Woman Strangles Expectant Mother, Cuts Out Baby - Andy Rooney Unavailable for Comment

The reaction of the American press to the despicable murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnet exposes radical feminism's linguistic hegemony over the media's discourse on women's violence.

By Mike LaSalle

In general, I like Andy Rooney. But a couple of years ago he made a remark in all seriousness that made my eyes glaze over:

"If I had to say which I admire most, the qualities of men or the qualities of women, I'd choose women. They seem to be better human beings than men. If the world had been dominated by women instead of by men, as there's no doubt it has been, we would not have had centuries of unending war. If George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, traded places, we might have a better President."

Despite the media deluge that greeted Rooney's uncensored remarks blasting female commentators of pro-football, not a peep was made about Rooney's declaration that women are "better human beings than men."

I'll grant that Rooney's mea culpa was simple pandering to his feminist media critics, but I found it particularly disturbing that Rooney and the rest of the mainstream media felt so comfortable degrading all men in order to appease the pride of feminist supremicists and their toadies.

Readers familiar with this website know that MensNewsDaily.com does not subscribe to the otherwise socially-acceptable notion that women are better human beings than men. In fact, we spend quite a bit of column-space here demonstrating just how capable of mayhem and maiming women really are. Not all women, mind you. But it's an iron-clad fact of nature that some women are just as capable of commiting the most heinous, blood-thirsty and otherwise despicable acts as some men.

Which brings us to the heinous act of female violence du jour: the gruesome strangulation of a pregnant mother by another women who subsequently sliced the unborn child from the dead women's womb and claimed it as her own.

Of course the mainstream media are falling over themselves trying to explain away the indescribably bloody actions of this female Jack-the-ripper.

"Some women feel that the ability to be pregnant and give birth is very essential to being a successful woman," the New York Times tells us. Well I'm glad we cleared that up. But their mind-boggling article , "Why Some Women Kill for a Baby" wins the booby prize for feminist apologia with the classic line, "Murder suggests deeper psychological trouble...."

The Washington Post has gone several steps further with a three-part series meant to dilute the gruesome murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnett at the hands of Lisa Montgomery by reminding readers that Scott Peterson did it too, and by restaging Stinnett's unique murder as as statistical fluke against the backdrop of "hundreds" of murders of pregnant women that have taken place over the years.

The reaction of the American press to the despicable murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnet exposes radical feminism's linguistic hegemony over the media's discourse on women's violence.

Even Slate magazine smells a rat.

Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens all the time - a woman commits a horrific act of violence and the media - left and right - go into paroxysms of apologies, excuses and mind-numbing explanations (if it's mentioned at all).

Recently Hollywood released a movie meant to rehabilitate serial murderess Aileen Wuornos (her johns made her do it).

Then - talk about strange bedfellows - it was the chivalrous right locking shoulders in solidarity with the feminista left to defend impulse-murderess Clara Harris. Poor, misunderstood Clara was widowed one day when she ran her husband down with the family Mercedes Benz - her teenage daughter along for the ride.

And who could forget poor Andrea Yates who murdered her 5 children by drowning them one after the other? Her mitigations are legion.

How about husband killer Susan Wright? Or little Nancy Seaman, now on trial for "allegedly" wacking her hubby with an axe 15 times, stabbing him 21 times and then stuffing his body in a tarp. She says he was a domestic abuser. Well, at least we know somebody in that family was violent.

I could go on and on, but why bother. I think I've made my point.

Women aren't better humans than men, Andy. They just get better press.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And this from anonymous...

NEWS FLASH

On Sunday, December 19, the Washington Post features a 3-page article titled “Many New or Expectant Mothers Die Violent Deaths.” The article probes the deaths of mothers due to domestic violence. Sadly, the Washington Post continues its pattern of ignoring male victims of domestic violence.

WHAT THE WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE SAYS

The Washington Post reports on the issue of domestic violence against pregnant and new mothers. The WP reporter, Donna St. George, surveyed all state health departments and interviewed the victims’ family members.

Ms. St. George concludes that 295 new or expectant mothers die from homicides each year, and that 70% of these deaths were caused by boyfriends or husbands. So the Washington Post analysis indicates that 207 maternal deaths each year are the result of domestic violence.

WHERE THE ARTICLE GOES WRONG

According to the latest report from the Department of Justice, 510 men are killed each year by their wives and girlfriends. This number represents 28% of all persons killed due to partner violence [www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv.pdf – Table 1].

But that critical fact is never mentioned in the Washington Post article.

The Post article is designed to appeal to the reader’s emotions. Much of the story provides graphic details of the deaths. It features the names and color photographs of 24 female victims. The article features alarmist commentaries by domestic violence experts and emotional headlines such as, “Researchers Stunned by Scope of Slayings.”

The article is designed to arouse women’s sense of fear and vulnerability. The essay does not provide anything that resembles an objective or balanced discussion of an important social problem.

A PATTERN OF BIAS AND NEGLECT

Each year, 510 men and 207 mothers die as a result of domestic violence.

It is good that the Washington Post has highlighted the tragedy of 207 mothers killed by domestic violence. As the article sadly notes, “Their killings produced a few local headlines, then faded, a seeming aberration in the community where it happened.”

But what about the 510 men?

The Washington Post has never published a three-page article on men killed by their wives or girlfriends. The Post has never surveyed health departments or interviewed their grief-stricken family members to piece together their stories. The Post has never printed their pictures. Their killings have never produced front-page headlines in the Washington Post.

These male victims remain neglected and invisible.

At the Washington Post, it’s not just that the lives of men count for less. It’s that the lives of men killed by their wives and girlfriends simply don’t count.