How Sexism and Class Bias Distorted Perceptions of the Yates Case
By Denise Noe
Andrea Yates’ murder convictions have recently been overturned. There is no question that she systematically and deliberately killed all five of her young children by drowning them. She pled not guilty by reason of insanity at her trial and the jury found her guilty. An appeals court has ruled that Yates is entitled to a new trial because a prosecution witness, Dr. Park Dietz, testified that she might have been influenced by an episode of Law & Order similar to her case. No such episode was ever broadcast and the court found that the false testimony “could have affected the judgment of the jury.”
This seems like a good time to review the way sex and class biases distorted perceptions of this case. In the immediate aftermath of the crime, singer Marie Osmond wrote about her own struggles with postpartum depression, an illness from which Yates was said to suffer. The chapter of the National Organization for Women in Yates’ area rallied to her side. Anna Quindlen wrote a column about the nerve-wracking and exhausting demands placed by youngsters, aptly describing the confusion of a day for a mother of tots: “. . . milk spilled phone rang one cried another hit a fever rose the medicine gone the car sputtered another cried the cable quit ‘Sesame Street’ gone all cried stomach upset full diaper no more diapers Mommy I want water Mommy my throat hurts Mommy I don’t feel good.”
A Newsweek cover story about Andrea Yates described the masschild-killer in gentle tones. It told the reader that the compassionate Yates “apparently cared too much” and attempted to “be too good a mother.” Her husband, Russell Yates, was labeled“demanding.” The essay noted that she acted as caregiver to her late father when he suffered from Alzheimer’s and worried that, “Between caring for her father and her children, it is hard to think that Andrea ever had time for herself.” A letter to Newsweek seconded those sentiments, saying she “deserves nothing but the most tender care.”The yard of the Yates home filled with gifts and condolences. A sign said, “I am a ‘stay at home’ mother of 3 . . . I pray for strength for you and your wife and family.”
The sympathy directed toward Yates led me to wonder: Would a man who murdered his five children receive such sympathetic understanding? Male family slaughterers are often traditionally masculine counterparts to Yates’s traditionally feminine full-time homemaker. Sober, faithful husbands, they pride themselves on being providers for their wives and children. When such men suffer sudden financial reversals, through the loss of a job for example, they can decide that their families would be better off dead rather than dependent on an inadequate provider. This is similar to the warped thinking that apparently motivated Yates when, believing that her children had been irreparably harmed by her maternal inadequacy, she held their heads under the water of a bathtub.
However, when such a distraught man kills his kids, he is supported by no long line of men regaling the public with the horrors of unemployment, the frustration of futilely looking for a job, and the devastating depression that can result. Few commentators suggest that he killed, even in part, because of a “demanding” wife. Articles do not appear suggesting that mass murder is the end result of the sometimes overwhelmingly stressful demands of being a family breadwinner.
Let’s suppose a scenario even closer to the Yates case were to occur with genders reversed. A stay-at-home-Dad killed his several small children. We would be deluged with essays advocating that we reconsider whether men are appropriate full-time caregivers for youngsters. Other SAHDs would rush to distance themselves from the killer rather than express sympathy for him. It is unlikely magazines would publish letters urging “tender care” for a mass killing Dad whether breadwinner or fulltime caregiver. Class bias as well as gender prejudice may play a role in public reaction to Andrea Yates. Prior to perpetrating this horror, she appeared a wholesome “soccer mom,” a suburban middle-class stay-at-home mother with a breadwinning husband. Would a mass murdering welfare mother, prostitute, or other woman at society’s margins occasion this outpouring of sympathy? I believe not. If Yates were a man or a poor woman, our sympathies would completely flow where they ought to in this case, to the true victims – the brutally killed children.
Andrea Yates’ murder convictions have recently been overturned. There is no question that she systematically and deliberately killed all five of her young children by drowning them. She pled not guilty by reason of insanity at her trial and the jury found her guilty. An appeals court has ruled that Yates is entitled to a new trial because a prosecution witness, Dr. Park Dietz, testified that she might have been influenced by an episode of Law & Order similar to her case. No such episode was ever broadcast and the court found that the false testimony “could have affected the judgment of the jury.”
This seems like a good time to review the way sex and class biases distorted perceptions of this case. In the immediate aftermath of the crime, singer Marie Osmond wrote about her own struggles with postpartum depression, an illness from which Yates was said to suffer. The chapter of the National Organization for Women in Yates’ area rallied to her side. Anna Quindlen wrote a column about the nerve-wracking and exhausting demands placed by youngsters, aptly describing the confusion of a day for a mother of tots: “. . . milk spilled phone rang one cried another hit a fever rose the medicine gone the car sputtered another cried the cable quit ‘Sesame Street’ gone all cried stomach upset full diaper no more diapers Mommy I want water Mommy my throat hurts Mommy I don’t feel good.”
A Newsweek cover story about Andrea Yates described the masschild-killer in gentle tones. It told the reader that the compassionate Yates “apparently cared too much” and attempted to “be too good a mother.” Her husband, Russell Yates, was labeled“demanding.” The essay noted that she acted as caregiver to her late father when he suffered from Alzheimer’s and worried that, “Between caring for her father and her children, it is hard to think that Andrea ever had time for herself.” A letter to Newsweek seconded those sentiments, saying she “deserves nothing but the most tender care.”The yard of the Yates home filled with gifts and condolences. A sign said, “I am a ‘stay at home’ mother of 3 . . . I pray for strength for you and your wife and family.”
The sympathy directed toward Yates led me to wonder: Would a man who murdered his five children receive such sympathetic understanding? Male family slaughterers are often traditionally masculine counterparts to Yates’s traditionally feminine full-time homemaker. Sober, faithful husbands, they pride themselves on being providers for their wives and children. When such men suffer sudden financial reversals, through the loss of a job for example, they can decide that their families would be better off dead rather than dependent on an inadequate provider. This is similar to the warped thinking that apparently motivated Yates when, believing that her children had been irreparably harmed by her maternal inadequacy, she held their heads under the water of a bathtub.
However, when such a distraught man kills his kids, he is supported by no long line of men regaling the public with the horrors of unemployment, the frustration of futilely looking for a job, and the devastating depression that can result. Few commentators suggest that he killed, even in part, because of a “demanding” wife. Articles do not appear suggesting that mass murder is the end result of the sometimes overwhelmingly stressful demands of being a family breadwinner.
Let’s suppose a scenario even closer to the Yates case were to occur with genders reversed. A stay-at-home-Dad killed his several small children. We would be deluged with essays advocating that we reconsider whether men are appropriate full-time caregivers for youngsters. Other SAHDs would rush to distance themselves from the killer rather than express sympathy for him. It is unlikely magazines would publish letters urging “tender care” for a mass killing Dad whether breadwinner or fulltime caregiver. Class bias as well as gender prejudice may play a role in public reaction to Andrea Yates. Prior to perpetrating this horror, she appeared a wholesome “soccer mom,” a suburban middle-class stay-at-home mother with a breadwinning husband. Would a mass murdering welfare mother, prostitute, or other woman at society’s margins occasion this outpouring of sympathy? I believe not. If Yates were a man or a poor woman, our sympathies would completely flow where they ought to in this case, to the true victims – the brutally killed children.
6 Comments:
Bravo!
Andrea Yates was convicted of murdering her children.
She chased them down as any predator does it's prey.
The tragic tale told by the wet footprints of the eldest, a 7 year old boy, running repeatedly through his home and hiding from his mother not once, not twice, but three times, as she kept forcing his head under the water and he escaped not once, not twice, but three times, is horrific enough.
Yate's own testimony of the poor boy crying, 'No, Mommy, no! Why, Mommy, why? Please, Mommy, please, no!' should put to rest any doubt or question as to her guilt.
The other question is of her motivation, 'sane' or not.
She murdered her children not because she felt sorry for them, but because she felt sorry for herself.
She deserves no more sympathy than any male monster who acts so against innocent children.
fry the bitch...
Court testimoney clearly showed that Andrea Yates was psychotic. The verdict turned on whether she understood the nature of her actions. Parke's testimoney indicated that she got the idea from a television show which would bolster the theory that her action were grounded in reality and self interest. His testimoney proved to be inaccurate. Therefore a new trial was warranted. Many of the comments and articles on this site feed the false belief that men are moronic violent fools.
"When such men suffer sudden financial reversals, through the loss of a job for example, they can decide that their families would be better off dead rather than dependent on an inadequate provider. This is similar to the warped thinking that apparently motivated Yates when, believing that her children had been irreparably harmed by her maternal inadequacy, she held their heads under the water of a bathtub."
Yates was psychotic, not simply "disraught and depressed." She, unlike the hypothetical husband was suffering severer postpartum depression WITH psychosis (caused by a severe swing in female hormones from many back to back pregnancies) and as a result, she had no ability to realize her actions were wrong despite the jury's errant conclusion that she was aware.
(This error is based on a letter of the law interpretation of her confession and actions without consideration to the larger picture of the psychotic scripts guiding them. For instance, Andrea called the police in effort to fulfill the requirement of her suicide which, according to something her twisted preacher told her, would be better for the eternal destiny of her children. She did not call the police out of guilt, a knowing what she did was wrong. In her psychotic religious thinking, the state would execute her to drive Satan from the earth.)
Andrea was more than simply "distraught and depressed."
So new mothers shouldn't be allowed to be primary child care provider because they could hypothetically be suffering from postpartum depression! Should they all be locked up?
One thing is for sure. These women should not be allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children on airplanes.
Post a Comment
<< Home