You know who follows that crap? You know who talks and gossips about it? You know who dubs Lindsay Lohan a tramp? Women. [And gay men.] At the gym where I work out all the guys are listening to iPods while doing cardio. A few of the gals are listening to their iPods, but most are reading trashy gossip mags. Got a complaint about our celebrity culture? Take it to them.

Or just blame the patriarchy.

It's pretty easy to see what's going on in the comments section of this post. Obviously, there are some men who are concerned that women will start claiming post-partum depression in order to escape proper punishment for heinous crimes. The reaction of some of the female commentators, who are quite keen to blame the entire tragedy on a man [any man], in this case, the husband, is bound to only increase the suspicion of many men. Ms Yates murdered her children while her husband was nowhere near the scene of the crime. By any reasonable standard, he is not to blame for the murders. Of course, for those who believe that women are tough, courageous, and independent creatures -- except when it is time to take responsibility for something -- the phrase "reasonable standard" is synonymous with misogyny. Whether or not the nature of the Yates marriage meets the approval of various Salon commentators is not relevant.

I don't know for certain whether Ms Yates was legally insane or not. Neither does the author of the blog post or any of the commentators. The woman received a fair trial and a jury found her not guilty by reason of insanity. Absent some compelling evidence of jury tampering or jury nullification, that should end the matter. Juries are typically filled with relatively sensible men and women who take their duty seriously. If they are satisfied that Ms Yates' mental state at the time of the murders met the definition of insanity, then I'm satisfied, too.

And the men worried about hordes of women using this defense to escape proper punishment for their crimes should relax. As I wrote above, juries are sensible and the usually make good decisions. Despite the moral vacuity of some of the female commentators in this section, almost no jury is going to find a woman like Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity without good reason. We may see a few other women using such a defense in bad faith, but they won't be successful.

This is what justice looks like when people have been murdered. No matter what the verdict, the result is nevr pretty.

It's true! I've got an exciting new theory that's been ignored by the patriarchal mainstream media and if they go on ignoring my theory it will only prove their fear. And their fear proves my theory. Therefore, I demand guest spots on all three network morning programs and at least two late night shows.

Wheeeeeeeee! Scholarmaship is fun!

SANDRA M posted: Yeah, she's the one who drowned them. But no one has trouble blaming the Holocaust on Hitler and he wasn't exactly an employee manning one of the camps. In fact, history has him only (and *maybe*) killing one person. So what about the husband?

REPLY: Hitler is the architect of the Final Solution. The Holocaust was carried out on his orders. He had informed the world on a number of occasions that the fulfillment of his plans included the disappearance of Jewry from Europe. Sandra M, if you have evidence that Rusty Yates planned the murder of his five children and Andrea Yates faithfully carried out this evil plan hatched by her husband, please provide it to the relevant authorities. If you don't have evidence of such, you really ought to be ashamed of yourself. I know you're not and never will be, but you should be.

That's the point.

I generally follow my wife's recommendations when it comes to gift registries. Towels are good, right?

JOANNABK posted: The point being that a sane Mamma would not kill her babies, even if she were mad at them.

REPLY: It's a shame Susan Smith didn't have you on her jury. You could have really helped her blame the murder of her sons on that Random Evil Negro. Or her husband. Yeah, he wasn't anywhere near the scene of the crime, but he should have known she would kill her children, right?

Museum director Daniel Gluck thinks that the sculpture "will stir debate on whether a woman need squelch her sexuality in order to succeed as leader of the free world."

Oh, really? 'Cause I'd be willing to bet Museum Director Daniel Gluck thinks that the sculpture will get him a lot of media attention, hopefully fattening his wallet in the process.

Well, mission accomplished on the media attention part. What do you think is going thru the heads of museum directors who are actually putting on serious and important exhibitions right now? They must be ready to jump out of a window. If they did it while naked it might actually get their museums some media attention.

SHARONP, you don't read very well. Let me assist you. I did not compare Susan Smith to Andrea Yates. I responded to a poster who remarked that Ms Yates HAD to have been insane because no sane woman would murder her children. I pointed out that Susan Smith murdered her children and there is no evidence that she was insane, though I suppose some of the people in here would have cut her a break on that regardless. No comparison between Andrea Yates and Susan Smith was made. This should have been obvious to even the most mediocre of intellects.

Slow down. Calm down. Read better.