Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Mass Murderers, Serial Killers, Single Moms, and Feminism
Tonight I'm going to tell you how a single mom made a false rape claim to her son, which resulted in the murder of two innocents and the subsequent incarceration of the perpetrator who in my mind is really a victim in this too.
Harold Laird's mother told her son that they moved away from their last residence because their neighbor who Laird liked, and who was a good influence to the boy, sexually assaulted her repeatedly. So Harold went over to Douglas Redd's home, killed him and killed a woman who was also in the house.
Laird was raised by a single mom, a single mom who told her son a story about a sexual assault, claims that she never substantiated. The end result of this was the boy was incarcerated for life at 17 because his mother sent him off on a killing frenzy. Even worse, Laird couldn't even get along with other prisoners, and is a constant problem child in prison. Laird's only, brief, father figure was Redd, the man he killed.
Then we have Tyler Witt, 14, and Steven Colver, 17. Tyler and Steven had something in common, they both were raised by single moms. They also had something else in common, they both plotted to kill Tyler's mom.
Tyler's grandmother gave a proud testimony on how Tyler's mother raised her daughter, "Without out any involvement from the father at all." How proud she was! But then she pronounced, "Tyler was always a difficult child." I guess difficult's one way to describe it.
After Tyler talks Steven into killing her mother, she rolls on him and he ends up getting life in prison. She gets a lighter sentence, fifteen years to life. Guess his dad should have told him not to get involved with girls like that. Whoops, he didn't have a dad!
Let's move on to some facts about serial killers:
1) Over 90 percent of serial killers are male.
2) Serial killers hate their parents.
Sounds like most feminists I know.
3) Serial Killers tend to be intelligent, have high IQ’s and “street smart.”
There goes the feminist theory
4) Serial killers tend to come from unstable or dysfunctional families.
Yeah, no shit.
5) Serial killers usually come from single parent homes, abandoned by the father and raised by an aggressive mother.
I think "aggressive" here can be substituted by 'nasty, crazy, bitch.'
6) A serial killer’s family often has a history criminal, psychiatric and drug-abusing legacy.
7) Serial killers have a history of doing poorly in school. They have trouble keeping a job and often work as unskilled laborers.
Or as New York Times columnists
8) Many serial killers were abused as children. This abuse included, physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Often this abuse has come at the hands of another family member.
They probably makes them watch MSNBC or something
9) While growing up, many serial killers spent time in mental health facilities and have records of early psychological problems.
Making them eligible for their own show on MSNBC
10) Serial killers often began their practice by tormenting small creatures or animals.
Definitely sounds like a host on MSNBC
12) From an early age, many serial killers have shown an interest in pornography. This interest was often intensely and often included sadomasochistic pornography.
So, what are you saying here, is that really so bad?
13) More than 60 percent of serial killers are bedwetters- beyond the age of 12.
So, what's so bad about that? Many serial bed wetters go on to successful musical careers. Look at Coldplay.
Serial killers are a feminist by product. Listen to what the web site Instigated has to say about it:
Serial killers and the matriarchy
"Feminists often love to mention serial killers and serial rapists as examples of men being horrid misogynists, forgetting that murderers and rapists make up a tiny fraction of a percentage of all men. Furthermore, they seem to forget that most serial killers suffer abuse from the hands of violent mothers and/or rarely have fathers present. At the very least they invariably have a dominant mother and weak father"
And he goes on here:
"In his book Serial Killers, Joel Norris highlights the strong link between serial killers and other violent individuals with the breakdown of the family which, in turn, leads to children being abused more often (children are more at risk from abuse when their father is removed) and with more unstable home lives. ...feminism is the leading reason for the rise in single-mother households, the rise in divorce, children being dumped in childcare and having multiple 'fathers' as mummy goes from one thug-lover to the next:"
From the book, Serial Killers, the Method and Madness of Monsters:
"Feminist theoreticians deeply dislike the mother component of serial killer
theory, dismissing it as just another aspect of the “blame it on mother” gynocidal
aspect of the male drive to kill females. Perhaps. Nonetheless,
there are remarkably many serial killers whose mothers showed tendency to
be highly controlling, overbearing, or overprotective of their sons.
This supports the theory that some serial killers’ behaviors are rooted in
gender identification involving a boy’s ability to successfully negotiate his
masculine autonomy from his mother—a challenge not faced by females.
When a boy cannot achieve this autonomy or when there is no solid foundation
for him from which to negotiate this autonomy, a sense of rage develops
in the child, and he subsequently carries the anger into adolescence
This is a fancy way of saying the boy doesn't have a male role model to imprint on, to establish distance from his mother. This need for a male role model to show them the way was described in a baptism that I attended, where the pastor said, "They will sometimes listen to what you say, but they will always watch what you do."
But don't expect the feminists to accept statistics and rationality. Here's a post from the Puffington Host:
"A few months ago, social scientist W. Bradford Wilcox insisted in Slate that it’s worse to be raised by a single mother even if you’re not poor. Children of single mothers, he argued, are more likely to end up as pregnant teens, or in jail, or otherwise in trouble. For centuries Wilcox’s has been the common view. But in an age when single motherhood is becoming more common, these mothers (and social science research) are starting to challenge that view. In fact, some believe that in an era when children are coddled and dependent for way too long, being a child of a single parent has distinct advantages."
James Franco Doesn't Look Like This Anymore
and... Pregnant Kourtney K..
and New Tampon-Like Device Could Protect Women Against HIV
Which is important if you want to have five kids with different fathers
But don't listen to any facts or statistics, or any kind of reality. According to an opinion piece in the New York times by feminist Katie Roiphe in defense of single motherhood:
"Conservatives obsess over moral decline, and liberals worry extravagantly — and one could argue condescendingly — about children, but all exhibit a fundamental lack of imagination about what family can be — and perhaps more pressingly — what family is: we now live in a country in which 53 percent of the babies born to women under 30 are born to unmarried mothers. I happen to have two children with two different fathers,"
Good job Katie, how do you do the last names. Everyone have a different one? Here's some more bull shit from Katie:
"It is, in fact, our fantasies and crude stereotypes of this “typical single mother” that get in the way of a more rational, open-minded understanding of the variety and richness of different kinds of families."
Rational? There is nothing rational about this if you know anything about criminal behavior and where it originates. This is not a rational thing to do, this is something you do if you want a 250% increase in the chance of your child becoming a criminal.
By the way, is it just my imagination, or does this woman Katie Roiphe look like an insane bitch herself? Just saying...there are some desperate men out there, to procreate with this. Or, maybe they're just too lazy to masturbate.
What's going on over there at the New York Times?
The Enigma of Animal Suffering. We can’t assume that a cow raised for food experiences what a slave or victim of genocide does.
No, no we can't
Controlling the Ebola Epidemic Or, why we at the New York Times, don't know what the word epidemic means
Here's an article called "The Kids Are Not Really Alright" on Slate:
It’s worse to be raised by a single mother, even if you’re not poor."
"Take two contemporary social problems: teenage pregnancy and the incarceration of young males. Research by Sara McLanahan at Princeton University suggests that boys are significantly more likely to end up in jail or prison by the time they turn 30 if they are raised by a single mother. Specifically, McLanahan and a colleague found that boys raised in a single-parent household were more than twice as likely to be incarcerated, compared with boys raised in an intact, married home, even after controlling for differences in parental income, education, race, and ethnicity. Research on young men suggests they are less likely to engage in delinquent or illegal behavior when they have the affection, attention, and monitoring of their own mother and father."
Posted by Anonymous Contractor at 6:11 PM