she was simply fed up of her life and felt trapped by societies expectations that she dedicate the rest of her life to caring for her disabled offspring. That she saw the easiest way out of her marriage and life would be to kill the children and claim stress?

I am not saying that is the case. I am saying that is the assumptions people are going to make.

I will further say that if the father had been the one to do it the assumptions people would make is that he was a heartless shallow selfish individual who just wanted to escape but did not want the hassle of providing financial support and who the hell was he to claim stress when it is obvious far more of the burden fell on the mother and if she could manage so well who was he to take such an evil way out.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Mrs Clarence apparently gave up her job to care for them, and Mr Clarence carried on working, so maybe she had more day-to-day stress about their disability than he did.

It was very unlucky that the twins also inherited the condition. She maybe could have coped with one child with it, but to have two more with the same condition was probably pretty distressing.

Or maybe she was jealous her husband had the freedom to go away.

Unlike many thousands of women who dont kill their disabled children they were in the position that they could have hired help for her if she was finding it too stressful.

Of course everyone is going to go with the poor stressed woman who snapped scenario - and even if found guilty it will be "while balance of mind disturbed" and in a couple of years she will be health happy and free - and those who do know her history will be commiserating with her tragedy.

Who is going to dare consider the idea that she was simply fed up of her life and felt trapped by societies expectations that she dedicate the rest of her life to caring for her disabled offspring.  That she saw the easiest way out of her marriage and life would be to kill the children and claim stress?

I am not saying that is the case.  I am saying that is the assumptions people are going to make.

I will further say that if the father had been the one to do it the assumptions people would make is that he was a heartless shallow selfish individual who just wanted to escape but did not want the hassle of providing financial support and who the hell was he to claim stress when it is obvious far more of the burden fell on the mother and if she could manage so well who was he to take such an evil way out.

If he had been the one who stayed at home and she was the one who went away, I would give the same possible reasons for the killing.

She did have help I think - they had a nanny.

Anyway, I'm just speculating about her motive, and I'm sure more will come out at the trial.

I take your point about people sympathising more with women who kill their children, although some people find it more shocking than when men kill their children. I think that women are generally known to be more prone to depression-type conditions than men.

No women are not "known" to be more prone, women are assumed to be and presented as being more prone.

Even existing medical evidence tells us men are just as likely to suffer depression as women - and as I said earlier research is starting to show the causation isnt so very different either.

If it was common to see women who had been dumped and had their lives pulled apart by a partner ending a relationship kill their children and themselves everyone would feel sorry for them - but that is not what happens and the women are seen as strong and long suffering.
While when men in the same scenario do that they are seen as selfish evil bastards who are just trying to get back at the "strong and long suffering" woman (who incidentally was the one who ripped their life apart).

It is double standards - and it is wrong

sphinx wrote:No women are not "known" to be more prone, women are assumed to be and presented as being more prone.

Even existing medical evidence tells us men are just as likely to suffer depression as women - and as I said earlier research is starting to show the causation isnt so very different either.

If it was common to see women who had been dumped and had their lives pulled apart by a partner ending a relationship kill their children and themselves everyone would feel sorry for them - but that is not what happens and the women are seen as strong and long suffering.
While when men in the same scenario do that they are seen as selfish evil bastards who are just trying to get back at the "strong and long suffering" woman (who incidentally was the one who ripped their life apart).

It is double standards - and it is wrong

I think women are more prone to that kind of thing tbh. I'm not saying that men don't suffer from depression, but I think more women do.

I've already commented on the issue of men being the underdog when it comes to divorce and custody issues, and I think that some women need to take a good look at themselves if they're demanding too much. It's time that the law was updated, and I've read that women will indeed be held to account more if they refuse access to the children. I'm in favour of joint custody, although I appreciate there might be practical issues. I think it's too one-sided at the moment. Of course some men wouldn't want custody, and that's fine, but many do.

I am not talking about the divorce and custody issues I am talking about the fact that if children are killed the man is a monster even if he took his own life and the woman is a victim even if she did not take hers.

sphinx wrote:I am not talking about the divorce and custody issues I am talking about the fact that if children are killed the man is a monster even if he took his own life and the woman is a victim even if she did not take hers.

In the stories we read about men killing their children, there are often divorce and custody issues at the heart of it, so I think it's very relevant.

You're preaching to the wrong person really because I haven't said that anyone who kills their own children is necessarily evil. It depends on the circumstances and individual cases of course.

sphinx wrote:I am not talking about the divorce and custody issues I am talking about the fact that if children are killed the man is a monster even if he took his own life and the woman is a victim even if she did not take hers.

That only happens because her defence is strong, she comes out with crap like post natal depression as an excuse.

Yeah divorced being stopped from seeing their children - there is no way a man in that situation could feel depressed to the point of thinking the only way to keep his children safe with him is too all die together.

It can only possibly be the man thinking this will show the bitch that kicked me out and never wants to see me again.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

sphinx wrote:I am not talking about the divorce and custody issues I am talking about the fact that if children are killed the man is a monster even if he took his own life and the woman is a victim even if she did not take hers.

That only happens because her defence is strong, she comes out with crap like post natal depression as an excuse.

No it happens with every woman - strength of defence has nothing to do with it - the court expects it the jury expects is and it is already decided as soon as a woman kills her kids - she must have had some mental problem and is just as much a victim as they are.

sphinx wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

That only happens because her defence is strong, she comes out with crap like post natal depression as an excuse.

No it happens with every woman - strength of defence has nothing to do with it - the court expects it the jury expects is and it is already decided as soon as a woman kills her kids - she must have had some mental problem and is just as much a victim as they are.

Then its down to being a Woman, the creator of life.

People cannot believe that a woman who can give birth and go through 9 months of pregnancy can kill their own child in cold blood without having a 'valid' reason.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No it happens with every woman - strength of defence has nothing to do with it - the court expects it the jury expects is and it is already decided as soon as a woman kills her kids - she must have had some mental problem and is just as much a victim as they are.

Then its down to being a Woman, the creator of life.

People cannot believe that a woman who can give birth and go through 9 months of pregnancy can kill their own child in cold blood without having a 'valid' reason.

Which is my point - it is wrong that people always believe good of women and bad of men

sphinx wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Then its down to being a Woman, the creator of life.

People cannot believe that a woman who can give birth and go through 9 months of pregnancy can kill their own child in cold blood without having a 'valid' reason.

Which is my point - it is wrong that people always believe good of women and bad of men

Of course it is. People still believe Woman are the lesser evil.

 

WOMEN have obviously been employing more effective "spin doctors" ~ who then fall back on the old fallacies of "motherly instincts", "all men are bastards - but all women are ladies!", "all men are potential rapists - except my sons!" ~ while most real men stand back, and then attempt to stand up for themselves against such unfair and unruly group onslaughts...

ANY wonder that so many men, and boys, are feeling so run down and ostracised by so many women around them; and then put under further unnecessary pressures and duress from an increasingly feminised and over-bearing society..

AND THEN we only need those man-hating misandists like sassy and her pet gerbil let loose on here, believing that they can call their declared enemies a bunch of "mysogynists", any time they're losing an argument..  

eddie wrote:

Sassy wrote:
I would never say a mother who killed her children to 'get back' at an ex husband should be anything other than condemned.   But how many times does that happen in comparison to the number of times men do it, and they normally don't just kill the children, but the mother and members of her family.

Exactly.

   AND there we had sassy again making up her usual run of misandrist b/s, simply as another attempted dig at every bloke on here..

All nothing more then her own opinion ~ and no relevance to real world facts..

Typical sassyisms ~ no evidence, no proof, no valid references.    

                   

But if I gave proof, which is perfectly easy, the number of cases we have had of mothers and babies being killed by partners would fill pages, you'd come out with a rant about the C&Ping.

You're priceless, ie, nobody would give a penny for your thoughts.

Why is this about numbers, which is the same fallacy argument used on blacks if they commit more crimes?
It is illogical, what is and should be looked at is why some people no matter if they are women or men are susceptible to this horrid crime.

The reality is the vast majority of people do not commit this crime, to then base this on the present numbers on men to date compared to women is such a flawed methodology to say the least let alone when people should be looking at the root causes as to why. To claim men are worse based off numbers, is as illogical as stated when people claim more homosexuals are pedophiles, or as stated blacks are more criminal.


It is dangerous poor claims like this that actually do more harm than good, in helping to deal with this problem. Whether people agree that women should get custody of children, this still leaves men in many cases heartbroken, a better compromise is required or people going into a marriage working on that marriage, as this is where part of the problem, is where today people fall in and out of love, so much so is like people have shits.

Was that a noise I heard? No? That's because the ignore button is such a joy lol

Sassy wrote:Was that a noise I heard?  No?  That's because the ignore button is such a joy lol

Yet strangely you had to get your pennies worth in, so hardly on ignore after all, if you reply.

Whoops!

With of course nothing as per usual to counter any points

Was that the wind, no, just some passing hot air  ::D:: 

Sassy wrote:Was that the wind, no, just some passing hot air  ::D:: 

lol still replying, she just clearly cannot let it go and uses as proven the ignore facility as an excuse to copout of replying on the debate ha ha

Love it

 ::D::

I dunno, why do women do it? You misandric little shit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2683622/Mother-weeps-court-admits-killing-three-disabled-children-died-father-visiting-relatives-South-Africa.html
http://thoughtcatalog.com/jim-goad/2014/04/20-moms-who-killed-their-kids/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/28/jury-selection-to-begin-for-tampa-military-mother-accused-killing-her-2/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381089/Theresa-Riggis-chilling-husband-stabbing-3-children-death.html
http://myfox8.com/2014/07/09/ny-mom-accused-of-killing-11-month-old-son-admits-i-didnt-want-him-anymore/
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-children-killed-death-penalty-20140523-story.html
http://www.knoe.com/story/25664459/mother-allegedly-kills-children-takes-her-own-life
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/06/mom_allegedly_killed_chronical.html

Another thread ruined then.

Raggamuffin wrote:Another thread ruined then.

Not really, I hope it goes back to my last point until it was attempted poorly to deflect from it

SEXY MAMA wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So why is it always used as a defence when women kill their kids?  Why do so many women who use it get let off with next to no punishment?

Because they can......

Its really as simple as that

Yes. Because we live in a gynocentric society.

I'll say it again as I'm in parrot mode today...

Many father's do kill their children just to 'get to' the wife, who longer wants him, I believe this happens more often than we think.

Joy Division wrote:I'll say it again as I'm in parrot mode today...

Many father's do kill their children just to 'get to' the wife, who longer wants him, I believe this happens more often than we think.

Again many?

How many out of the billions that have had children and are divorced?

Whether you think it happens more is missing the point of why it can happen and to find solutions, the reality is both men and women are capable and do so, which is the more the point again as to understand why

Didge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:I'll say it again as I'm in parrot mode today...

Many father's do kill their children just to 'get to' the wife, who longer wants him, I believe this happens more often than we think.

Again many?

How many out of the billions that have had children and are divorced?

Whether you think it happens more is missing the point of why it can happen and to find solutions, the reality is both men and women are capable and do so, which is the more the point again as to understand why

Some evil people are beyond solutions Didge...the stupid name give of Munchausen's

given to some mother's who kill their kids for attention is ridiculous,,,it's pure spite and evil.

There will always be evil people in this world Didge, amongst the good people...I'm simply bringing it to attention the reason I have is fairly overlooked....

Or sometimes a parent whose had an affair will pay the the price by the other parent who will kill their children as ' revenge' on the other parent.

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again many?

How many out of the billions that have had children and are divorced?

Whether you think it happens more is missing the point of why it can happen and to find solutions, the reality is both men and women are capable and do so, which is the more the point again as to understand why

Some evil people are beyond solutions Didge...the stupid  name give of Munchausen's

given to some mother's who kill their kids for attention is ridiculous,,,it's pure spite and evil.

There will always be evil people in this world Didge, amongst the good people...I'm simply bringing it to attention the reason I have is fairly overlooked....

Or sometimes a parent whose had an affair will pay the the price by the other parent who will kill their children as ' revenge' on the other parent.

The fact is though this is a rarity, where people are comparing women to men, is just absurd, what is the case is some people lose it, when their marriage is over, again this being very rare. To make the view point solely on men is wrong when again this is a rare form of criminality found to happen by both women and men, where again it is looking into the causes of the problem.

Anyway have work to do!

Laters

sphinx wrote:Yeah divorced being stopped from seeing their children - there is no way a man in that situation could feel depressed to the point of thinking the only way to keep his children safe with him is too all die together.

It can only possibly be the man thinking this will show the bitch that kicked me out and never wants to see me again.

To get back to the actual discussion, killing children is always wrong, obviously we all know that, but men do do it more than women do.   Found this quite interesting from last year:

In over two thirds (67% on average) of all cases of children killed at the hands of another person, the parent is the principal suspect, the NSPCC said.

Using figures from the Office of National Statistics from 2007-08 to 2011-12, the NSPCC said that one child is killed at the hands of their parent every 10 days.

While in most cases of family annihilation it is the father involved, there have also been a number of instances of a mother killing her children before committing suicide.

One such case was that of 44-year-old Claudia Oakes-Green who stabbed her two children, Thomas, 13, and Eleanor, nine, to death, before killing herself at their home in Shepshed, Leicestershire in 2011.
'Pawns in a game'

Dr Marilyn Gregory, based at Sheffield University, is an expert on homicide followed by suicide.

She has examined a number of family annihilations in Yorkshire and the Humber, going back to 1975.

Dr Gregory said there are two main trains of thought about why people who kill others then go on to commit suicide.

She is of the belief that family annihilators often kill their families in an "extended suicide" - that once someone has decided to kill themselves, they feel they are free to do "other heinous acts" because the perpetrator knows that nobody can get to him, because he is going to kill himself.

But others who have commented on this behaviour take the view that the person who has killed is then overcome with regret and sees killing themselves as the only way out.

What is common in the majority of cases is that the person involved is often a middle aged, "ordinary" man.

"Obviously it is very difficult for the rest of us to even comprehend how someone can get himself to a state of mind where the children become expendable," Dr Gregory said.

"But sometimes the children in these cases have almost become pawns in a game - the children have become a way of getting back at his wife, a way of punishing her - or they have become belongings of his that he feels he can't leave behind.

"You've often got men who are holding down jobs, they're men who have got a lot invested in their world and particularly, often, in the family on which they then turn the violence."

The trigger to kill is often the failure of the relationship with the mother, or a dispute over the children if the marriage has already ended.

"He will then want to retrieve his control," Dr Gregory said.

"It is a desperate way to do it, and it is perverse, because in retrieving the control he is also losing his own life, but this man has got himself into such a state of mind that says 'if I can't have them, then no one can'.

"In some cases the attitude of the man, from the evidence that is left behind, can be quite punitive.

"He will leave her (the mother) a note saying 'you can't have them now, I've taken them with me'. It's a punitive, 'I'm doing this to get back at you', type of crime.

"But in other cases, there is a notion of misguided altruism, where one man in my sample left a note saying 'the children are at peace now with me', and it is this notion of taking them with them to a better place.

"It is a kind of last desperate act to regain that power and control."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22213942

Whoever does it, for whatever 'reason' they think they have, unless is really is caused by a severe mental health problem, it is the most horrendous crime and impossible to understand.

Didge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:I'll say it again as I'm in parrot mode today...

Many father's do kill their children just to 'get to' the wife, who longer wants him, I believe this happens more often than we think.

Again many?

How many out of the billions that have had children and are divorced?

Whether you think it happens more is missing the point of why it can happen and to find solutions, the reality is both men and women are capable and do so, which is the more the point again as to understand why

Feminists are determined to spin it into a 'men are evil, women are angels' scenario. It helps keep the misandric divorce and custody laws in place.

Some should watch crime programmes like Deadly Women ...some are just as deadly as men, and much thought goes into their plans , timing, calculation, research etc..


While i believe most crime is committed by men, some women are definitely as bad, and they often charm men before marrying them, then killing for their money or life insurance policies.

Didge wrote:

Sassy wrote:Was that a noise I heard?  No?  That's because the ignore button is such a joy lol

Yet strangely you had to get your pennies worth in, so hardly on ignore after all, if you reply.

Whoops!

With of course nothing as per usual to counter any points

Let her have the last word Didge, it calms her

Joy Division wrote:I'll say it again as I'm in parrot mode today...

Many father's do kill their children just to 'get to' the wife, who longer wants him, I believe this happens more often than we think.

Evidence please.

A father killing his children is not evidence.

The figures I would like to see are

Where a parent kills their children before killing themselves - what is the gender split there.

I refer you to my post above Sphinx.

sphinx wrote:Yeah divorced being stopped from seeing their children - there is no way a man in that situation could feel depressed to the point of thinking the only way to keep his children safe with him is too all die together.

It can only possibly be the man thinking this will show the bitch that kicked me out and never wants to see me again.

Either way he's a selfish bastard.

I get the whole "let's not treat women any differently" and I agree.
But the OP was about men who kill their kids.

Anyone who chooses to cold-heartedly kill their children is an evil bastard who deserves to be thrown in prison for ever.
Oh and take away all means of ever being able to have any more if the sentience isn't forever.