![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by trouble on March 27, 2002, at 3:05:16
Hey,
I can't believe the law would support this, but CNN's asking should Mr. Yates be tried for criminal negligence? Personally, I'm against him, he wasn't even married to Andrea Yates, he was married to his own idea of Andrea Yates, he erased her every step of the way, impregnating her after she'd show evidence of post-partum depression, but 5 kids was the magic number, so on with the show, ignored her while she sat dumbly for days on the furniture 'til she became the furniture, but what if he was raised in a family where his own mom acted like that and no one said anything, so the empty vessel model of womanhood became the norm, is denial a valid excuse, I watched Oprah Friday and IMO she handled him like a wounded saint, ick.trouble
Posted by Zo on March 27, 2002, at 3:41:32
In reply to Yates again, don't tell me it's come to this, posted by trouble on March 27, 2002, at 3:05:16
>I watched Oprah Friday and IMO she handled him like a wounded saint, ick.
Well *that* was entirely predictable. For a number of truly scummy reasons.
You got a stronger stomach than me, girl.
Zo
Posted by Penny on March 27, 2002, at 8:33:06
In reply to Yates again, don't tell me it's come to this, posted by trouble on March 27, 2002, at 3:05:16
It's amazing to me how blind some folks are to the torture Andrea Yates has been put through. And those poor, poor children. If someone had paid more attention, they would be alive and she would be getting the help she needs. It's enough to bring me to tears.
I saw her family (mom, brothers, sister) on Good Morning America and they were talking about what a wonderful mom she was, wonderful person. But in some ways I hold them accountable too. Was everyone just blind to the pain she was suffering? To the psychosis and the catatonic states? HOW CAN THAT BE?
It is situations like this that make me want to work harder toward my goal of working in the mental health field (I'm planning to become a pdoc, figure it takes one to know one!). I get so angry by the ridiculous state of affairs we all have to deal with.
Russell Yates should be the one facing life in prison...
Penny
Posted by beardedlady on March 27, 2002, at 8:45:55
In reply to Re: Yates again, don't tell me it's come to this, posted by Penny on March 27, 2002, at 8:33:06
I heard him say that he removed her from all responsibility--all Andrea had to do was get out of bed and brush her hair. So who left her alone with the kids for one hour?
And yes, Mom and Russ all knew what she was capable of doing and how sick she was. And he kept getting her pregnant as a cure for her psychosis! When she did the deed, she called him and said, "I finally did it." Says to me he was fully informed that this was a possiblity.
Right away I figured he'd be next in the defendant's chair. After seeing "A Beautiful Mind," I think he's even more responsible for the murders than she was!
beardy : /
Posted by Cass on March 28, 2002, at 1:32:23
In reply to Right you are! » Penny, posted by beardedlady on March 27, 2002, at 8:45:55
Andrea Yates was a victim of mental illness, and perhaps she was neglected by her husband, but should he really be held responsible for her actions? He strikes me as being disconnected from his emotions. Maybe he has a mental illness of his own. In any case, I'm just not sure anyone should be held accountable for another person's actions. Perhaps everyone in the Yates family is a victim.
Posted by beardedlady on March 28, 2002, at 5:37:29
In reply to Re: Right you are?, posted by Cass on March 28, 2002, at 1:32:23
Normally, I would agree with you 100 percent. (I don't think it's right to hold someone else accountable for another's crimes.) But I think this case shows someone to be so negligent that the negligence contributed to the crime--made it possible, if not probable. It's sort of like knowing your dogs or kids are in the car in 90 degree heat with the windows completely closed and not getting them out of there, even though it was your wife who left them in the car to begin with.
He KNEW what his wife was capable of doing--she told him!--and he did not protect those children. As their father, that was his first responsibility.
As for whether he has a mental illness, I think you have to be mentally ill to have done what he did. And everyone in the universe has some kind of mental illness displayed in the form of bigotry, stupidity, rudeness, etc. But I don't believe his could excuse him out of the duty to protect his kids.
I know; I express opinions strongly, as if they were fact. I always tell my students to do the same because saying, "I think," "I feel," or "I believe" waters down your argument. I added a few of those so I didn't look pushy on this here board! Please know that I respect the opinions of others, too.
beardy : )>
Posted by trouble on March 28, 2002, at 8:48:04
In reply to Re: Right you are? » Cass, posted by beardedlady on March 28, 2002, at 5:37:29
Hey Beardy,
I really appreciate your posts, they round out my top 5 Who-to-turn-to-when-lost-list, and I mostly give you the last word on dilemmas
Anyway, my question concerns this statement:
>
> I know; I express opinions strongly, as if they were fact. I always tell my students to do the same because saying, "I think," "I feel," or "I believe" waters down your argument.Whoa.
You know how I run my mouth, how I really want my unconventional assertions to be taken seriously but it's hard, especially in school, I can always tell when I'm coming across like a flake, can pinpoint the exact second when my credibility crashes, so lately, in an effort to strengthen my position I've been adding those very qualifiers you say water down the argument.Shit.
Is it good or bad to begin a statement by saying-
"In my opinion" or
"Current research finds," or
"Conventional wisdom dictates," or
"To paraphrase Gloria Stienem," or
"Statistically speaking," or
"History shows", etcI just want to COME ACROSS, w/out being disingenous, pompous, strident, humorless, castrating, over-educated, or womanish. Is this possible?
I'm very worried that my new Civility Practice might diminish the strength of my personality too, but I'm sticking w/it for now.
I've come a long way from throwing textbooks and kicking over desks to emphasize a point, now where's my authority?
thanks Beardy,
trouble
Posted by beardedlady on March 28, 2002, at 11:32:01
In reply to Beardy: technical ? re:students, posted by trouble on March 28, 2002, at 8:48:04
Troubs:
Hmmm. I suppose I should clarify what I meant by "water down." Trouble, that was an excellent post. Your questions were eloquent and poetic. Trouble, I think that was an excellent post. I believe your questions were eloquent and poetic.
The first time, I sounded like I meant what I said. The second time, it sounded like, "but I could be mistaken" could be added to what I said. It makes it seem like I'd change my mind, depending on what others thought of what I said, or that my position was dependant upon the approval of others. Na'mean?
But that may be want you want. Because the other effect it has is that it makes others less intimidated. So if they disagree with you, they may not feel threatened. (I don't want anyone to disagree with me! So crawl under that carpet, and shut up!)
But that advice for my students is meant for writing, not necessarily speaking. If you can sound convicted without catchin' a 'tude or sounding rude or trouncing on someone else's feelings, great. But it's hard. In essays, though, you want people to see your side, to believe you, to trust what you're saying. And if it's valid, they will. If it's not, well, at least you tried to be persusasive.
> Is it good or bad to begin a statement by saying-
>
> "In my opinion" or
> "Current research finds," or
> "Conventional wisdom dictates," or
> "To paraphrase Gloria Stienem," or
> "Statistically speaking," or
> "History shows", etcI'd skip the first one. I like to make the wild claim—without I think, I feel, I believe, or in my opinion—then back it up with the other stuff. That's where the credibility comes in.
> I just want to COME ACROSS, w/out being disingenous, pompous, strident, humorless, castrating, over-educated, or womanish. Is this possible?
No. No shit. The answer is no. You'll sound like one of those things to somebody, for sure. I always try to find something to agree with or to find something good in someone else's argument before I trash it. Like, "You're right. Capitalism can be seen as good for music. Without capitalism, how would we even have access to these bands? Someone has to sign them, distribute them, play them. But capitalism often kills the creativity of musicians who are striving to be who they are, to do something original, rather than simply be marketable. Blah, blah, blah.
> I'm very worried that my new Civility Practice might diminish the strength of my personality too, but I'm sticking w/it for now.
I might have read about your civility practice. Can't you find a happy (sorry) medium? I dunno. Can't you make a point and then throw the desk? Can you rewrite your definition of civility? Do you have to be sweetness and light to be civil? (Or Sybill?) (Sorry.)
> I've come a long way from throwing textbooks and kicking over desks to emphasize a point, now where's my authority?
Your posts sound like you are throwing textbooks and kicking over desks. Aren't you? Don't you wanna?
Do I need to take a pill, Trouble? Am I so anal about English that I can't have a conversation in lower case? Or without a misplaced comma?
I guess my posts come off as sort of methodical and logical, rather than emotional. That's because I break a lot of dishes. I bash them with a hammer and cut them with nippers. Sometimes I throw them.
> thanks Beardy,No, thank you.
> trouble
No trouble at all.
(But I do have a pretty rockin' sense of humor.)
I meant to say I liked "slattern" a lot. A real lot.
beardly : )>
Posted by jane d on March 28, 2002, at 17:20:43
In reply to Yates again, don't tell me it's come to this, posted by trouble on March 27, 2002, at 3:05:16
Willow asked me to post the following links to this thread:
http://www.mentalhealth.com/book/p40-sc02.html
which includes this quote.
"I just couldn't accept the fact that he had an above average I.Q., was good looking, had a good personality-and was so ill. "
-- Parent of a child with schizophrenia
andhttp://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/condition.clinic/schizophrenia.html
Posted by Mitchell on March 30, 2002, at 12:11:40
In reply to Beardy: technical ? re:students, posted by trouble on March 28, 2002, at 8:48:04
I'm not beardy, but I didn't shave yet today, so maybe I can offer some advice on these phrases:
> "In my opinion" or
> "Current research finds," or
> "Conventional wisdom dictates," or
> "To paraphrase Gloria Stienem," or
> "Statistically speaking," or
> "History shows", etc
In my opinion: Great. That distiguishes the statement from the otherwise factual material you might present and spares me having to look for a source that does not exist.Current research finds: What research? Name it. "X's 2001 study found that..." is better.
Conventional wisdom dictates: Depends on the forum in which you are writing. In prose intended for a general readership, it might work. In scientific, scholarly or strictly informational prose, it might be weak. Is the assumption truly conventional? Is it truly wisdom? Are you, the writer, qualified to define conventional wisdom? Would examples do better than an unsubstantiated assertion?
To paraphrase Gloria Stienem: Is it an accurate paraphrase? When and where did Gloria make the comment? Why not quote Gloria instead? Are you naming Gloria to invoke her authority or to credit her as the author of a statement? Usually best to let Gloria speak for herself, even in your writing.
Statistically speaking: What statistics? If the phrase is an introduction to a body of supporting eveidence, great. If the tome points to statistics elsewhere, but for readability or space purposes, one invokes a generalization, that might be cool. But generalizations are not a fair way to avoid substantiating a claim.
History shows: How does history show? What example in history shows? Why not present the example, so readers can determine how valid is your assessment of what history shows?
Any of these phrases would likely risk an editorial comment if it landed on a copy desk at the New York Times, though each would probably stand a chance of surviving the edit if the claim were supported by facts and if the phrase was a fair device for summarizing the facts. Readers must decide if such generalities are indeed credible.
Posted by trouble on March 30, 2002, at 16:29:19
In reply to Re: Beardy: technical ? re:students » trouble, posted by Mitchell on March 30, 2002, at 12:11:40
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.