This made the rounds a few weeks ago, but I didn’t take the time to look at Susan Smith’s letter to the media until recently. 20 years after she strapped her helpless sons into their car seats and rolled them into a lake, Smith still sees herself as the victim. She also explains that she only tried to cover up her crime out of an abundance of selflessness:
It has been hard to listen to lie after lie and not be able to defend myself. It’s frustrating to say the least. Mr. Cahill, I am not the monster society thinks I am. I am far from it. Something went very wrong that night. I was not myself. I was a good mother and I loved my boys. The thing that hurts me the most is that people think I hurt my children in order to be with a man. That is so far from the truth. There was no motive as it was not even a planned event. I was not in my right mind. The only reason I lied is because I didn’t know how to tell the people who loved Michael & Alex that they would never see them again. I didn’t want to hurt them. I knew the truth would come out, but I had planned to kill myself first and leave a note behind telling what had happened. I didn’t believe I could face my family when the truth was revealed.
It would be difficult to find a woman with a harder heart than Susan Smith. She is absolutely shameless. Yet note how consumed she is with the knowledge that people on the outside see her as a monster. Never be fooled by the shrieks that your judgment doesn’t affect a rebellious woman.
You missed the best. ( worst) part
“”This is only a small piece of the story, but I did want to tell you that if you’re ever *interested in doing another article, please let me know.*”
Sickness she just want another 15 mins…
Pingback: Susan Smith eats, wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wickedness.” | Neoreactive
I don’t see the churches in the US being interested in addressing women’s rebellion. In fact I see quite the opposite. In fact I was scolded a couple of weeks ago for “playing God” b/c I said a local church needs to get serious about disciplining a rebellious woman.
So thanks again for standing firm on what are truly Biblical, Christian principles.
Pingback: Susan Smith eats, wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wickedness.” | Manosphere.com
Kind of the poster example of the problem, really. When women sin, it’s because a man drove them to do so, or because they are troubled, while when a man sins, it’s because he is a sinner.
I think that many Christians in North America struggle with actually believing that women have moral agency.
Smith can’t even admit her crime; labeling it as how she “hurt [her] children”.
She didn’t hurt her children. She didn’t beat them or maim them. She killed them, she directly caused their deaths. She murdered her own children.
Ordinarily I would say .. don’t give her any more time in the spotlight.
But in this case I am willing to make an exception.
I pray she gets her 15 (more) minutes of
fameshame. And maybe .. just maybe .. it will cast a bigger net on current state of th wimminz state of rebellion.Thank you for posting this .. I’d missed it all together.
She shouldn’t be alive. We shouldn’t be hearing this selfishness if we lived in a healthy society because a healthy society would have executed her for the crimes she committed. They certainly would have done so if a man had done this.
If women have no moral agency then by logic they can also have no responsibility. No driving cars, owning property, working outside the home (except in extremely limited circumstances), no choosing mates, nothing – they must and should be treated as children in fact as very young children.
hey dalrockasz!
someday we’ll all look backand laugh
at how easy it was
for the feminsista marcusian marixxtsz took your country and churches and schools
away from you
while you aided and abetted
blaming it on men
and teliing men
they needed to wear furry hats and game
and then they too
would be happily marriedz fathersz
lzozoozlzol
useful idiotisz have always been useful
and the reason whey femisnsimsz worked so well
was that there was always
a driscoll
or dalrock
in the the room
the only man
in the room
saying “LOOK AT ME! I AM GETTING LAID! BE LIKE ME AND ALL IS GOOD! DO NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE DEMISE OF MARRIAGE IN THE COURTS! THAT IS NOT YOUR DOMAIN! YOUR DOMENA IS BTUTHEXT AND GAMEY GAME!!” lzooooz
and so they receieved glenn beckian instalanches
provideing mild entertainiment
on the way
down
zllzozozozoz
Praise Moloch for Susan Smith. No on can destroy their own progeny with as much fanfare, aplomb, and dignity.
I can see this situation in several ways
1. She is mentally ill
2. She is just a murder
Either way, this woman is messed up mentally.
“would be difficult to find a woman with a harder heart than Susan Smith.”
Andrea Yates who drowned her five kids in the bathtub would be her equal if not a strong contender.
But her argument makes sense in our modern culture. Her sons were ages 3 and 1 when she killed them. Not only have 30% of American women killed at least one of their children via abortion by age 45, but Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva wrote a well-received paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics a few years ago laying out the moral case for killing one’s children after they have been born, even for non-medical reasons:
Translation: Hey lady, you got bad feels from that kid you had? Well, you just go ahead and kill him then! It’s okay!
I read many reaction essays by liberals, both male and female, in support of Giubilini and Minerva’s proposal. So it is hardly surprising that Ms. Smith feels that she is not a monster. What baffles me is why anyone who is pro-choice would consider her a monster.
Need to start a coathanger campaign.
The only thing worse than a murderer is one that tries to portray themselves as the victim of their crime. There’s a special place in Hell for people like this.
This is what a borderline looks like, particularly of the “witch” variety.
But generally this is standard BPD behaviour. They are beyond fu**ed up mentally, to them up is down and left is right. Its like the entire rules of life have been inverted.
And a total inability to see their own participation in their own eventual demise. I do worry about my son with his BPD mother. I had one myself and she was as violent as hell and utterly as she saw it without fault.
They are inhumane.
Hey GBFM, maybe I could find some deep spiritual insight from Plato, Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius? Do you agree with everything they say or is it just not as much fun to troll dead guys?
“we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.
…having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus.”
May God’s judgment come soon. For we are returning to the days of Moloch.
I don’t believe Susan Smith or Diane Downs, the woman seen here,:
are mentally ill, or at least they’re not mentally ill to the point where they didn’t know what they were doing. They each obviously knew what they were doing and that it was wrong, as they tried to cover up what they did. They both apparently wanted to get rid of their kids over men, and I don’t believe Smith’s story that she wanted to kill herself, too, because if she did, why did she park the car, get out, and then disengage the parking brake to let the kids roll down the hill without her? Why did she also not try to save them in the several minutes it would have taken for them to drown? I have to believe that the main reason she got the jury to buy her story, leading to her being eligible for parole in about ten years from now, is due to the fact that she’s a woman. If a man had done the same exact thing she’d done in the same manner and had been in the same circumstances (i.e. had a lover who didn’t want to stay him because he had kids), would the jury have believed he’d just wanted to kill himself and that the kids were merely collateral damage? I have my doubts.
I’d contrast the mental states of Smith and Downs with that woman in Texas who drowned her five children that time. As I recall, the facts of the case seemed to indicate that it was likely she really was just a mentally ill person who was hallucinating when she murdered her children.
@Hank, it all depends on your definition of mental illness. And the liberalisation that is creeping into all diagnosis.
Psychologists wouldnt say BPD is mental illness. Because you see pink elephants walking upside down on the ceiling. Others (even Psychologists) do categorise as being mentally ill because their mindset is so abhorrent when compared to cultural norms.
This applies to NPD as well. Which is why you see politicians\CEO’s sell out a country or a village for a couple of bucks. They are sick in the fu**ing head, and they should all be screened out of the population or at least marked and denied responsibility over anyone else.
Unfortunately, this entire political\CEO class atm, prob most scientists too. So yeah, we are f***ed royally.
@hank, you are right though in that she is a pathological liar, was married to one. Yeah, the story changes every 15 mins on the bell. They will only hold themselves to what they say for 15 mins. After that it doesn’t exist.
They will do anything, ANYTHING, for the approval\praise and love of those they deem as an authority in their life.
Its sick beyond measure. But that’s females for you ! Or at least a large % of the population.
“This is what a borderline looks like”
This is what a psychopath looks like.
Yikes, Susan has the Hamster cranked all the way up to 11.
Most men would begrudgingly admit wrongdoing to a parket ticket 6 months ago. Susan can’t even bring herself to take responsibility for the murder of her own freaking children, 20 years after the fact.
“Feels” over “reals”, baby.
@hank, I can’t even watch what you posted. Its so sick and evil. They really are born of the devil. And he is their father. Hopefully they will be reunited soon. You can see why God created a hell.
@The Real Peterman
Correct, borderlines oscillate between psychosis and neurosis. Which is why are they are borderlines. Neither fully in one category or another. Which makes them x10 more dangerous.
Susan should just be happy she wasn’t executed.
She should have been.
Well, yeah, obviously, there’s a certain kind of mental illness in someone who murders their own children or someone who just murders people in general. For instance, serial killers lack a certain empathy for others that normal people tend to have, but they usually still know what they’re doing and are held accountable for it when caught. Just as others have mentioned, it’s really sick that so many people in our society have no qualms about killing babies and in effect, have no empathy for young human life just like these murderers lack for others, as well. It’s incomprehensible to me that people can dehumanize babies by calling them fetuses and parasites. To me, it takes a certain amount of mental illness to even do that.
(@ minesweeper)
Minesweeper
@hank, I can’t even watch what you posted. Its so sick and evil. They really are born of the devil. And he is their father. Hopefully they will be reunited soon. You can see why God created a hell.
I should mention that the woman shown in the still of the video I posted is not the murderer. Instead, someone else ended up in the still-frame (for those not already familiar with the case or haven’t clicked the video).
I remember an internet meme that had a bubblehead blonde pic with the caption, “You cheated because you were an asshole, I cheated because I was confused.”
@Hank, Yeah, its amazing, looking at these women, you see something you couldn’t accuse of hitler or saddam of sinking so low they would be delighted in their own children’s murders..
it’s beyond horrific, the 2 above are beyond inhumane and have left humanity, but I doubt even they could sink this low. its just pure unconstrained evil in female form, while wearing a smile.
@hank, yeah, I had to stop after a couple of mins or so. I know thats not the woman.
Save yourselves and don’t watch the vid !
I don’t recall the Diane Downs case, but I remember the Susan Smith and Andrea Yates cases very well. Susan Smith was/is EVIL. Her televised pleas for the return of her boys included her “crying” without any tears, etc.
But Andrea Yates was criminally insane IMO. The doctors should NOT have allowed her to leave the hospital, and the husband bears some responsibility too. He says that the doctors did not tell him that having a fifth child could trigger a relapse for Andrea, but a man with his intelligence and education should have known better, even if the doctors didn’t spell it out for him.
@Laura
What could he have done anyway in our culture, female insanity is celebrated amongst the liberals.
When you won’t repent, the worse the sin the more the heart has to be hardened.
Laura
Yeah it is her husband. The mutha fucka went to work and left her home to kill the kids in private. The SOB is just as guilty if not more than her for her killing those kids because she was crazy. he was just your typical cruel calculating man.
@gg, you are bang on the ball.
We live in a culture that is celebrating female mental, psychological, emotional illness as “empowerment”. We have empowered women to be utterly insane on every level. Female insanity empowered by the state.
With all the gov,police,education and services fully backing any claim she could care to make.
ya us !
Susan should just be happy she wasn’t executed.
She should have been.
Either she’s been kept in isolation for the last 20 years, or the culture inside of women’s prisons is different from that of men’s prisons. If Smith had been a man she would not have lasted a week on the inside before having been violently “dispatched” by the general population. I can only assume that most of the estrogenated refuse that is Susan’s fellow prisoners not only see nothing wrong with what she did, but even look upon her as some sort of folk hero. If that’s the case, then this appears to support TFH’s oft-stated claim that men care infinitely more about children and their wellbeing than do women.
greyghost: The Andrea Yates case is like the Titanic or a plane crash. Several major things went wrong simultaneously and led to a disaster. Mrs. Yates suffered a major psychotic break after the birth of her fourth child, and was hospitalized for a significant period of time, but eventually made a partial recovery — maybe even a “full” recovery. Mr. Yates says he was not warned that an additional pregnancy and birth could lead to another psychotic break, but it certainly would have occurred to me. If you develop postpartum psychosis after one of your pregnancies (a fairly rare condition) then surely you are at very high risk of experiencing the condition again after a subsequent pregnancy and birth. I don’t think that Mr. & Mrs. Yates had any particular religious convictions about birth control, so the fifth child could have been postponed at least, or they could have decided to stop after having four sons.
As I recall, when Andrea called her husband at work, the first thing that he asked her was if she had harmed the children. If this was the first thought that crossed his mind, then he had to have understood on some level that she was deeply disturbed and capable of harming the children. When one parent is clearly mentally ill, the other parent has the duty to protect the children. Andrea should not have been left alone with the children, and IMO should have been back in the psychiatric hospital in a locked ward. I wonder if the doctors and hospital involved were sued for malpractice.
A while back, I read that the husband has remarried, and I wish him well. I hope that he is able to have children in his new marriage. The children were beautiful, and it was an utter tragedy that they were murdered by their mother.
@feeriker, she is just a victim of the patrachiary, don’t you know this ?
Did you miss the memo ? Well I think with 33% of 40yo females having had their own child murdered inside of them by their own request, I think we can put to bed the notion that women possess the gold standard for morality.
feeriker: men focus on justice while women focus on mercy. Also, it could be that Andrea Yates’ fellow prisoners didn’t think that she was faking mental illness. The videos that I have seen of her court appearances over the years have tended to support the idea that she still had not fully recovered her mind even several years after the homicides.
I wonder how Susan Smith and Diane Downs were treated in prison. The video of Diane Downs is very disturbing — clearly she is pure evil. I don’t recall ever seeing Susan Smith on video after her arrest, which came fairly quickly after she murdered her sons. I thought Susan Smith’s sentence was far too light. She should have gotten life without parole OR the death penalty.
@Laura, “men focus on justice while women focus on mercy”, tell that to the billionth abortion which will be coming up soon.
No, women focus only on “emotion” , only that which is in front of them and that they feel in their heart at that time.
Ask a woman who has got rid of her kid, very few will display any emotion at all towards their kid.
No mercy will be displayed, at all. As IBB often says, women are amoral and without agency.
@Laura, the reason her fellow prisoners have not dispatched her yet is not because they recognise her mental illness or think she should just suffer instead.
Its because they can’t recognise her amoral behaviour. They don’t consider she has done anything worthy of death.
But if she sleeps with wrong guard, or looks at the head girl the wrong way, then they will.
“There was no motive as it was not even a planned event.”
Versus
“I knew the truth would come out, but I had planned to kill myself first and leave a note behind telling what had happened.”
The Hamster reveals all. It’s amazing at how an “unplanned” event has a high degree of planning behind it.
@Bluntobj – Bingo !!
Yep, the planning obviously went wrong (caught), so now its unplanned, But NO – now its planned to leave a note -“The only reason I lied is because I didn’t know how to tell the people who loved Michael & Alex that they would never see them again. I didn’t want to hurt them.” – so others wouldn’t feeeeell badd.
“I didn’t believe I could face my family when the truth was revealed.” – suicide only for the avoidance of “feelings” when she was caught, not because she was a psychopathic murder or because her childrens lives mattered a damm to her.
Yeah describing women as the more “merciful” sex is a joke, as evidenced by the divorce law, child support and custody, abortion, etc. The rare times they do they show “mercy” its to the worst possible people.
The default setting of their moral conscience is set to “tingle”. Of course most So-Cons today are not any better.
@Puffy, yes, in those cases – divorce, child support +custody, abortion, its like the law is empowering women to be sadistic – encouraging them even in their worst most basal nature (to be their worst).
And we can say it is succeeding admirably in those aims.
Hey GBFM lololook lollolz ats da Song of Sololomon! Lotsa cockasz and pooossies deyre. and…oh noes…da Dread Game. Better excise it from your Babble.
@Minesweeper
I read her discussion of suicide as a subtle way to frame herself as a victim.
Either she’s been kept in isolation for the last 20 years, or the culture inside of women’s prisons is different from that of men’s prisons.
Or women are not the same as men…ya think?
feeriker: men focus on justice while women focus on mercy.
Also, it could be that Andrea Yates’ fellow prisoners didn’t think that she was faking mental illness.
Hamsterbation. Women have a known ingroup preference, so long as Susan Smith or any other convicted woman knows her place in the hierarchy, she’d be protected against those bad men.
The Yates case was one of the first things that started prying open my eyes about women. The comments section on the Houston newspaper stories, and some email lists I was on at the time, were crammed full of women and tradcons. Condeming Andrea for her crimes? Perish the thought! The feminists were defending her as a poor, hepless l’il woman (in distinct contrast to the usual UGoGrrl, WimmenKanDoIt positions) and the tradcons were tut-tut-tutting about how Mr. Yates should have been more in control of his wife and so forth and so on, like that’s even possible in the modern world. It was no small thing that she was confined after the 4th pregnancy, because it takes a lot of paperwork to commit someone nowadays, even in Texas, for mental problems. Mere suicidal or homicidal ideation would not have been enough. Men have zero authority over their wives, although there are women who surrender authority to their husbands to be sure.
But to return to the point: I saw almost no women in public who were willing to condemn the actions of Yates or Smith. I saw plenty who were willing to rationalize, blame-shift, goalpost shift, etc. in her defense. I did not know of the 4:1 ingroup preference that is inborn behavior in women at that time, but I could sure see who was picking what side.
As a simple-minded man, my opinion on Susan Smith, Yates and any other woman who would murder her children is simple: they are clearly obvious cases of mineral deficiency.
@Dalrock – very true, of course I had just looked at what she said, which of course means absolutely nothing at all.
It’s a multi faceted delusion, she all these things :
1: not a monster
2: treated unfairly
3:no motive and murder unplanned
4:murder planned with note
5:can’t handle others seeing her badly
6: pining for comfort.because she just has to commit suicide
7.good mother who loved her boys
8. psychopathic murder of her boys
9. hurting as people think I hurt my children in order to be with a man
10: “I lied”
11. lied about – “has been hard to listen to lie after lie”
the world will not mourn her passing.
Note as well that she can’t mention (in dalrocks quote above anyway) that she killed her kids.
9. hurting as people think I ***hurt**** my children in order to be with a man
obviously classifying a drowning your children is just a hurt.
Had a man done this – murdered his own two children for expediency – he probably would have been executed. Perhaps he could be given life n prison on a technicality, like James Holmes.
When abortion was made legal, critics feared it would be the thin end of the wedge regarding the sanctity of life. It was argued that it was the unborn today, the elderly tomorrow.
We aren’t seeing that. We see academics like Richard Dawkins – who preaches Anti-Theism not Atheism in his books and lectures (and that not well: Christian scholars have been tearing him to bits) – say that “there should be a two-year period in which the child… can be terminated”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html
When it comes to the nature of women, it is clear why they have always required Husbandry. It is because they simply do not have a moral centre unless those around them do. Ms Smith then, is not a monster at all. She is a psychopath who places selfishness above all else and who has burned her moral centre (conscience) with an iron (1 Tim 4:2).
@ everyone
No mercy will be displayed, at all. As IBB often says, women are amoral and without agency.
No woman moral agency but with out the Spirit of the Most High moral agency is bullshit cover dirty drags.
Fix Renee Harris on August 12, 2015 at 6:43 pm
@ everyone
No mercy will be displayed, at all. As IBB often says, women are amoral and without agency.
No woman (HAVE) moral agency (& SHITTY SPELLING SKILLZ) but with out the Spirit of the Most High moral agency is bullshit cover dirty drags.
I am sure many femenistas are thinking. “If she was working outside of the home and had the kids in a govt. run daycare, none of this would have happened.”
She killed her kids to get the alpha stud she had the tingles for. he didn’t want kids. The children’s father was alive and in the area but turning the kids to their father was out of the question. Social status is big with women bigger than a child’s life. In her eyes she is a victim, a mother that lost her children. Many women see it that way too. During her trial comments were made about the stud she wanted and how he drove her to do what she did. For her to give the children to the father to free her up for her new man is a double edge sword to the FI. First it is the shame of a mother that doesn’t have her children. Second and very important it violates team woman by making it viable for a father to have his children. Far better the children be killed. That is why women tend to defend her. Team woman for the purpose of actually defending herself because she is a woman.. Same woman defending Smith will claim she would do anything to protect her child. ” I couldn’t just kill my kids I love them to much” Both stances are to protect her the first is to remove judgment from the behavior of women and the second is to be judged has loving and caring. This is normal for women. Want is not normal or civilized is a society, culture and church to go along with this. In this case she is in jail. bet your ass they wee looking for that generic black man she described for the police artist. Good thing they didn’t find him. he would be in prison right now.
Reblogged this on MGTOW 2.0.
This is what a borderline looks like”
This is what a psychopath looks like.
They are the same. One is a woman with this personality type and it manifests as BPD. The other is a man and it manifests as “Psychopathy.” Both are rule breaking, merciless, self-centered fucks. Except when women break rules it is “socially acceptable” (like to torture your husband and browbeat him to hell and back) but when a man breaks the rules (like physically respond to her verbal aggression) then it is a crime.
This goes way deeper than the courts. The very structure of society is vested in seeing and treating the exact same personality type differently based on gender.
“the culture inside of women’s prisons is different from that of men’s prisons.”
Ya think? Google “Prison Make Believe Family” for some perspective. Funny shit. When we say treat them like bratty teenagers and AWALT we really mean it. Women in prison immediately segregate from the very few really sick ones. The rest are just AWALT.
Pingback: Dalrock, Just Saying… | See, there's this thing called biology...
@BPP
No, No no no no no.
A true (non-PD) psychopath, doesn’t care at all, cutting a humans throat gives them as much emotional pain as squashing a bug.
BPD – which oscillates between psychosis and neurosis is labeled as such in females, this can happen in males but is labeled Anti-social-behavioral-disorder. They generally end up in jail.
But yes you are right, the same PD in females gets generally tons of sympathy, and in males get tons of jail.
And yes, the entire society is organised around giving BPD females not only a free pass, but encouraging them in their insanity.
@Laura: OK Trollbait, I will bite. Right through your ass-nine comments. The Dad who is working full time while his crazy ass wife is home with the kids is responsible, eh. How about The Mother in Law, and Andreas dear mommy? How about the Aunts and the sisters and all the other angelic women who should have known that poor Andrea was sick and should not have been left alone with the children. How could they not know that Andrea’s awful, inconsiderate, oafish husband just dumped all these kids on this poor stay at home mom with the hardest job in the world. He should be locked up next to Andrea. We get it.
BTW – Im not dissing (true) psychopaths. They are needed. If the invading army is over the hill and about to take your crops\women\kids, you want the psycho’s on YOUR side. They will generally be the only ones to return from a slaughterfest without PTSD.
One thing about BPD females, they do reproduce. I mean, if their is a side effect of putting your di*k in crazy, its reproduction.
Minesweeper is right on my drunk post. I was comparing Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASP) and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) along gender lines, not psychopathy. Although ASP’s and BPD’s are often high on psychopathy they are very different concepts.
ASP/BPD- rule violators
Psychopathy- lacking remorse
Now just to confuse the issue further, I think a lot of these so called “BPD’s” the manosphere throws around are really Psychopathic women (not Antisocial, not Borderline but true psychopaths). They are women without remorse who get their rocks off of stirring up trouble and causing pain which sounds disturbingly familiar.
29% of women end up aborting their kid(s). Yes, it messes them up for life but polling data indicates that 90% would do it again with no real regrets. Their only regret is that it happened at all, not unlike a bank robber that had to shoot the night guard. It would’ve been better if it hadn’t happened at all.
Consider that about 20% of women cheat on their husband and assume that half of them had had an abortion, This means that about 40% of divorcees have either had an abortion or cheated on their husbands. These are damaged goods and you can see it in the train wreck of relationships that they have had in their pasts.
@BPP, you drunk as well 🙂
I don’t know, I’ve never met a true psychopathic female(yet), but I’m tripping over borderlines here. I suspect they are actually worse for the general pop that true psycho’s as they appear conducive to society. they are the wolf on sheep’s clothing. Far more dangerous.
@gg, “During her trial comments were made about the stud she wanted and how he drove her to do what she did. … it violates team woman by making it viable for a father to have his children. Far better the children be killed. That is why women tend to defend her”
Any woman defending her should be burned at the stake, along with her for company. (sorry hope not too offensive a comment, but really anyone defending her actions is truly appalling)
(delete if too harsh)
@Dissillusioned, oh a least, id say almost 100% of women filing for divorce have cheated on their husbands or are very very close to it. There is the odd 1% of the guy behaving dreadfully. But generally, if a woman is filing, someone else will appear very very quickly indeed, if not instantaneously.
Renee,
Correct. The BPD woman (as Susan Smith clearly is) could rationalize ANY BEHAVIOR (on her part) as everything about her life is entirely amoral. That is classic BPD behavior.
A long time ago, society should have had this woman executed. She is deadly dangerous to anyone who she comes in contact with. Send her back to God, we can’t deal with her on this planet.
innocentbystanderboston, I don’t really find it logical to say someone doesn’t have moral agency but then also say that that person should be held accountable for her actions by giving her the death penalty in a case like Susan Smith’s or by simply shunning her like you did the woman who’d told you she’d had an abortion once upon a time. How can women lack moral agency and deserve punishment at the same time?
greyghost
Same woman defending Smith will claim she would do anything to protect her child.
I don’t actually remember anyone defending Susan Smith other than her lawyers, one of whom was a man, but I guess with a large enough population it’s possible some people did. I just don’t think it’s common if it did happen. The same goes in the case of Casey Anthony. I think very few people outside the 12 people who acquitted her and maybe her lawyer thought she was innocent and deserved anything less than the death penalty.
“The Right Thing to Do about a Bad Dad”
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=973694
Men midlife crisis. Does it happen to every man?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=973816
However, I agree that the jury itself likely went easier on Susan Smith due to the fact that she’s a woman, but juries are typically composed of both men and women. In fact, if anything, I’d say men might even be more likely to go easier on a female defendant, due to white knighting.
As I alluded to earlier, Smith will be eligible for parole after having served 30 years, which I guess will be about nine or ten years from now, and I noticed that Diane Downs already had a parole hearing a couple of years back, as there’s a video of it on youtube. Hopefully, neither murderer ever gets out, but I believe that any male defendant in their place would have received either death or life without the possibility of parole (and rightfully so). I can’t help but wonder what feminists think of female murderers, since feminists are supposed to be the ones who want equal rights, and equal rights should include equal punishments.
Ninth Circuit Gives Unmarried Couples Double The Mortgage Interest Deduction Available To Married Couples
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/08/ninth-circuit-gives-unmarried-couples-double-the-mortgage-interest-deduction-available-to-married-co.html
Hank Flanders
You have discovered toasted ice. The term defended may not have been entirely correct it is what is happening when the testimony of the stud was that he didn’t want children and how it was being made out that the whole thing was his fault.
@bluepillprofessor – “like to torture your husband and browbeat him to hell and back)”
Kipling noted the difference in “The Female Of The Species”
“Unprovoked and awful charges — even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons — even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw …”
His poetry is pretty RP – like “The Vampyre” – a sad tale of terminal oneitis. And “The Gods Of The Copybook Headings” pretty much describes where we are today.
“men focus on justice while women focus on mercy”
Women focus on themselves and their feels. Mercy ain’t go nothin’ to do with it. Ask an aborted baby about mercy.
It’s not mental illness, it’s evil.
@innocentbystanderboston on August 12, 2015 at 11:45 pm
You gave me credit for mindseetee idea. Just saying
@ da GBFM
Yes. The convenient appearance of the “manosphere” does give the impression of a pincer movement on marriage.
As you say, “useful idiotisz have always been useful”.
Generally we don’t expect other humans to bear the responsibility of others actions. If the doctors didn’t tell him anything, who would he be to suspect otherwise. If you’re looking for someone to blame for the acts of an evil woman, look no further than the woman.
“Had a man done this – murdered his own two children for expediency – he would have been executed.”
Fixed (the “probably” is superfluous).
Even if a court doesn’t sentence him to death, a prison sentence of even minimal length would be tantamount to a death sentence. Child molestors and child murderers are the lowest of the low amongst prisoners and are marked men from the first day that they set foot on the inside.
Churchian logic:
Evil Woman: “I killed my children. The devil made me do it.”
Churchian response: “Don’t be ridiculous! Repent of your sins, murderer!”
Evil Woman: “I killed my children. A man made me do it.”
Churchian response: “Don’t be ridiculous! Stop blaming yourself for this horrific tragedy! This must be so hard on you. That evil jerk! Can I pray for you?”
Women find a way to blame men for the things they wouldn’t dare blame Satan for.
“20 years after she strapped her helpless sons into their car seats and rolled them into a lake, Smith still sees herself as the victim.”
What if this would be the case?
“20 years after she strapped her helpless daughters into their car seats and rolled them into a lake, Smith still sees herself as the victim.
How would society have reacted if the children were girls?
@Minesweeper, you may be correct. There is a reason why the Bible says not to marry a divorced woman. In both OT and NT, a man divorces his wife only if she has done something wrong. The term wrong was not a very strong word in the OT and thus some men justified divorce for frivolous reasons. Nonetheless, it was clear for spiritual people that God intended it to be only because of fornication. That is made clearer by what Jesus said in the Gospels when He commanded husbands not to divorce their wives except for the cause of fornication.
Now fornication is anything sexually immoral. Watching the Chippendales with the girls on a Friday after work is fornication.
The Bible does not allow a woman to divorce her husband unless he is an unbeliever and abandons her. Yet if a man beats her up repeatedly or cheats on her repeatedly she is allowed to separate and bring it to the attention of the church’s elders. Church discipline must then be imposed on the husband and he is to be ostracized from the church. If he repents and returns, then his wife is to come back to him If he doesn’t, then he is considered an unbeliever and she is then able to remarry. The problem is that churches no longer administer discipline.
The bottom line is that unless church discipline has been exacted against a husband, we must assume that a divorced woman has committed fornication and marrying her would be akin to adultery.
@Regular Guy
Abuse is the favorite go to term for wicked women for murder for whatever reason.
@feeriker
The best way of unofficially killing a man by proxy is to pin a child molestation charge on him with planted evidence like CP. Political enemies may be dealt with in this manner.
Throwing him in prison and turning a blind eye to his death.
@Dissillusioned
>Now fornication is anything sexually immoral. Watching the Chippendales with the girls on a Friday after work is fornication.
Did you mean this as sarcasm? In case not, or for other readers: Some religious people will try to “extend” the “sexual immorality” that is forbidden in Scripture to actions/thoughts never stated by God to be sins. A classic example is a “Christian” wife accusing her husband of viewing pornography, and deciding she therefore has Biblical grounds to divorce him. Or using birth control within marriage. Or getting married, even if there is no intention to have children (maybe they are elderly).
Problem here is the person is trying to add words into the Bible.
If you want to know what God considers sexual immorality, then read what commands God gave on that topic; do not make up your own “rules” or “traditions”; see Matt 15:1-9 and the parellel passage in Mark, also Col 2:8.
For a listing of what sexual immorality actually means, rather than what religious people pretend it is, start with Leviticus 20:10-21. This chapter gives many commands restricting sexual actions, all together. This is far better than me making up my own ideas.
>The problem is that churches no longer administer discipline.
This is indeed a huge problem.
“20 years after she strapped her helpless daughters into their car seats and rolled them into a lake, Smith still sees herself as the victim.
How would society have reacted if the children were girls?
Some feminists would probably get a bit grumpy over the fact that she chose to take out a pair of future SIWs, but I think most would look at it the way the original trial jury obviously did – as a post-birth abortion.
Some religious people will try to “extend” the “sexual immorality” that is forbidden in Scripture to actions/thoughts never stated by God to be sins. A classic example is a “Christian” wife accusing her husband of viewing pornography, and deciding she therefore has Biblical grounds to divorce him. Or using birth control within marriage. Or getting married, even if there is no intention to have children (maybe they are elderly).
Problem here is the person is trying to add words into the Bible.
What you describe here are perfect examples of “legalism.”
@Dale. I have read what the Bible has to say about sIn. Jesus Himself said that looking at another woman with lust is sinning. What I am talking about is divorce. A man has grounds for divorce if a woman does an action that can be as simple as going out with the girls to watch the Chippendales disrobe. Her loyalty to her husband is now questioned not to mention she dishonored the marriage in public. The lines of authority now have been broken since she looks up to another (or many men) instead of just her husband. I am not saying that he should divorce her but I can understand very well why he would do that. If it was just pornography that he caught her watching in private then the matter is a bit different but if she continues to do so I would say it is his right to divorce her.
For a woman, the situation is different. That is what I was trying to explain. Even if he cheated on her once, that is not sufficient grounds for divorce. (For many reasons I don’t consider watching pornography as cheating). Yes she should raise holy hell in both instances but she CAN’T divorce him for it. If he continues cheating on her (and not through pornography) then yes, she should take it to the elders of the church as I explained. In this case the process is a bit lengthy so as to give the man time to repent. (Pornography is not reason for this to be addressed by the elders but it is an indication of the man’s propensity to cheat.)
If the man doesn’t repent and continues on with life like nothing has happened, he is to be excommunicated from the church and treated as an unbeliever. If the man is truly a believer but does not repent, then the Holy Spirit will deal with him and destroy his body so as to save his soul. In this case his wife is a widow and can remarry. If the man truly repents, his wife has to take him back and in due time things will settle to normalcy.
What I am trying to communicate here is that a woman can’t just divorce her husband on a whim. Neither can a man divorce his wife on a whim. Divorce is a serious matter and there are different standards for both man and woman as far as reasons to initiate one.
The problem today is that 70% of divorces are initiated by women. Their excuses are very lame and definitely not biblical. Also the divorce process is quick rather than lengthy as I explained above. Churches should NOT condone this nor applaud what these women are doing!
“Dissillusioned says:
August 15, 2015 at 3:36 pm
@Dale. I have read what the Bible has to say about sIn. Jesus Himself said that looking at another woman with lust is sinning”
Snort, no he didnt ! The translation has lost the meaning of the words.
It really mean he who “covets another mans wife” has committed adultery in his heart. Note this only applies to men looking at wives, not to women or unmarried women. The fact this verse is used to condemn porn is hilarious as it couldnt be further from what Jesus actually said according to the greek.
@Dissillusioned , you do seem more confused than Dissillusioned tbh.
Either party in a marriage having sex with someone else they are not married too is called adultery. And is grounds for divorce. If you divorce without that on a whim – then the 1st one to have sex will commit adultery even if its a new legal marriage.
Of course men could have multiple wives and some concubines. Not quite sure what the status is of a man with 4 wives, having sex with another single woman, is he committing adultery against the other 4 ? probably. I would presume with multiple wives there would be some agreement.
We have a living labotory of the murdering mother in Casey Anthony. And she got away with
it too. She is a case for textbook study. Let’s encourage her to come out of hiding and extend
the Christian hand of friendship to her. We might even persuade her to confess, and salvage
what’s left of her life.
@ Dissillusioned
A man has grounds for divorce if a woman does an action that can be as simple as going out with the girls to watch the Chippendales disrobe.
Such Bull5h1t. The NT is very earthy if you read it accurately. There’s “lust” if a man tries to take another man’s wife. The actual word is “covet”. A woman watching Chippendales disrobe might be dishonorable, but it isn’t something that is grounds for divorce.
@asgamer
yep, pretty much an episode of desperate housewives would be grounds for divorce under Dissillusioned rules.
I live a quiet life, even so, over the weekend I have been boning up on a recent phenomena namely Hotwives, their Bulls and the married men who happily endure their humiliation. Clearly the notion that adultery would be a cause for divorce in this AF:BB paradigm would be ridiculous. The introduction of queer marriage where neither party demands or expects sexual fidelity also leads marriage in a similar direction.
I am really taken by that soubriquet Hotwives for Shakespeare In The Winters Tale (Act 1 scene 2) put the following into the mouth of the sexually jealous Leontes: ” Too Hot Too Hot, to mingle friendship far is mingling bloods. I have Tremor Cordis on me; my heart dances”. Leontes sees or thinks he sees his wife Hermione getting off with his friend Polixenes. The emotions Shakespeare expresses seem to be identical to those I have been reading from those married Men whose wives breaks her vows – shame mixed with lustful excitement.
Of course, no Christian should tolerate such behaviour from his wife and no Christian woman should so act and yet in my reading one of these wives went straight from a gang-bang to a church meeting. As Rollo says, the ultimate purpose of Feminism is unrestrained sexual freedom for women with all responsibility for the same placed on the man and this nascent cuckoldry seems to be an extreme example of this.
Dissillusioned @ August 15, 2015 at 3:36 pm:
“A man has grounds for divorce if a woman does an action that can be as simple as going out with the girls to watch the Chippendales disrobe. Her loyalty to her husband is now questioned not to mention she dishonored the marriage in public. The lines of authority now have been broken since she looks up to another (or many men) instead of just her husband.”
You sound like a feminist claiming that a husband who looks once at porn can be frivorced because he has “committed adultery”. If married people had to meet such zero-tolerance standards then keeping marriage vows would be impossible.
Madonna/whore is as unacceptable for men as AF/BB is for women. Christian marriage is one man, one woman, mutual sexual fidelity.
…
Minesweeper @ 7:41 pm:
“Of course men could have multiple wives and some concubines. Not quite sure what the status is of a man with 4 wives, having sex with another single woman, is he committing adultery against the other 4 ? probably.”
He’s finding sexual fulfillment outside of marriage so definitely. I would argue he cannot take a 5th wife for the same reason… once a polygamist becomes Christian, he must be satisfied within the marriage(s) he already has and not look elsewhere.
Well, men (I think), all I have to say is that the gunny-sacking going on in the narrative you’ve built around this sad woman’s case is something that I had been told was limited to women.
@brianbalke
Welcome. Are you referring to Susan Smith, or something else being discussed in the comment thread?
@brianbalke
Witness the cognitive dissonance “the narrative you’ve built around this sad woman’s case” `- last I saw she was an unrepentant psychopath who not only deliberately killed her 2 infants for the tingles, but is still unable to grasp what she did.
If thats sad, i’d hate to see depression.
He might not be referring to Smith. That would be too ridiculous.
Dalrock,
I thoroughly enjoy your writing, and I realize you probably have plenty of ideas to write about. However, this article struck me as something you could address:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/carolyn-hax-huge-mistake-on-wedding-night-fuels-an-overreaction/2015/06/18/0108ef8c-095d-11e5-9e39-0db921c47b93_story.html?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_3_na
Sincerely,
JT
” DrTorch says:
August 12, 2015 at 8:32 am
I don’t see the churches in the US being interested in addressing women’s rebellion. In fact I see quite the opposite. In fact I was scolded a couple of weeks ago for “playing God” b/c I said a local church needs to get serious about disciplining a rebellious woman.”
And people wonder why I don’t go to church. These people don’t worship God they worship pussy. Sounds like idol worship to me.
Jim and Dr Torch,
Ive encountered that as well. The quippy answer is something like this:
“The problem is not that I am playing God – the problem is that you are playing church.”
@ JT,
That article was horrific. My mind immediately went to the things she undoubtedly left out in order to make herself look like the victim. She told her then-fiance that she didn’t believe in premarital sex… fine (or it would have been fine if she had also disclosed that she had not always felt that way, had fornicated in the past, and was an “alpha widow”). But then after dating steady-betabucks Tom non-sexually for several years, she called him by the other guy’s name. She was very conveniently coy about the context, but it’s pretty clear that she called out the other guy’s name during sex on their wedding night. That is not some trivial detail unworthy of mention – it goes to the very heart of the matter. If my wife had called me by someone else’s name when we doing something mundane it wouldn’t have bothered me too much – but if she did it during sex on our wedding night and then admitted that she had lied about being a virgin all along… I would have sent her back to her parents, too.
She also makes it sound like he deliberately stole her passport, but that doesn’t jibe with the rest of her story. He grabbed the already-packed suitcase (which had both passports already inside), and said, “Don’t follow me.” If he realized that her passport was in the bag he wouldn’t have said, that, since he would have known that there was no way she could follow him. But accusing him of “confiscating” her passport sounds much more sinister than, “He took his bags and left.”
That dude dodged a bullet with that chick, and he’s fortunate that he discovered that she’s a lying whore before it went farther than it did. You know that sooner or later she’s going to end up in the other guy’s bed. It sucks, but at least this way he won’t end up paying child support for the other guy’s bastard children while she’s banging him in the house he would still have to pay for.
Of course “Team Woman” closed ranks around her, once again proving that most everything we say around here is correct. I’ve found that it’s often useful to create an analogy with less emotional drama to make a point. Let’s say you saw a Rolex that you wanted, because you recognized the high quality and beauty of such a thing. So you go into the jewelry store and ask how much it costs. It costs a lot… in fact, it costs everything you have, and although the watch does not come with a guarantee (why would you need one for a high-quality watch like that?) you’ll never be allowed to wear another watch as long as you live. But the salesman convinces you that it’s worth it. No discounts, no markdowns… this is a real Rolex, after all. So you buy it. Full price. You’re so pleased that you invite all your friends to the store to watch you but your dream watch. And as soon as you step out the door the lens falls off and you realize that it isn’t running. So you walk back inside and the salesman tells you that it’s not a real Rolex (“Oh… you though I was serious when I said it was real?”), but is actually a cheap Taiwanese knock-off. Do you demand your money back and tell the manager that his employee misrepresented a fake Rolex as if it were real? According to the women and white knights in that thread… apparently that would make you a controlling jerk… and the watch is better off without you!
would love to hear your thoughts about that [you provide no email, so i post here]:
http://time.com/dateonomics/
@Lyn87, try a lambo instead, a rolex? thats not even the deposit on the wedding, you are arguing about loose change.
Say to a man, choose the lambo or her, its about the same, and your not wrong.
Has anyone been following the Brittany Pilkington case?
http://www.smh.com.au/world/brittany-pilkington-accused-of-murder-of-three-sons-faces-death-penalty-in-ohio-20150826-gj7voi.html
Pilkington killed 3 of her own children, just to get the attention of her live-in boyfriend. She now faces the death penalty, as she was convicted in Ohio.
What bothers me is that this story is considered a “tragedy”. Were it a man who did this, he would be considered a psychopathic monster.
@Spike:
They would. Though, at the same time, in this culture, the fact that a Father would have his children around to murder them is actually sort of rare.
But she is a Monster. Of that, there is no question.
They should just execute that cunt. What an evil witch! Maybe do it this it was done in the Clint Eastwood film ‘High Plains Drifter’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEjnCCgUc8I
Did the father pay child support? Or did he just leave her to bear the entire financial burden of the boys? How much did his cowardice play into her needing a financial lifeboat? Just sayin.
[D: I love it! Troll level: Expert.]
Once again, a strong, beautiful, vibrant feminine creature has fallen victim to this testosterone-filled travesty that you penis-toting abominations call “our justice system”. How dare you take away the freedom of a beautiful woman who simply wants to live her life, who the hell do you cunts think you are? I applauded this woman for ending the life of two future rapists, I feel even worse that this poor creature had to suffer the injustice of conceiving these horrid abominations. At least they’re dead now and the world has 2 less future rapists to worry about. Too bad she was was head over heels over this scumbag who likely brainwashed her. Hope he gets his just desserts in the end. As for you, my beautiful Susan Smith, my heart, and my prayers goes to you, I hope you find happiness in the next life, I’m sure a special place in heaven awaits you. I am truly sorry that you were made to suffer such injustices that society doesn’t understand. You did what you had to do, and one day, my beautiful Susan, we will meet in heaven, free of men, and you and I will be forever friends. People like Susan Smith deserve recognition, she is a hero in my eyes, any woman that would make the world a little bit safer by ridding us of 2 future violent sexual perverts deserves to be upheld in the highest possible honor, and anyone who thinks otherwise, is probably living in his parents basement jacking off to rape porn, typical disgusting testicular abominations. Hopefully one day, women like Susan and I will avenge the women of the world who were made to suffer for crimes that men have done, that disgusting pig should’ve gotten the chair and Susan should be free. As a proud, strong, vibrant, and free woman, I stand by my opinion and anyone who disagrees with it can go fuck themselves with a rusty dagger. I love you Susan Smith, Godspeed! Yours truly: Geneva Patrice Morrison 💓💓💓. P.S. If you are a disgusting male, do not even think of responding to my post. Try, and I will report you for sexual harassment!
░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄ ░░░░░█░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▀▄ ░░░░█░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒░█ ░░░█░░░░░░▄██▀▄▄░░░░░▄▄▄░░░█ ░▄▀▒▄▄▄▒░█▀▀▀▀▄▄█░░░██▄▄█░░█▄ █░▒█▒▄░▀▄▄▄▀░░░░░░░░█░░░▒▒▒▒█ █░▒█░█▀▄▄░░░░░█▀░░░░▀▄░░▄▀▀▀█ ░█░▀▄░█▄░█▀▄▄░▀░▀▀░▄▄▀░░░░█░█ ░░█░░░▀▄▀█▄▄░█▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▀▀█▀██░█ ░░█░░░░██░░▀█▄▄▄█▄▄█▄▄▄█▄█░█ ░░░█░░░░▀▀▄░█░░░█░▀▀█▀█▀██░█ ░░░░▀▄░░░░░▀▀▄▄▄█▄▄▄█▄█▄▀░░█ ░░░░░░▀▄▄░▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░█ ░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
There is not enough mental illness in the world to harm you children. Anyone that kills a child should be put to DEATH no excuse I remembered the tragedy the horrific crime Susan smith did to 2 beautiful sons I remember like yesterday I was pregnant and I cried so much even the next day at work thinking the horror those 2 small children must have gone through. I have mental illness and I love my son more then I like to breath the love I have for my son is strong, powerful, and unconditional. These women want to blame illness but its evil make no mistake Susan smith and to any parent that hurts their child I think you are scum and trash I hope you have a miserable life . I pray everyday my 21 year old son is safe I would commit suicide if something happened to my son he is my world and you Satan evil bit—- kill your own flesh and blood I hope you all burn in hell!!!!!!!!