The tragic case of Robert Farquharson is best not explained in a newspaper by a female journalist who, as a woman of that particular type, can never feel as a man feels. She quotes Professor Paul Mullen, psychiatrist and clinical director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health:"Obsession deprives people of a sense of proportion to such an extent that, in the end, they can countenance their own death and the death of others they love in pursuit of that obsession."
The journo then adds:
A man [note the change from "people" to "man"] who has become obsessed with revenge against his partner and who is pathologically jealous of her can allow his children to become caught up in his delusions. His feelings about her fidelity can morph into doubts about the paternity of the children.
Bollocks. Another shoddy, female, PC, gutless* journalistic polemic against men. The moment she changed "people" to "man", she started writing of "his delusions". Subtle shift but heavily indicative and deeply dishonest of her as a journalist.
As for the issue, it's doubtful the kids even knew what was going on.
I don't blame women for completely misunderstanding the wrong they do and for steadfastly refusing to accept responsibility for their part in breakups. They're biologically not wired to accepting responsibility in matters involving men. To be fair, the mother is quoted as well in the article:
Cindy Gambino told the court that her ex-husband had been a good father and was a "softie" who always agreed to do what she wanted over matters such as whether to have another baby.
So what would drive a "softie" to kill his kids? You really want to know? Seriously?
I can completely understand not wanting my kids brought up by another man whom my ex had sold herself to and this feeling would be so strong, the thought would definitely flicker through the brain of how to make her truly understand.
Women will never, ever, understand what a man puts into his family emotionally and spiritually though society as a whole, both men and women, accept what she puts in - the eternal mother figure is a powerful icon.
When she decides to move on because he fails to satisfy or she has a better offer, this is the calculating nature of the female who sees the kids and herself as one unit and the man as just some poor sod who brings home a little over half the bacon and therefore interchangeable with someone else.
It all comes down to mental sets and I've surveyed this with the women I know so often that the correlation is indisputable. Women are never concerned with "state of being". If they marry, it's for advantage but this advantage alters with time and with changed circumstances. For her, the initial flame is replaced with the primary bond of the children with herself and society supports this bond against the man in the divorce courts.
If he doesn't spend enough time on his family [in her eyes] and on her [they might both happen to be out working for money most of the day to pay the credit debt which is a consequence of the "onwards and upwards" mindset], if he starts drinking to blot out her constant carping and shopping list of his faults, if the Camelot he envisaged and worked hard to set up now seems to have been built on a swamp rather than on a rock, if she decides he's now surplus to requirements and in true neanderthal fashon moves onto another mate - then, in her eyes, she's moved "onwards and upwards" and everyone should be "mature enough" to just move along with her but in their own separate directions.
Men are justly accused of being territorial but their territory is the whole show - the wife, kids, property, plans, dreams - it all goes with the territory. If there's one thing he's never, ever, ever going to accept it's her upping sticks, shutting the gate on him and inviting another man in to share the spoils of their joint labour of love.
It's a measure of a woman's mind if she could imagine for one second that he's going to just sit back and accept that and here's the rub - the less responsible the father, the more chance he'll just drift off and "move along" with her but the more he is, in wife Cindy's words, "a good father and … a softie who always agreed to do what she wanted", the less likely he would ever be to accept her shacking up with another man.
So yes, evil obsession consumed him, as it has countless people, male and female, whom it comes to and in these circumstances, the children were the victims. Totally wrong and the killing unjustified, no question, as killing is never justified and he must pay the price for what he did.
But to lightly skip over her own culpability in this and in all the other points of dispute in their marriage and for the journo to subtly shift all culpability onto the man and champion her would be an equal travesty.
Women MUST accept responsibility for the consequences of their snide actions, must understand, in a marriage, a dedicated father's mindset, just as he must be willing to move onwards and upwards with her. Any woman who truly loved her man would never have allowed such a situation to have arisen in the first place.
.jpg)
* Just an endnote - isn't it interesting that this newspaper usually offers a "comments section" where I would most certainly have left the above text but on this issue there is the journo's opinion and only her opinion, with no right of reply whatsoever. The only conclusion to be drawn from that is that the editorial staff simply do not wish to allow the man's point of view to be expressed.
Thank goodness for true blogs, as distinct from the MSM. Grrrrrr!
I am surprised to read this from you JH. I totally agree with it all. I think the way in Western sociaety that the PC media and culture has shunned men will create even more problems going forward.
ReplyDeleteThis is yet another sad case with a well spotted twisting of the tale to suit current fads when it is reported in the media.
I agree with what you say about women's thinking, generally, but would not apply your observations to all women. Many do understand the male view and support it, and in my experience they are invariably generally happy in their relations with men.
ReplyDeleteThat notwithstanding, the last fifty or so years have provided us with too many examples of why, historically, women have been allowed little if any say in any matters of consequence, in almost all cultures.
The venerable Dr Samuel Johnson was not alluding to religion alone when he compared a woman's preaching to a dog walking on its hind legs.
I don't know I'm comfortable with thie implications.
ReplyDeleteChildren AREN'T possesions, I know society has trated them as such in the past, but it isn't good.
We have to be honest, neither of us- male or female- are designed to mate for life with just one person.
And in a developed society, I'm not sure we can continue with the idea of parents being solely in control of their own flesh and blood.
It's not the nice ideal it is seen as.
No matter the right or wrong of the marriage break-up in this case, who is to blame or not, this man killed three innocent children (assuming he is guilty) and there is no justification for that. None! Bottom line.
ReplyDeleteShaking my head at some of your statements and those of Mr Gruff.
And that, JMB, is why such things will continue - because the woman will accept no responsibility for what she drives a man to. She would hotly deny she does anything wrong. Therein lies the problem.
ReplyDeleteI think you made the same mistake that the author you objected to made, when you made a pressumption that any marital split up was due to the woman wanting to scoially/ finaincially move up. Many women have a variety of reasons why they leave thier spouses. All one has to do is look at the domestic violence stats( esp. of the ones who don't leave).
ReplyDeleteObsession/unhealthy love- I find the bunny boiler remarks( not yours btw) are often excuses by men, a stereoptype of a certain woman, to justify appalling behaviour and turn the tables ,so that HE is some sort of victim of an obsessive love. Too many men can falsely buy into that as it seems to be the easiest answer.
Lack of accountability is not a gender specific problem, James.
ReplyDelete...Lack of accountability is not a gender specific problem, James...
ReplyDeleteA point I made in my latest post, Uber.
...All one has to do is look at the domestic violence stats...
Yes indeed - and why is there domestic violence? These people married, so presumably there was something between them [there'll always be a percentage exception of course].
So somewhere along the line, the man became a beast, drinking and beating up on her. Why? Look at the photo of the man in the photo. Does he seem a beast? Yet he was just this whilst the madness gripped him.
A paragraph near the end agreed with JMB that it was inexcusable to kill under any circumstances, especially children.
But if we are to stop the problem of domestic violence, we must look at the root cause, [the point where it actually begins, rather than who continues it] which is, on the whole, the woman in the marriage.
It is her constant carping, nagging, picking of faults, disdainful bitterness that he hasn't become the man she envisaged and the sour faced visage she presents to him 24/7 which drives him out of his tree.
In a country like Russia where the women greatly outnumber the men and are not yet spoilt, there is a tradition that the partner surrounds the other with love and he has no reason to stray, providing he's not an egotistical Lothario.
The trouble with choosing a Lothario, which so many women fall for [ignoring good men who are lesser lookers] is that he'll stray, by definition. Ditto a top looking female who is into acquisitiveness. She'll stray.
So, given that the average man is not going to stray, if the home scene is pleasant, it seems logical and to her advantage to keep it pleasant. After all, the women are the controllers of the home, not the men.
In domestic matters, her voice usually holds sway and he goes along with it. At least with every male friend I've ever had.
So therefore it seems inimicable to her interests to start the nagging and carping and yet she can't help herself but does it. He cannot possibly hope to meet her rising demands and impossible standard of unrealistic perfection
and failing, he falls back to his worst side.
A man is not usually, as a boy, a mollycoddled mummy's boy. He's usually "out there" and running free. So now those instincts come out strongly and if he can't break free of all this disdain and carping, he hits back and the only way he knows is physically.
She can run rings around him verbally [except with people like me].
In this he shows little understanding of her "desire to improve him" and interprets it, as I have, as disdainful carping.
But the point of this post is that the woman flatly refuses to accept the scenario I've painted here and flatly refuses to accept that she is in any way responsible for her husband's behaviour.
Therefore, by a process of simple logic, it will continue.
She wants it to be all him, that he is by nature, by biology a beast and therefore all domestic violence is his fault but as it is simply not so and she refuses to accept her guilt in the matter - then ipso facto, it will continue and no amount of feminist diatribes against men will alter it.
Of course, what you were referring to, Uber, in your last comment, was the "Lothario" type. :)
ReplyDeleteUber,
ReplyDeleteBollocks
H-J: Your last but one comment hits the nail squarely on the head. Women use provocatively unreasonable behaviour to achieve what they cannot by physical means. It is the female form of violence and is nothing more than bullying. Men are simply using physical violence to defend themselves. Something like sixty per cent of domestic violence is actually female on male, yet it is laughed away by the authorities. That figure does not take into account women's unreasonable behaviour.
ReplyDeleteWhatever happens, it's never a woman's fault; someone or something else is always to blame. Numerous studies, reports and even anecdotes have shown that generally women are simply incapable of accepting responsibility for what they do.
Excellent post James, not only are you spot-on with this debate but my wife agrees with you too.
ReplyDeleteModern Western Women are by and large infantilised by a number of forces, feminism (misanthropy) being one of them and its destroying the fabric of society.
I totally agree with you, up to a point. I am heartily saddened by the demise of so may young marriages in our society and the way so may women take their 'exes' to the dry cleaners, as we say.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add though: there are women in the later decades who are moving on WITHOUT extracting any huge financial gain from the previous marriage despite all they put into it because they recognise that it did take two to make that marriage what is was BUT know that to have stayed would have been to drift into mental incapability.
We may never achieve it but to educate our offspring about what sacrifice and service mean is the only way to go on.
Marriage is a much bigger word than the average £17,000 price tag for the wedding would signify. Bring back simpler weddings and better prepared marriages.
Shirl, I really believe you've got it together and when I'm at your blog, it shines through for all to see.
ReplyDeleteI fully admit the guy doesn't handle it well and once it's on the way down, that's the end of the game.
I wasn't talking about the clever, manipulative types here, male or female. It's just something in the bad reaction and misunderstanding between men and women and I'd dearly love to find the formula to stop it.