(Trigger warning)
This Monday, Otty Sanchez murdered her child and then attempted suicide, claiming the devil had commanded her to do it. It was a gruesome act of cannibalism. Police reported that every officer was silenced by the scene. And while this was a tragedy beyond comprehension for most people, the act’s similarity to Andrea Yates’ 2001 murders and the media’s response imply a larger problem. Why does the media fetishize women cracking under pressure?
Andrea Yates
There is an undeniable similarity to Andrea Yates’ infanticide in 2001. Like Sanchez, Yates claimed the devil compelled her to drown her five children. Both lived in Texas, Yates around Houston and Sanchez in San Antonio. And like Sanchez, Yates had a nervous breakdown and was hospitalized for psychiatric reasons twice, then diagnosed with postpartum psychosis within a year of the killings.
Yates stands out for feminists because when she married, her newly adopted religious beliefs included the Quiverfull movement:
“As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man;
so are children of the youth.
Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them”
Psalm 127:3-5
Members of the Quiverfull movement abandon contraception, natural or otherwise, and procreate as much as nature will allow. Prior to the deaths, Yates experienced criticism from her church and family that she was not an adequate mother in the eyes of God. She claimed it was this that drove her to kill her children, the belief that her spiritual failure had spread to her children, who would by extension never be saved.
Otty Sanchez’ story is reminiscent of this; the week of the killing, she had a nervous breakdown for which she was hospitalized and released. Then, her boyfriend’s family also called the police about alleged child negligence on her part for failing to use a car seat. Forbidden from driving upon threat of calling the police again, the boyfriend’s family allowed her to return to their house. Sanchez was heavily reliant on her sister for help with the child at this time.
It’s possible that the pressures on these women, religious, familial, and otherwise, expedited their breakdowns. Though Sanchez was additionally diagnosed with schizophrenia and quit taking medication, the parallels between the situations suggest an underlying problem of women being pressured to choose motherhood regardless of their well-being.
Also, postpartum psychosis affects 1/1000 mothers, while less-severe postpartum depression affects 1/10. Sanchez had ceased taking medication for her schizophrenia, while her boyfriend still took medication for his. This increased her risk for postpartum psychosis by 50%.
Here, the “devil made me do it” connection is strengthened. Richard Pesikoff, a psychiatry professor at the Baylor College of Medicine, gave the following testimony in Yates’ trial:
“Postpartum psychosis is far rarer, affecting only about one woman in 1,000. Women with postpartum psychosis have delusions, frequently involving religious symbols and a desire to harm their newborn.”
Watching Eve Fall
The American media already has an unhealthy obsession with unhinged women. Reality shows glorify women “cracking” or “breaking,” getting in fights and losing control of their emotions. This is inherent to everything from Jerry Springer to Fox’s upcoming reality TV adaptation of the 1988 film, “Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown. ”
Furthermore, even lightweight shows like Nanny 911 or Wife Swap put women under extraordinary scrutiny and encourage them to be suddenly self-critical of their parenting. This perpetuates the idea that there is just one effective parenting style. The larger theme of all these shows, of course, is that women are unpredictable and crazy. And while an underlying cause of this was the lack of adequate schizophrenia medication, Sanchez’ diagnosis of postpartum psychosis is instead chalked up to the mythical power of “hormones” to turn the kindest woman into a raging monster.
One question is, “Were Otty Sanchez a man, would his media coverage be the same?” I can speak for my local paper of 17 years, the Sacramento Bee, that Otty Sanchez made the front page on Monday with a headline with the phrase “Eats Brains,” which they later changed to “Child dismemberment.” And how common is front-page coverage of a man killing his child ? It would possibly make it into the B section, titled “Metro”- just for local news.
The mainstream media mirrors the grisliness in shows like “Law and Order: SVU,” furthering a desire of viewers to watch women as criminals. There is an American fetish for building unattainable standards for women, and watching as women fall short and blame themselves . This includes beauty, career, sexual, spousal, and parenting standards. Just as tabloids satisfy the desire to see other women’s flaws, (“Celebrities without makeup! You’ll never believe her cellulite!”) there’s a desire to tear down mothers as crazy. Furthermore, I would argue that this dates back past reality TV, past women being thrown in asylums, to the story of Adam and Eve that underlies the understanding of interactions between men and women today —audiences and the general public want to see women experience guilt and punishment for not measuring up.
Who’s to blame for Sanchez ceasing to take medication? Did she feel it was stigmatized? Did she lack the money or insurance to pay for it? Was she under religious as well as familial pressure? Did she feel her diagnosis was dismissed as trivial? Was there any way to prevent this?
I don't think she is an anomaly, and I think the media's glorification of the failure of women is a symptom.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Otty Sanchez and Watching Women Fall.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15219
1. You do realize that women are more likely to kill their children than men are, right?
2. I'm pretty sure that if a man killed AND ATE his children, it would be a front-page story. Parents kill their children all the time and it's not a media spectacle. Parents eating their children? Much rarer, hence more news-worthy.
I would assume point 1 has something to do with the fact that women continue to do most of the child care duties...? That's a hell of a lot of hard work, and it surprises me that more people don't have some sort of emotional or mental problems with all that work and (sometimes) lack of support.
"I would assume point 1 has something to do with the fact that women continue to do most of the child care duties...?"
Yeah, wouldn't it make sense to adjust for hours of access to child, like the way vehicular accident rates get adjusted for miles driven?
It probably is about the same, the statistic is 63% vs. 37%. My point is that the OP was acting like the media fetishizes very rare cases of women murdering their children, and making a "what about all the men who murder their children" argument.
If it's more rare for men to murder their children, you'd think the media would make a bigger deal out of that. Dog bites man. But they don't.
Reminds me of this:http://current.com/items/89921166_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-snapped.htm
Yes!!!!!!! Yes. Exactly what I meant.
Wow, the comments on the article linked in the post are pretty bad stuff...
Cannibalism.
I know it's fucked up, but the two most persistent taboos are incest and cannibalism. Any story involving either is interesting.
You simply cannot compare this with anything other than cannibalism cases, in which case I refer yo to the Dahmer case. Want to make a cash wager now as to which one of those gets more media attention over a five or ten year period?
Yeah infanticide is pretty interesting, and that will give this story some front page time but any long life this story has if going to be due to the cannibalism factor.
Yes, I think this is accurate. The focus on this case really doesn't seem to be "mother kills and eats her infant child," so much as "mother kills and eats her infant child."
And while I think that it is absolutely fair to theorize that "[i]t’s possible that the pressures on these women, religious, familial, and otherwise, expedited their breakdowns," I don't know that the bulk of the responsibility in cases as extreme as this can be assigned to anything other than an extremely disordered mindset on the part of the killer.
But in this case you also have the "what a horrible mother" shtick added in, and that always garners a good deal of attention on its own.
I'm not sure what you mean by the media "fetishizing" this woman? (Or Andrea Yates.) I've been following the story with interest due to my own schizoaffective, and the reactions to her crime seem to be shock, horror, and sadness. How do you feel it ought to be reported on?
Also, regarding the "what if a man did this" question, here in New York at least, men who horrifically kill children make the front page news. Cesar Rodriguez and Joel Steinberg both come to mind.
"Who’s to blame for Sanchez ceasing to take medication?"
Also regarding this, outpatients are notorious for not taking their meds. Some don't want to deal with the side effects. Another common thing goes like this-medication works, patient feels better. Thinks "Ah, I feel so much better now, I don't need this stuff anymore!" I've done it myself, I can totally understand.
As a psychologist in Australia, i see similar things happen here with regard to people with schizophrenia ceasing medication and becoming very unwell, often very quickly.
Is it possible that she went off the meds because of being pregnant? I can easily see a woman going off her meds for fear of what effect it might have on her child--hell, sometimes it's recommended.
Yes. This scenario seems very likely.
I was watching the news earlier as they showed the boy's father. He was saying that hours before the incident, Sanchez was telling him that she wouldn't allow him to raise their son. He continued to mock the idea that the devil had told her to do something, as if she were a perfectly sane woman who had thrown that out as logical motivation. The real crime is that a child is dead and a woman is placed in an impossible position from which to recover because her family and support system did not want to get real about her mental health needs. The saddest part is that Otty Sanchez will have to go on living her life while her family casts her aside as evil or un-motherly as she mourns the death of her child.
I have to disagree. While I do feel some degree of sympathy for Sanchez, I don't think that the saddest part of this is that she will have to "go on living" while being "cast aside as evil or un-motherly." I think that the saddest part of this tragedy is the unspeakably horrible death of the child.
I completely agree. Let's not forget who the real victim is - the child.
So there can only be one real victim? Seriously? Is this still a feminist space?
I find it disgusting that you are defending a murderer. There are A LOT of women in similar situations who do not kill then eat their children. I actually live in San Antonio, and I can assure you there isn't any over-emphasis on the "bad mother" part. The crime itself is simply heinous and is being treated as such. Why are you so quick to defend her for her wretched, horrible acts simply because she is a woman? That is taking feminism to a level of idiocy that demeans anyone who identifies themselves as feminist.
I apologize, and will drop the feminist label immediately, for the sake of your comfort and peace of mind.
I am not defending a murderer. I think this situation is far from black and white and requires a lot of thoughtfulness and concern for the complexity of the situation. This woman was in the grip of a mental health problem, and experiencing delusions. According to our legal system, you cannot commit a crime under these conditions, because you have to understand the crime you're commiting and freely choose it. If you believe the devil was telling you to do something, then you're not coherent or competent enough to commit murder. I agree that if she had calmy commited this act in a clear state of mind this would be a horrible murder. As it is it's a horrible tragedy, and she is among the victims.
However, if you wish to retain the feminist label for your self-righteous ass, I suggest you start factoring in the systemic pressures on women and other marginalized bodies, the construction of motherhood and mental illness in our culture, the lack of real support and care that so many women experience in motherhood and mental illness, and the way we view people as so much disposable garbage once they have committed a crime. In my mind, feminism is a form of humanism, and your approach is neither feminist nor humanist.
Explain to me, in detail, how pressure from society exempts anyone from murdering a baby then eating it. There isn't any excuse for her actions, regardless of how she was treated or if the devil was telling her to do it. Again, you're simply manipulating the facts to support a murderer simply because she happens to be female.
I am neither supporting a murder nor "exempting" her from it. My comment indicated that the legal system in our country exempts those who are mentally ill from the capacity to commit crimes. If you have a problem with that, then you need to take up your beef elsewhere. But please don't attribute things to me that I haven't said. I view this as a tragedy on many levels. One of those is the horrible death of the child. Another one is the circumstances that this woman found herself in. Acknowledging that she was in a fucked up situation does not amount to dismissing the tragedy of this child's death. It just doesn't, no matter how compelling that false dilemma is to you.
And in the future, before you start falsely attributing things to me that I never said, please provide quotes.
"So there can only be one real victim?"
This implies the mother is a victim. Defend this statement in the context of her child being murdered. If you do in fact defend her in any way, that essentially gives her a pass.
No, it doesn't. There are many ways a person can be a victim.
Brad: A child soldier in Liberia kills a family. They are victims of his violence, while he is a victim of the tumult that caused his "recruitment". Is it excusable? No. But the underlying problem is that we need to end the use of child soldiers. It's analagous to this.
"Brad: A child soldier in Liberia kills a family. They are victims of his violence, while he is a victim of the tumult that caused his 'recruitment'. Is it excusable? No."
Very good points!
"But the underlying problem is that we need to end the use of child soldiers. It's analagous to this."
Yes, we do need to understand both underlying problems, but I'm not so sure they're analogous. Some societies still approve of the use of child soldiers and let their armed forces (whether formal or irregular) recruit them. Do any societies still approve of the use of human children as food for human adults, or has this underlying problem already been solved?
I don't think you get the analogy here. Sanchez is being compared to a child soldier, where responsibility for actions is concerned.
I'm not sure how to communicate this to you, as you seem to be either very sheltered and naive, or just unwilling to listen and have an open mind. But here's an example of what I mean when I say that a person can be both a victim of a situation and the perpetrator of terrible violence at the same time.
Many events in history have demonstrated that people can be induced to do terrible things in the right circumstances. Good people, who seemed to be compassionate and thoughtful people in other cirmcustances. Take the situations people find themselves during wartime, or in prison, for example. Brainwashing and mind-altering drugs have also had this effect on people. Heck, look at the Stanford prison experiments or the Milgram experiments. No matter what our cultural mythology says about inherently good and bad people, the evidence shows that anyone is capable of performing horribly violent actions given the right set of circumstances. And it's uncomfortable to think that, because we're accustomed to the idea that every action you undertake, in any situation, is an unquestionable sign of your character. Our cultural mythology also includes the idea that once a person has commited a deeply unethical act, s/he is irretrievably damaged and not fit to live. So I understand that these are the ideas that you've internalized via our culture. But feminism and humanism question these ideas, partially on the basis of the evidence I've mentioned above, and partially on the basis of valuing each human life in and of itself.
So when I say that it seems likely that this woman is in some way a victim of the situation she found herself in, that does not amount to my saying that the death of the baby is not tragic or horrible, or that she is in no way repsonsible. It's simply not all or nothing here. I also don't think that those who are captured and used as child soldiers in various military conflicts are entirely responsible for the horrible atrocities they commit, although I do think they probably will need close supervision and extensive rehabilitation after the fact. So in this case as well, denying their sole responsibility does not amount to viewing them as entirely innocent or advocating that they go free. They are victims or the situation and perpetrators of crime. Get it?
Yes. THIS.
Blah blah blah. Excuses for a murderer.
Blah blah blah Brad.
If you do in fact defend her in any way, that essentially gives her a pass.
For real? That's absurdly oversimplified. No wonder you don't understand this discussion.
I cannot fathom how murdering and eating an infant can be declared "far from black-and-white". Would you make a similar declaration about a mentally-ill husband that killed and ate his wife or daughter? What if he was REALLY oppressed? I seriously doubt it. You'd call him what he was -- a detestable murderer, domestic terrorist, and cannibal. You would likely place him among the lowest life-forms on this planet.
There is simply no amount of mental illness or systematic oppression which can excuse her actions, or make her actions justifiable, understandable, or in the least bit "grey". This is black-and-white if it ever existed.
There is a point at which a person -- male, female, mother, father, whatever -- must be responsbile for his or her own actions. Her guilt is of her own doing. My sympathy will be reserved for her victims -- both the infant, and those who loved him (or at least loved him enough not to kill him and eat his remains).
kbz
Would you make a similar declaration about a mentally-ill husband that killed and ate his wife or daughter?
Yes, I would. Thanks for speaking so eloquently for me though. Surely you know better than I what I myself believe.
If you're actually interested in my take on this, please read the rest of my comments here. I don't feel like repeating myself. Pay special attention to what I say about not having to think that someone is either entirely responsible or not responsible at all. Pay attention also to what I say about how a person can be both a victim of their circumstances and commit a horrible act of violence. Then you just might be qualified to speak on my behalf.
"I cannot fathom how murdering and eating an infant can be declared 'far from black-and-white'. Would you make a similar declaration about a mentally-ill husband that killed and ate his wife or daughter? What if he was REALLY oppressed? I seriously doubt it. You'd call him what he was -- a detestable murderer, domestic terrorist, and cannibal. You would likely place him among the lowest life-forms on this planet..."
OTOH, I've seen oppressed men who still hurt their daughters get pitied too, like here.
Actually, the general rule is that, if the devil tells you to do something and you do it, you are responsible, but if God tells you, you may not be.
Holy crap Brad,
She was most likely PSYCHOTIC when she committed the crime. Psychosis tends to make people unable to be responsible for their actions, given that they are experiencing hallucination and or delusions.
Why are you so quick to assume that a woman would only defend or speak on behalf of another woman because she is a woman?
Sexist much?
Imagine having to live with that once you were back on medication and thinking clearly. Try to imagine it for a minute.
I am taking you seriously, and I have sat here and tried to do just that. I can hardly imagine it.
But frankly, hypothetical thoughts about how crushingly guilty and horrible I would feel if I did something so terrible are just not enough to move me to pity for someone who actually did such things. Murder and cannibalism should make you feel guilty and horrible.
I guess I think these are compatible. I do believe she should feel guilty and horrible, but that doesn't mean I can't feel a great deal of pity for her. It's not either/or. It's both/and. I am privileged in that I have never had mental health issues and was able to adjust to parenting and to have a good relationship with my kids. But I acknowledge that not everyone is as privileged in this way, and I feel a lot of empathy for her, even as I am horrified by the tragic way her baby died. I don't have to choose. I can feel both things at the same time.
Right, and my point was not necessarily to elicit pity for Sanchez-- more, to examine why America is fixated on watching women snap, and then is surprised when they do.
Imagine how that baby felt. Imagine how the father felt and will always feel.
The original post and most of these comments from you about your empathy for this "poor victim" are completely outside the realm of reality.
I'm no longer surprised or even discouraged by ignorance and hatefulness in this "feminist" forum. Educate yourself about psychosis and schizophrenic delusions, and then perhaps we can talk.
There's always been a gender-biased way of treating any mental illness really. (ie, women are hysterical and neurotic while men are suffering geniuses. etc) but really, there are so many factors at play here it'd be difficult to sincerely blame any one thing. it's awful and disgusting and there's of course always a morbid fascination with grotesque death.
A lot of the comments on this thread are profoundly depressing to me. I wonder how many of the commenters here have ever been at home alone with a newborn, even in a perfect state of mental health. I can completely understand how caring for children alone under the pressure and isolation that our culture places on mothers would send someone with mental health problems off the deep end. This story is tragic from every angle, there are multiple victims, mothers don't get the support they need in a majority of cases, and the media coverage of it has been pretty disturbing. I honestly can't see how it's a feminist position to judge and condemn this mother based on the limited info we have on this story. And it's truly depressing how dismissive many of these comments have been.
"I can completely understand how caring for children alone under the pressure and isolation that our culture places on mothers would send someone with mental health problems off the deep end."
While I understand that Sanchez' actions were the result of illness, stress and wretchedly unfair cultural pressures, I still have a hard time not condemning her. The act was just that terrible.
I guess it kind of comes down to whether we feel that there are certain people who are utterly irredeemable, whose actions are so abhorrent that they cannot be forgiven. I think that there are such people, and that (based on what we know of the story) Sanchez is one.
"I honestly can't see how it's a feminist position to judge and condemn this mother based on the limited info we have on this story."
For clarification, are you saying that it is specifically an antifeminist position to do this?
Well then maybe that's the difference between us. I do think that most people are redeemable, especially when they acted in the grip of delusions and mental illness. To commit a crime, a person has to be capable of understanding what s/he is doing and freely choosing that act. It doesn't sound like she was in this case. And I shudder to think of how all of this will seem to her when she is thinking clearly again. In her position, I would commit suicide, but there's no way she'll be allowed that choice in the prison or mental institution where she ends up.
And I'm not sure what good "understanding" the forces behind this does if it doesn't lead to empathy and a mitigation of the judgement levelled at her and a call for systemic change.
As to the feminism question, I don't adhere to a narrow and exclusive definition of feminism, but it's incredibly hard for me to see how a harsh and unempathetic approach can be called feminist. That's not my kind of feminism, anyway.
I also think that most people are redeemable. And I do genuinely try to have empathy for everyone. This just goes past my limits.
"...As to the feminism question, I don't adhere to a narrow and exclusive definition of feminism, but it's incredibly hard for me to see how a harsh and unempathetic approach can be called feminist."
Oh, that one's easy.
There's plenty of empathy here for Scott Wesley Buccholtz-Sanchez. Being a feminist doesn't have to mean being unempathetic for everyone else at the same time. For starters, look at all of us feminists who are harsh and unempathetic about that other mother humiliating, instead of eating, her daughter on the radio over in the comments here.
Meanwhile, what about those posts on this website that both harshly condemn rapists and respect understanding the underlying contexts in order to change the conditions that gave them the idea it was OK to rape?
Are you intentionally trying to misinterpret and misunderstand my words? I was referring to the empathy a person can feel for Sanchez, who did not act or develop in a vacuum.
And incidentally, I also often feel empathy for men who are horribly abused as children and grow up to be sex offenders. I can both feel empathy for them and the fact that their lives were so terribly destroyed by the abuse, and view their actions as terrible. It's not either/or, and people should not be held accountable for the victimization they experience.
Actually, I messed up a bit. One of those sentences should have been "Being a feminist doesn't have to mean being empathetic for everyone else at the same time." I forgot to remove the un- from unempathetic.
to say that unless you have kids / have been home with a newborn you cannot really give a proper comment on someone's behavior to their children is belittling and ridiculous. how many times do we judge people's behavior when they are not exactly like us? i don't need to know a situation intimately to know it was wrong to kill a baby. But overall, i get what you're saying: she's mentally ill and she needed more help than she was getting. FINE. but no amount of being home alone with a newborn makes me have 100% pity for someone butchering that newborn. so i'm going to blame a killer, whoever they are, for being a killer, even if it's ever so slightly.
I wasn't aware that I was asking for anyone to have 100% pity for Sanchez, or to dismiss the death of the child. That's why I referred to it as tragic. All the way around. But as feminists we ought to have at least a little empathy (and my comment was not directed at you at all, by the way) and focus on the systemic forces that lead to these kinds of tragedies. If all we can do is snark about how women kill their children just as often as men and how she shouldn't have gone off her meds and about how she's not a real victim, then I wonder why we retain the feminist label?
Also, I never said that "unless you have kids / have been home with a newborn you cannot really give a proper comment on someone's behavior to their children." I questioned the experience of some of the commenters here because of their complete lack of empathy. If you've had to make the adjustment to being home alone with a newborn and subject to unlimited judgment and pressure from your society for every little thing you do then it seems that you would be more likely to show some empathy in this case.
Also, I never said that "unless you have kids / have been home with a newborn you cannot really give a proper comment on someone's behavior to their children."
No, you didn't say this, but your comment did seem to strongly imply that other posters' presumed lack of experience with parenthood invalidated their opinions on this subject. I don't believe that was your intent, but it did come across that way.
If it came across that way then I apologize. I'm just having trouble understanding why we jump on the conservative judge-them-and-dispose-of-them bandwagon when it comes to this kind of crime, and why there's such little empathy here. Do we only show empathy when the person is similar enough to us, or is in a situation we've also experienced, or is beautiful enough? I cannot imagine what it would be like to experience mental illness to the point that I believed harming my child was the right thing to do. I cannot imagine losing my mental clarity and trying to cope with the world without it. But I'd be willing to bet that it's a miserable experience, and you would experience depthless grief once you had regained the clarity to understand the situation. And with that I am trying to empathize, even though it's so completely foreign from my lived experience. I also think that a feminism that fails to inquire into the social situation and the cultural forces that led up to this event is an impotent and useless thing.
"I cannot imagine what it would be like to experience mental illness to the point that I believed harming my child was the right thing to do."
I think that this pretty much hits it on the head for why I am having such a hard time empathizing in this case. Empathy requires some degree of understanding, and I can't understand Sanchez' actions. I can't even come up with a hypothetical delusional framework wherein it makes sense to kill, mutilate and eat someone.
What I'm left with is just a deep gut feeling that this woman is utterly, totally evil, and that there can be no compassion for her.
Please note that I'm not saying that my gut feeling is correct or proper. I understand that it stems from an inability to empathize, and that that may be a failing on my part. But there it is anyway.
That makes perfect sense to me. And I should clarify that I'm not trying to argue against anyone's actual feelings, but against the claims that some are seeming to make that this is how we ought to respond to it.
That's completely fair.
Thank you for the dialogue. I feel like I'm walking away from this conversation having learned something both about myself and the world.
"...I think that this pretty much hits it on the head for why I am having such a hard time empathizing in this case. Empathy requires some degree of understanding, and I can't understand Sanchez' actions. I can't even come up with a hypothetical delusional framework wherein it makes sense to kill, mutilate and eat someone.
"What I'm left with is just a deep gut feeling that this woman is utterly, totally evil, and that there can be no compassion for her..."
I'm left with just a deep gut feeling that this human being is utterly, totally dangerous to other human beings, no matter if she's evil and/or a second victim and/or not responsible for her actions and/or whatever. After all, the rest of us are in the same species (and category of edibility!) as Buccholtz-Sanchez.
Here's where I'm coming from: I remember seeing comments in another forum years ago about how other mothers who kill their kids shouldn't even lose custody of any of their surviving kids because mothers get stressed and it's so easy to make one little mistake and nobody's perfect and if you don't like that you must be condemning them and making unfair value judgements and blah blah blah (BTW, they didn't give the same benefit of the doubt to fathers and a few of these folks also said motherhood was sacred, as if the same role is both holy for helping children and an excuse for hurting children).
That baffled me.
Leaving a baby alone on the beach below the high-tide line increases the odds of the water drowning the baby. One can recognize that's a dangerous situation for the child without condemning the pond/lake/sea/ocean.
Leaving a baby in a tiger habitat at the zoo increases the odds of a tiger eating the baby. One can recognize that's a dangerous situation for the child without condemning the large cat.
Leaving a baby on train tracks increases the odds of the kid getting run over. One can recognize that's a dangerous situation for the child without condemning a train conductor who wouldn't have enough braking time to spare anyone on the tracks.
Leaving a baby in the custody of someone who, for whatever reason, already ate/beat up/suffocated/baked another small child in his or her custody increases the odds of this child ending up like that child ended up. Can't one recognize that's a situation place for the child too without condemning anyone first?
[First, sorry for the double post!]
"...I think that this pretty much hits it on the head for why I am having such a hard time empathizing in this case. Empathy requires some degree of understanding, and I can't understand Sanchez' actions. I can't even come up with a hypothetical delusional framework wherein it makes sense to kill, mutilate and eat someone.
"What I'm left with is just a deep gut feeling that this woman is utterly, totally evil, and that there can be no compassion for her..."
I'm left with just a deep gut feeling that this human being is utterly, totally dangerous to other human beings, no matter if she's evil and/or a second victim and/or not responsible for her actions and/or whatever. After all, the rest of us are in the same species (and category of edibility!) as Buccholtz-Sanchez.
Here's where I'm coming from: I remember seeing comments in another forum years ago about how other mothers who kill their kids shouldn't even lose custody of any of their surviving kids because mothers get stressed and it's so easy to make one little mistake and nobody's perfect and if you don't like that you must be condemning them and making unfair value judgements and blah blah blah (BTW, they didn't give the same benefit of the doubt to fathers and a few of these folks also said motherhood was sacred, as if the same role is both holy for helping children and an excuse for hurting children).
That baffled me.
Leaving a baby alone on the beach below the high-tide line increases the odds of the water drowning the baby. One can recognize that's a dangerous situation for the child without condemning the pond/lake/sea/ocean.
Leaving a baby in a tiger habitat at the zoo increases the odds of a tiger eating the baby. One can recognize that's a dangerous situation for the child without condemning the large cat.
Leaving a baby on train tracks increases the odds of the kid getting run over. One can recognize that's a dangerous situation for the child without condemning a train conductor who wouldn't have enough braking time to spare anyone on the tracks.
Leaving a baby in the custody of someone who, for whatever reason, already ate/beat up/suffocated/baked another small child in his or her custody increases the odds of this child ending up like that child ended up. Can't one recognize that's a bad situation for the child too without condemning anyone first?
Who's arguing that we should leave other kids in her custody? I'm not arguing that she should go free and untreated, or care for other kids.
Also, I don't get the analogy between the ocean/tiger/train and society. I'm arguing in favor of changes in the cultural forces that led up to this. A society is composed of thinking and intentionally-acting people. An ocean is not.
"Who's arguing that we should leave other kids in her custody?..."
Like I said,
"...comments in another forum years ago about how other mothers who kill their kids shouldn't even lose custody of any of their surviving kids because mothers get stressed and it's so easy to make one little mistake and nobody's perfect and if you don't like that you must be condemning them and making unfair value judgements and blah blah blah (BTW, they didn't give the same benefit of the doubt to fathers and a few of these folks also said motherhood was sacred, as if the same role is both holy for helping children and an excuse for hurting children)..."
"... I'm not arguing that she should go free and untreated, or care for other kids..."
I know, and I'm glad you're not!
Meanwhile, this case reminded me of my earlier online encounter with other people who would argue that she should stay free to care for other kids.
"...Also, I don't get the analogy between the ocean/tiger/train and society..."
It's an analogy
(a) between the ocean/tiger/train driver and individual parent/guardian in whose custody a child dies
and
(b) between being on the the beach/being in the tiger habitat/being on the train tracks and being in that parent/guardian's custody.
But the issue in this forum has turned into whether or not we should have any empathy for Otty Sanchez, how she should be treated, how this case should be treated by the media and others, and whether or not the issues of mental illness and the construction of motherhood are in fact mitigating factors. As such, the comments of those other nameless people in that other nameless forum aren't really that relevant. Unless you think that arguing for my claims is somehow similar to those other claims, which it sounded like from your earlier comment.
"But the issue in this forum has turned into whether or not we should have any empathy for Otty Sanchez, how she should be treated, how this case should be treated by the media and others, and whether or not the issues of mental illness and the construction of motherhood are in fact mitigating factors..."
I wasn't replying to the whole entire forum at once in that comment of mine.
I was replying to part of one of Unequivocal's comments in that comment of mine, and I even quoted which part of that comment of Unequivocal in order to make this fact clear.
"I can't understand Sanchez' actions. I can't even come up with a hypothetical delusional framework wherein it makes sense to kill, mutilate and eat someone. What I'm left with is just a deep gut feeling that this woman is utterly, totally evil, and that there can be no compassion for her."
Then you don't have any idea what mental illness is. And given that you seem intelligent and probably educated, I'm not sure how that could happen.
Want to try? Imagine you are having a dream, and you react in dream manner to dreamlike things such as flying porpoises or cars that turn into crates of soda pop. Then you realize it's not a dream, and you just cut off your foot, or jumped off a building, or danced nude in a fountain in the middle of town with a goat, or cut up your child. FOR REAL.
You were literally unable to tell that what you were doing is wrong or irrational or inappropriate. You responded to things that were not real, that you hallucinated. You responded to beliefs that are not rational, that you would reject out of hand if you were in your right mind.
Now, you may not be able to imagine what it would feel like if this was happening to you. But are you truly unable to believe that it happens? Do you only believe in evil and devils, not mental illness?
If so, go back to the fourteenth century.
It's not that I'm utterly unable to understand or empathize with mental illness. That's not it at all. It's that (as I said) I'm unable to conceptualize even a delusional state of mind wherein the act of murder and cannibalism makes sense or is remotely acceptable, even in the mind of the person suffering from the delusions.
In short, I'm not discounting the fact that Sanchez heard voices, suffered from terrible, debilitating hallucinations or genuinely believed that the devil was telling her to kill her child. I am saying that, in my mind, killing and eating someone (even within the context of some terrifying delusional mindset) seems to indicate not just a mental disorder, but a fundamentally broken moral compass.
I'm not demonizing mental illness here; I'm saying that I believe there was something wrong with Sanchez above and beyond schizophrenia.
I hate to drag out the old trope about "I can't be prejudiced against X, I have a friend who is X," but I do have a friend who is schizophrenic. He is extremely delusional, but even within the context of his hallucinations, he is not immoral.
Mostly good points, but I have one little disagreement:
"'I can't understand Sanchez' actions. I can't even come up with a hypothetical delusional framework wherein it makes sense to kill, mutilate and eat someone. What I'm left with is just a deep gut feeling that this woman is utterly, totally evil, and that there can be no compassion for her.'
"Then you don't have any idea what mental illness is..."
Hold on a second. This statement (this statement I'm quoting above, not the whole forum, not all the rest of what you said) sure seems to lump together all mental illnesses as one monolith.
Isn't it entirely possible for someone who has another mental illness besides schizophrenia, and even got a diagnosis such as bulimia or OCD from a psychiatrist, to not be able to "come up with a hypothetical delusional framework wherein it makes sense to kill, mutilate and eat someone"? That person would still have some idea of what mental illness is (or more accurately, what mental illnesses are) instead of not having any idea.
"to say that unless you have kids / have been home with a newborn you cannot really give a proper comment on someone's behavior to their children is belittling and ridiculous. how many times do we judge people's behavior when they are not exactly like us? i don't need to know a situation intimately to know it was wrong to kill a baby..."
Exactly, just like we don't need to grill a date rape victim for every single intimate detail to know it was wrong to rape her or him.
Of course, I was totally arguing that it wasn't wrong for her to kill the baby. That's exactly what I believe. In fact, I myself get off on killing babies.
I give up.
"Of course, I was totally arguing that it wasn't wrong for her to kill the baby."
Of course not.
preppy was totally arguing in the comment to which I replied in my comment here that:
"to say that unless you have kids / have been home with a newborn you cannot really give a proper comment on someone's behavior to their children is belittling and ridiculous. how many times do we judge people's behavior when they are not exactly like us? i don't need to know a situation intimately to know it was wrong to kill a baby..."
I even quoted it to clarify what I was replying to when I said
"'to say that unless you have kids / have been home with a newborn you cannot really give a proper comment on someone's behavior to their children is belittling and ridiculous. how many times do we judge people's behavior when they are not exactly like us? i don't need to know a situation intimately to know it was wrong to kill a baby...'
"Exactly, just like we don't need to grill a date rape victim for every single intimate detail to know it was wrong to rape her or him."
in response to that part of preppy's comment.
...right...and preppy was quoting me and suggesting that my claim was that it wasn't wrong for Sanchez to kill her baby. Context, Mina. Context.
"...right...and preppy was quoting me and suggesting that my claim was that it wasn't wrong for Sanchez to kill her baby. Context, Mina. Context."
Yes, context. Not mushing together all the talk here into a clump of verbiage.
Again, I was responding to the part of preppy's statement that I quoted. Observe:
"to say that unless you have kids / have been home with a newborn you cannot really give a proper comment on someone's behavior to their children is belittling and ridiculous..."
True, preppy was responding to you, but with a more general statement (beginning with "to say that..." instead of "your saying that...") that is a valid point and does apply to some situations I've seen both online and offline.
"...how many times do we judge people's behavior when they are not exactly like us? i don't need to know a situation intimately to know it was wrong to kill a baby..."
Preppy clarifies the point of that particular comment here. I thought about it, and realized that I could remember another example:
"Exactly, just like we don't need to grill a date rape victim..."
Obviously, if there's a rape victim there's a rapist too, and rapists "are not exactly like us."
"... for every single intimate detail"
This supports the "...don't need to know a situation intimately..." part.
"to know it was wrong to rape her or him."
This supports the "...to know it was wrong..." part of what I quoted Preppy saying. Likewise, "to know it was wrong to rape her or him" is an example of "to judge people's behavior when they are not exactly like us."
>> I honestly can't see how it's a feminist position to judge and condemn this mother based on the limited info we have on this story.
I consider myself a feminist -- though if feminism requires the justification of these actions, then I may have to rethink that.
I can "judge and condemn this [murderer] (I cannot find it within myself to call a woman who ate the remains of her murdered infant a "mother") based on the limited info we have" because that info indicates that she murdered and ate an infant.
No further information is really required to judge that action. I simply cannot contemplate any extenuating circumstances or explanation that could reasonably justify her actions, or additional information that could possibly lessen heinousness of her crime.
kbz
I'm sorry, but where was I justifying her actions? Are you perhaps responding to someone else?
Did you not express understanding that the pressures of being the mother of a newborn may drive a mentally-ill person "off the deep end"? Have you not listed various extenuating circumstances that should supposedly lessen our judgement of this indivudal -- mental illness, pressures of motherhood, systematic oppression, etc.?
I fail to see the distinction between making excuses for the murder/cannibalization of an infant, expressing understanding for the murder/cannibalization of an infant by a mentally-ill mother, and justifying the murder/ cannibalization of an infant.
kbz
It isn't a matter of justifying it. This dialogue (I'm assuming, Rachel) is to call attention to the fact that inadequate resources/care/social pressure on mothers is also a tragedy.
Perhaps these are neither justifications nor excuses. Is your frame of reference really that simple and limited?
I think these are all mitigating factors (which is not a synonym for either "justification" or "excuse"), and reasons why we should not dismiss the case as a story of some horrible monster who is intrinsically evil and ought to be destroyed asap. Instead, these are reasons why we should challenge the way we construct motherhood and mental illness in our culture, the lack of support and the isolation most mothers experience, etc. In other words, I'm rejecting both the option of depicting her as a horrid monster who knowingly and intentionally butchered her child, and the option of depicting her as a perfect and guilt-free person. It is simply not the case that these are the only two options. I realize that our fucked up cultural mythology generally holds these are the only two options, and you've clearly drunk the coolaid, but these aren't in fact the only two ways to approach this situation. So just because I don't think she's a horrible monster that ought to be destroyed doesn't, as you claim, mean I think she's innocent and pure. It just doesn't work that way.
I'm finding it really hard to believe that people aren't even thinking that, perhaps, the cannibalism was not as violent as the killings - occasionally, cannibalism is founded in a deep sense of grief - in some cultures it was part of a funeral ritual for mourners to consume some parts of a deceased person's body.
In fact, the tradition at the time of Jesus was for the people who appointed the King were to drink the old King's blood and eat his flesh to try and consume some of his wisdom.
This black and white thinking - she killed and ATE her infant child and so she must be evil! - reveals that many people find it impossible to even consider the idea that she killed the baby in a psychosis, and then, still psychotic, was torn apart by grief and tried to right the situation.
This might not be what happened. But it COULD have happened. I am not apologising for her, I am not saying that she is not guilty of something terrible. I am simply asking for some consideration and understanding of the topic that isn't frenzied and ridiculously simple.
That's an interesting perspective.
"I honestly can't see how it's a feminist position to judge and condemn this mother based on the limited info we have on this story."
i was responding to this: that you can't judge this woman, and if you do, you can't be a feminist?
anyone that kills will get at least an iota of condemnation from me. people always have reasons/rationalizations of why they hurt and harm other people. this woman is no exception. but i am still a feminist and hold a feminist position that she's a killer and kinda sucks for that.
i didn't say i had no empathy, but i would never let her off the so-called HOOK for dismembering a baby.
In fact, she doesn't have a reason or rationalization for her action, because she wasn't a rational agent at the time. There's a difference between killing someone because they pissed you off or you stood to make money off their death or whatever and killing someone because the devil told you to. A big difference.
In fact, she doesn't have a reason or rationalization for her action, because she wasn't a rational agent at the time. There's a difference between killing someone because they pissed you off or you stood to make money off their death or whatever and killing someone because the devil told you to. A big difference. And I don't recall ever suggesting that we should let he off the HOOK for this. Please quote me rather than attributing things to me that I never said.
HAH. mental illness / temp insanity will, i am sure, be her legal defense's reason for her actions. fine. i totally get it. but that doesn't mean, somewhere in my head, i won't hold her accountable and find her despicable for having butchered a baby. i do NOT accept that she is 0% responsible for the crime.
Again, where did I say that she was 0% responsible for the crime? I don't understand where you're getting this stuff.
We live in a complex world. Situations like this are complicated and have generally gone wrong on a number of levels before an event like this happens. I simply don't accept that I either have to despise and condemn her completely or completely exempt her from any responsibility whatsoever. It just isn't that simple and clear-cut in real life, no matter what you've seen in the movies. I reject the false dichotomy to which you are so intensely dedicated. This was a tragic death and a tragic loss for the other family members, and a tragic event in the life of the mother. It was a failure of the system and the tragic result of untreated mental illness and whatever other social and religious forces that were at play and an action she undertook. It's not either/or, and you can try to force me into one of the narrow options that you perceive in this case, but I reject them both.
Rachel in WY - Word!! I was on my own with two babies and when I got to their first birthday I sighed a huge sigh of relif that I had managed not to throw them out the window.
In the UK there is no support for mothers and equally no support for mental illness.
The law will judge this woman, and if it works fairly then it will take into account everything that Rachel has discussed as they are all very relevant.
Brad, Preppy etc. Get over yourselves and actually listen to Rachel - she is explaining exactly how something like this can happen, and if you were to actively take in this information you couldn't help to feel the same way as she and I do.
Thanks!
"...Brad, Preppy etc. Get over yourselves and actually listen to Rachel - she is explaining exactly how something like this can happen, and if you were to actively take in this information..."
Seems to me that they are actively taking in this information and then thinking about it before responding, instead of just reflexively agreeing.
Unfortunately, this isn't the only time I've seen that kind of dynamic.
Even offline, I know a few people who want to hear nothing but "yes" (or some synonym like "yeah") from the other person during a conversation. If you listen to one of them, actually think about what he or she says, respond with anything but "yes"/"yeah"/"ditto"/"OK"/etc., even if you respond with a detail or example totally supporting his or her point, then he or she will snap back at you as though you're disagreeing and trying to pick a fight right there and then. :/
I'm sorry, but that doesn't really have much to do with this thread. You might re-read Brad and preppy's comments to get a better sense of how this discussion was going, and what earwicga was referring to.
I pointed out your implicit argument that you were essentially making excuses for the mother and that she is a "victim". You then made an explicit argument of the same type. That's unacceptable, in any capacity. There is ONE victim in this crime, the child. No matter what view you hold about psychosis, etc., one person, a baby, was murdered by a murderer. End of story. The mother isn't a victim. If you want to extend the definition of victim to "people negatively impacted by the crime", the father is definitely more of a victim than the mother is. His reaction to her crime compared to her's differs by an order of magnitude.
I really haven't seen any sort of legitimate analysis by you on this subject. You provide no indication that you understand the law, ethical theory and/or semantics. I can only go on your statements, which when closely examined reveal the attitude that Otty Sanchez MUST be a victim simply by virtue of being a woman. That is ridiculous.
Please do not attribut words to me that I never said. Where are the quotes? And if you're too cowardly to address my earlier comments to you, then it seems like we're done here.
I understand what you're saying. In this crime, the baby is the only victim. In the crime of the baby's murder, it is the only victim. We get it.
What we're saying is that the crime did not occur in a vacuum. The crime is not the only thing that we are discussing. We are also discussing the fact that Sanchez did not get treatment for her illness, the fact that nobody took her illness seriously enough to protect her and those around her from it.
She is a victim. A victim of attitudes similar to yours, that hold people responsible for things that are mostly beyond their control.
Ironically, if people started to see mental illness for what it is, things like this would be far rarer.
I really haven't seen any sort of legitimate analysis by you on this subject. You provide no indication that you understand the law, ethical theory and/or semantics. I can only go on your statements, which when closely examined reveal the attitude that Otty Sanchez MUST be a victim simply by virtue of being a woman.
Are you serious with this? Have you actually read any of her comments and responses to you? First, she did explain the law, twice, and accurately. Second, she's explained again and again that a person can be both a victim of a situation and commit a terrible crime. Finally, I haven't heard her say anything about Sanchez being innocent, or this having anything to do with the fact that she's a woman. She was delusional, and that's the thing Rachel has been pointing to over and over again here. Are your reading/comprehension skills really that bad?
"And how common is front-page coverage of a man killing his child ?" [*]
Good question! I don't have the stats, but today I did see "front-page" news.bbc.co.uk coverage linking to a case of a man killing his girlfriend's child at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/8176225.stm and a boy killing his babysittee at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/8175882.stm . OTOH, this website changes its home page's headlines faster than daily papers can change their front page headlines. Even some newspapers like The Boston Globe rotate headlines on their web sites' home pages faster than they print new headlines on paper.
Getting back on topic, I also wonder how common is front-page coverage of killings of other children. Would Scott Wesley Buccholtz-Sanchez and his death have received more coverage if he had an Anglo name instead? Would it have received less coverage if he was a girl or intersex child instead?
"...This includes beauty, career, sexual, spousal, and parenting standards..."
Don't forget the cooking and other meal-preparation standards subset of spousal and parenting standards!
Meanwhile, I'm wondering what the hell kind of cultural pressures both pressure someone to be "perfect" in the kitchen too and don't pressure her to know what said culture considers food and considers not food. As Michael Pollan said in The Omnivore's Dilemma : A Natural History of Four Meals, chapter 16, section 3 "The Anxiety of Eating," in 2006:
...Guided by no natural instinct, the prodigious and open-ended human appetite is liable to get us into all sorts of trouble, well beyond the stomachache. For if nature is silent what's to stop the human omnivore from eating anything—including, most alarmingly, other human omnivores? A potential for savagery lurks in a creature capable of eating anything. If nature won't draw a line around human appetite, then human culture must step in, as indeed it has done, bringing the omnivore 's eating habits under the government of all the various taboos (foremost the one against cannibalism), customs, rituals, table manners, and culinary conventions found in every culture...[* BTW ariel, I didn't forget the link that you included and totally belongs in the quote! I left it out because otherwise this comment would have 3 URLs and get stuck in the spamblocker, and of the 3 links the one that belongs here is already on the page.]
For those having trouble understanding the experience of psychosis please read this
http://www.chovil.com/story.html
perhaps it will make empathising with Otty a bit easier. Please also take the time to seek out other information about what it is like to live with a mental illness that causes psychosis.
I have working with many people who have schizophrenia, from acute unwellness to recovery. They are ordinary people, like you and I, but who happen to have an illness that makes distinguishing whats real and whats not impossible at times.
I have great empathy/sympathy for Otty, and for her child. When Otty is well again, I'm sure she will feel tremendous guilt for what she has done whilst unwell. I hope she gets the support she needs to stay well.
This comment has been deleted because it violates our comment policy.
That's about the most offensive and dismissive thing I've heard yet. Your ignorance about mental illness is your own business, but when you stoop to saying such hateful things in a forum like this, it becomes inexcusable. Your privilege is making you into an ableist asshole. Not cool.
"That's about the most offensive and dismissive thing I've heard yet. Your ignorance about mental illness is your own business, but when you stoop to saying such hateful things in a forum like this, it becomes inexcusable..."
So abstract explanations of a possibility, like
"...To commit a crime, a person has to be capable of understanding what s/he is doing and freely choosing that act. It doesn't sound like she was in this case..."
and
"...In fact, she doesn't have a reason or rationalization for her action, because she wasn't a rational agent at the time..."
meet your approval, but giving an example illustrating how that possibility could have happened, like
"'...They are ordinary people, like you and I, but who happen to have an illness that makes distinguishing whats real and whats not impossible at times...'
"Like maybe Sanchez temporarily thought Buccholtz-Sanchez was a hamburger or salad, or temporarily thought they were in the Donner Party?"
is supposedly hateful?
Do you also feel offended and dismissed when anyone else dares mention an example of any other abstaction you utter?
1) Making a joke about this case is like making a rape joke. Please don't compare a newborn who was the victim of this kind of a crime to a salad. I cannot comprehend why you would think that was appropriate or funny. Jesus Christ.
2) If you don't get why that comment was inappropriate, and you believe that making fun of and dismissing the very real and debilitating issues faced by a person that is mentally ill in this way, then there's really nothing I can do for you. You are wallowing in your privilege and acting absolutely hateful as a result, but I doubt there's anything I could ever say or do to make you get it. Your kind of ignorance and hatefulness reaps its own rewards in the end.
"1) Making a joke about this case is like making a rape joke. Please don't compare a newborn who was the victim of this kind of a crime to a salad."
It wasn't a joke at all. Observe:
First, I quoted the part of a comment of Synaa that I was responding to:
"...They are ordinary people, like you and I, but who happen to have an illness that makes distinguishing whats real and whats not impossible at times..."
Then, I thought about what Synaa said in this statement I quoted.
Seriously, what Synna said in this quote is much clearer than the much-vaguer stuff about pressure on mothers in general, mental illness in general, etc.
A-ha! Suddenly I got it!
If something made it impossible for Sanchez to distinguish what's real and what's not at the time, and couldn't distinguish between what was really there and an imaginary "devil" talking to her, then maybe she also couldn't distinguish between Buccholtz-Sanchez was really there and something else that was not really there, such as completely different that is actually safe and healthy to eat.
Hence the second part of my comment, a response to what Synna said and I quoted, in which I guessed a couple of examples of the situation Synna had outlined in the abstract:
"Like maybe Sanchez temporarily thought Buccholtz-Sanchez was a hamburger or salad..."
Buccholtz-Sanchez should not have been food. A hamburger or salad already is food.
"...or temporarily thought they were in the Donner Party?"
Sanchez and Buccholtz-Sanchez were not in a situation where one would die unless she ate the other person. The Donner Party was in a situation in which some would die unless they ate other people.
Now, back to what I made clear I was responding to, Synna's statement "...They are ordinary people, like you and I, but who happen to have an illness that makes distinguishing whats real and whats not impossible at times..."
All I did was guess two possible examples of distinguishing between "whats real" (Buccholtz-Sanchez being right there, Sanchez being in 2009 San Antonio) and "whats not" (foodstuff being right there, Sanchez being in the Donner Party) being "impossible at times."
"...2) If you don't get why that comment was inappropriate, and you believe that making fun of and dismissing the very real and debilitating issues faced by a person that is mentally ill in this way..."
I was not making fun of or dismissing Sanchez's very real and debilitating issue, which Synna showed me could have made it possible for her to think she wasn't eating Buccholtz-Sanchez, in the first place. Of course making fun of and/or dismissing it would have been inappropriate. Good thing that's not what that comment of mine was doing.
"...then there's really nothing I can do for you..."
True, you can't make me a dittohead who forgets that it's OK to think about a statement before responding to it and forgets that there's a 3rd possibility besides a reflexive "yes"/"yeah"/etc. and a hostile response.
Mina, I'm glad my explanation helped break it down for you. Perhaps your analogy wasn't the best, but far be it from me to claim that is not possible that some people have in fact had that type of delusion.
The original post and the other clarifying statements either didn't break it down enough or only addressed the earlier links. For examples:
ariel's statement in the original post, "...Who’s to blame for Sanchez ceasing to take medication? Did she feel it was stigmatized? Did she lack the money or insurance to pay for it? Was she under religious as well as familial pressure? Did she feel her diagnosis was dismissed as trivial?..." only addresses the underlying causes (social pressure, health problems, etc.) -> severe mental illness links in the chain of events. BTW, I actually really like the way she breaks that part down, not just going "society should do something" but implying a clarification of who should do what (the health care system should make itself more accessible, religions and family should stop pressuring women so much, people who dismiss diagnoses of mental illnesses should stop it, etc.).
Brad's statement on July 30, 2009 1:04 PM, "...There are A LOT of women in similar situations who do not kill then eat their children..." specifically addresses the cracking up -> eating Buccholtz-Sanchez link in the chain of events, but does nothing to clarify how that link could have happened.
Rachel_in_WY's statement in response, on July 30, 2009 1:19 PM, gets no closer to addressing the cracking up -> eating Buccholtz-Sanchez link in the chain of events than "...This woman was in the grip of a mental health problem, and experiencing delusions...", which is too vague to clarify it ("delusions" is a lot vaguer than "distinguishing whats real and whats not impossible at times").
Likewise, KBZ's statement on July 30, 2009 4:06 PM (if I include any more URLs this comment will get stuck in the spamblocker), "I cannot fathom how murdering and eating an infant can be declared 'far from black-and-white'..." specifically addresses the cracking up -> eating Buccholtz-Sanchez link in the chain of events, but does nothing to clarify how that link could have happened.
Rachel_in_WY's statement in response to that, on July 30, 2009 4:22 PM, especially "...Pay special attention to what I say about not having to think that someone is either entirely responsible or not responsible at all..." again is very useful for the underlying causes (social pressure, health problems, etc.) -> severe mental illness and severe mental illness -> cracking up links in the chain of events but at the same time says nothing about the cracking up -> eating Buccholtz-Sanchez link in the chain of events.
???
Mina - I have reported the comment below as abuse.
"Like maybe Sanchez temporarily thought Buccholtz-Sanchez was a hamburger or salad, or temporarily thought they were in the Donner Party?"
I would urge others to do so as well.
i have to wonder if the posters here who are calling Sanchez a monster have much experience or knowledge about schizophrenia, and other delusional and/or psychotic disorders such as post-partum psychosis.
The difference between a schizophrenic patient who is on their meds and "stable," versus a patient who is off their meds and completely, floridly psychotic is so incredibly dramatic and one of the most shocking things i have ever witnessed as a physician.
i have seen men walk into the clinic completely calm, on their meds; they're holding a job and keeping up house, they are competent and coherent and clean. I see the same men months later in the emergency room, off their meds, disheveled and smelling of strong urine, screaming about how CIA agents are outside the building trying to kill them, hiding underneath the hospital bed for fear of the man crawling into the window and declaring that as jesus they are being persecuted. Of course, there are no CIA agents, there is no man in the window. There is no one but the patient and his psychosis. All the calm they had before - gone. All the judgement - gone. Dignity - gone. Insight - gone.
Even after a few days of treatment they are literally of a different mind. It is really something else. I used to pooh-pooh a lot of treatment of mental illness as pseudoscience (before I was in medical school and didn't know anything), but nothing convinced me more that these are real medical pathologies than watching the before and after of medical treatment. Not to say that medications are foolproof - this are difficult diseases to treat - but that they can and do make a difference.
While schizophrenia and its related disorders disproportionately affect men, they occur in women as well. Unfortunately, one of the things that can push at-risk women over into an acute episode of psychosis is pregnancy, particularly the post-partum period - for as yet unclear reasons but thought to be related to profound hormonal fluctuations and emotional/mental/physical stress of having a new child.
Now, I want to make it clear that none of this justifies what Sanchez did; no medical explanation, however true, could ever make her decisions the right decisions. She unequivocally committed a horrific crime. That she wasn't of sound mind doesn't make this any less a crime, and the biggest victim here is this poor child.
This is only to provide a possible (and likely) explanation of why she did it. We are trying to understand here, not justify. Actively psychotic patients have very little insight and judgement into what they are doing, and they are at the tyranny of the voices in their head. Her mental illness victimized her, and she victimized her child. Having seen something of this sort of mental illness in patients in the past, I hate to say it, but the sad conclusion of this woman's post-partum psychosis and schizophrenia does not surprise me.
What we *might* be able to blame Sanchez for is not taking her meds and moving along the chain of events that led to the murder. And an appropriate sentence for her would be involuntary commitment, hospitalization, and mandatory treatment for a long, long time. No more autonomy over medical decision making.
I assure you - when she is on her meds again - and has gained some understanding of what happened, she will look at the pictures of her beautiful child and feel regret, guilt, and responsibility for the rest of her life.
She will get exactly what she deserves. Sadly, her child never will. Perhaps if as a society we devote more research and resources into helping and treating the women who suffer from mental illness and their families, particularly in times of great stress - such as during and after pregnancy - we can avoid tragedies like this in the future.
i have to wonder if the posters here who are calling Sanchez a monster have much experience or knowledge about schizophrenia, and other delusional and/or psychotic disorders such as post-partum psychosis.
My guess is no, but they couldn't give a fuck, and are wallowing in privilege to the point that any attempt to educate them is a waste of time. I'm done. (But I appreciate your comment)
I just can't seem to work up a whole bunch of sympathy for a woman who killed and ate her baby. If that makes me some terrrrrrrible person who's wallowing in your favorite buzzword, I don't really care, lol.
Honestly redredrose, I wouldn't expect any differently from you, based on our interactions in other threads. Your approach generally is a tad immature and narcissistic, and I'm not holding my breath expecting any change.
So not being afflicted by mental illness is a "privileged" now..? That IS what you're implying, correct?
As much as there is privilege associated with being male, having white skin, or being heterosexual, there is privilege associated with not being afflicted by mental illness.
People don't get schizophrenia because they've done something to deserve it. They have an unearned disadvantage, and conversely you have an unearned advantage. Hence you're privileged.
I want to like your comment 50 more times. Well said.
a·ble·ism (?'b?-l?z'?m)
n. Discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities
Where there is a disadvantaged group, there is an advantaged group.
Um, yes. Is this news to you? Really? Please describe to me what you've done in your life to deserve mental health. How did you go about earning that benefit? How many hours of your labor have you spent on it?
This ought to be very enlightening.
I don't think Brad intends to respond to you at all, because he probably can't, and prefers instead to snipe at you from the corners...classy.
Ah yes, of course, I am too "stupid" to respond, right?
Anyway, "privilege" specifically means a benefit granted after birth by some form of authority, in contrast with a right, which is inherent. I didn't realize I was being granted anything specific by the government, i.e. mental acuity. In reality, not having mental illness is the norm, the baseline. If you have a mental illness, that means you lack what is normal, by virtue of genetics; you're not being treated differently by some magical agency that dictates who will be crazy and who won't.
You SERIOUSLY need to understand these terms before throwing them around.
The word "privilege" has many uses, as do most words in our language. It's pretty well accepted that in our culture having good mental health is a privilege, because you receive preferential treatment, systemically, over those who have mental health issues. This is the same way "privilege" is used when referring to white privilege, male privilege, hetero privilege, cis privilege, etc. This is very common in both academic and non-academic (i.e. the blogosphere) contexts, and it's amazing that you're not already familiar with this usage.
I'm completely uninterested in whatever meanings you wish to apply to words, I'm going to use the legal meaning of privilege because this discussion is about a legal case. And, no, it's not a "privilege" to have good mental health. That's absolutely ridiculous. Is it is "privilege" to have two working arms and legs, being able to see, hear? If I can tie my own shoe laces, am I some how "privileged"? No, I am simply a normally functioning person capable of every-day tasks. Blind people are disabled, they are not "un-privileged". Unless of course there was some mandated blindness that the government decided to inflict.
Use whatever definitions of words you like but see how well that holds up in court.
Um, many, many people use the word this way. Are you serious that you've never heard it? Really?
And a quick note on how language works: language is a constantly-evolving thing. Dictionaries attempt to capture all the uses of a word, but since language is arganic and dynamic, this is difficult to do. But usage determines meaning over the long term, and new definitions come into existence as a particular usage of a word reaches critical mass. This particular usage of the word "privilege" has been widely accepted for a number of years now. I'm surprised you're not familiar with it.
Calling yourself a "normally functioning" person IS privilege. You're saying that people whose bodies are different from yours are not normal. It is attitudes like this that make it difficult for people who are, to use your example, blind - more difficult than it already needs to be.
"privilege (n) a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all"
I wonder if Rachel realizes that many male sex offenders were abused as children.
Moving past the feminist shock value, I wonder if she realizes that roughly 30% of the inmates on death row suffer from a mental illness.
Are these people worthy of sympathy? Yes. As is Otty Sanchez. However, at the same time, she must still be held responsible in some capacity. A life was lost, and while she may be psychotic, we simply cannot just let it go.
"she must still be held responsible in some capacity.
Really now. How many times is Rachel_in_WY going to need to repeat that she is not advocating that Sanchez not be held responsible? She is advocating that Sanchez be viewed with a degree of empathy, and that people examine the underlying circumstances that contributed to the tragedy.
"Moving past the feminist shock value,"
Maybe this isn't the best site for you.
Yep, I'm done with my attempts at educating people of the realities of mental illness. Thank you Rachel_in_WY for sticking around and re-explaining things, and to Visibility as well.
I'm quite disappointed but somehow not surprised at the attitudes of some of the people in this thread.
This thread is a great example of the stigma and fear associated with mental illness that exists in western society.
We're back to privilege and politically correct discussions now. Rachel was saying pretty clearly how Sanchez is a "victim", which she's not. She has committed a crime. She's the villain, the bad guy. She lost nothing, the baby lost his life. She's a symapthetic criminal, but so was Frankenstein.
I'd ask you to produce quotes where I said those things, but then you'd actually have to read my comments, which doesn't seem to be a particular strength of yours.
You said she was a victim of the circumstances, several times.
I'll repeat it for you so you can misinterpret my comments and call me an idiot (yet again): there isn't any excuse for being a murderer. None. She isn't a victim. She's mentally ill and in a bad situation. So what? That's irrelevant in this case as she murdered a child.
I'm anxiously awaiting another post defending this horrid monster, calling me a buffoon with too much "privilege" because I cannot contemplate murder for any reason, and then a few sock puppets nodding and agreeing because they're incapable of thinking for themselves.
And it's a great example of why so many people have given up on or boycotted Feministing, which is really too bad. =(
Yep, and its also why i often just skim this site for good articles and rarely reply in comment threads.
I'd rather devote my energy to helping people who want it (my job) than attempting to educate people who are clearly not interested.
"Mina, I'm glad my explanation helped break it down for you. Perhaps your analogy wasn't the best, but far be it from me to claim that is not possible that some people have in fact had that type of delusion."
Yes, your explanation is the best because it's so precise! It seemed to me that the chain of events was underlying causes (social pressure, health problems, etc.) -> severe mental illness -> cracking up -> eating Buccholtz-Sanchez
You actually explained the cracking up -> eating Buccholtz-Sanchez link in the chain of events when you said
"...They are ordinary people, like you and I, but who happen to have an illness that makes distinguishing whats real and whats not impossible at times..."
The original post and the other clarifying statements either didn't break it down enough or only addressed the earlier links. For examples:
ariel's statement in the original post, "...Who’s to blame for Sanchez ceasing to take medication? Did she feel it was stigmatized? Did she lack the money or insurance to pay for it? Was she under religious as well as familial pressure? Did she feel her diagnosis was dismissed as trivial?..." only addresses the underlying causes (social pressure, health problems, etc.) -> severe mental illness links in the chain of events. BTW, I actually really like the way she breaks that part down, not just going "society should do something" but implying a clarification of who should do what (the health care system should make itself more accessible, religions and family should stop pressuring women so much, people who dismiss diagnoses of mental illnesses should stop it, etc.).
Brad's statement on July 30, 2009 1:04 PM, "...There are A LOT of women in similar situations who do not kill then eat their children..." specifically addresses the cracking up -> eating Buccholtz-Sanchez link in the chain of events, but does nothing to clarify how that link could have happened.
Rachel_in_WY's statement in response, on July 30, 2009 1:19 PM, gets no closer to addressing the cracking up -> eating Buccholtz-Sanchez link in the chain of events than "...This woman was in the grip of a mental health problem, and experiencing delusions...", which is too vague to clarify it ("delusions" is a lot vaguer than "distinguishing whats real and whats not impossible at times").
Likewise, KBZ's statement on July 30, 2009 4:06 PM (if I include any more URLs this comment will get stuck in the spamblocker), "I cannot fathom how murdering and eating an infant can be declared 'far from black-and-white'..." specifically addresses the cracking up -> eating Buccholtz-Sanchez link in the chain of events, but does nothing to clarify how that link could have happened.
Rachel_in_WY's statement in response to that, on July 30, 2009 4:22 PM, especially "...Pay special attention to what I say about not having to think that someone is either entirely responsible or not responsible at all..." again is very useful for the underlying causes (social pressure, health problems, etc.) -> severe mental illness and severe mental illness -> cracking up links in the chain of events but at the same time says nothing about the cracking up -> eating Buccholtz-Sanchez link in the chain of events.
Oops, I replied to the wrong comment here. :/ Sorry!
"...This thread is a great example of the stigma and fear associated with mental illness that exists in western society."
The stigma and fear associated with schizophrenia that exists in western and other societies, most likely! The stigma and fear "associated with mental illness," maybe less directly?
For all I know, some of the people judging what Sanchez did do have other mental illnesses themselves and were diagnosed with moderate depression, generalized anxiety disorder, anorexia nervosa, and/or something else that's very different from schizophrenia. For one example, for all I know trying to avoid getting figuratively branded by the stigma and fear associated with "mental illness" (that inaccurately lumps together all the different mental illnesses) is why Brad said on on July 30, 2009 1:19 PM, "...There are A LOT of women in similar situations who do not kill then eat their children..." instead of "...There are A LOT of mentally ill people in San Antonio, including ME, who do not kill then eat their children!..."
After all, IRL isn't there far more than one way for the brain to be ill, just as with any other body part?
If you would improve your reading skills a bit you would find that I said this in an earler comment:
I also often feel empathy for men who are horribly abused as children and grow up to be sex offenders. I can both feel empathy for them and the fact that their lives were so terribly destroyed by the abuse, and view their actions as terrible. It's not either/or, and people should not be held accountable for the victimization they experience.
So I'm not really sure why you're making this comment. Incidentally, I also said this:
I guess I think these are compatible. I do believe she should feel guilty and horrible, but that doesn't mean I can't feel a great deal of pity for her. It's not either/or. It's both/and. I am privileged in that I have never had mental health issues and was able to adjust to parenting and to have a good relationship with my kids. But I acknowledge that not everyone is as privileged in this way, and I feel a lot of empathy for her, even as I am horrified by the tragic way her baby died. I don't have to choose. I can feel both things at the same time.
I've always found that carefully reading the comments other people have made before responding to them is one way to avoid looking like an idiot.
Why must I be a troll and/or lack reading comprehension skills simply because I disagree with an ad hoc analysis from an individual who has no apparent expertise in the area? Further, the post on your linked blog (which I read, by the way) paints you to be a critical thinker, and those who disagree with you as essentially morons who lack both intellect and emotions.
The "you didn't read/understand what I said, idiot" defense reeks of pseudo-intellectualism. That's a cop-out I encountered far too frequently in grad school...
Did I call you a troll? I wasn't even talking to you. Jesus. I fail to see how this comment exchange involves you.
I responded to Cank, who said this
I wonder if Rachel realizes that many male sex offenders were abused as children.
Moving past the feminist shock value, I wonder if she realizes that roughly 30% of the inmates on death row suffer from a mental illness.
Are these people worthy of sympathy? Yes. As is Otty Sanchez. However, at the same time, she must still be held responsible in some capacity. A life was lost, and while she may be psychotic, we simply cannot just let it go.
which made it clear that s/he hadn't read any of my comments.
And replying to someone without actually reading what they said is, in fact, idiotic. You don't have to agree with me, but misquoting me and atributing all kinds of things to me that I never said and making up sad little straw man arguments with which to wrestle and refusing to engage in good faith is pretty pathetic. It's certainly not how I learned to do things in grad school, anyway.
I think it's pretty ironic that you accuse someone else of pseudo-intellectualism and then immediately bust out with the fact that you went to grad school. Are we all supposed to have a moment of reverential silence now? Lots of us are in or went to grad school, but that doesn't excuse shoddy argumentation. In fact, it makes it more embarassing, because you ought to know better.
Ironically, from what I know of Rachel from other discussions elsewhere, she has a PhD in Philosophy and teaches Logic and Critical Thinking courses, as well as Women's Studies. And although she's probably too polite to say it, many of us here think you could definitely use a basic critical thinking course. You consistently fail to respond to a person's comments, you make ridiculous and transparent strawman arguments, and the only thing you do use consistently is appeal to fear. That's a pretty consistent FAIL all the way around.
"You must be an idiot because you disagree with us".
No, a person can note that you're acting like an idiot without actually accusing you of being an idiot. You're the only one who's done that - to yourself. The point is that your argumentation skills are sorely lacking, and informing us that you went to grad school doesn't change that. If you wish to engage in an argument, you need to refute the claims of your opponent. You haven't done that yet.
Sorry, an ad hominem is an ad hominem. I have yet to see any legitimate criticism of my comments beyond, "you don't comprehend what I said". Explain to me how you know what I comprehend? I have read the comments and understand them completely. It is not my fault they are based on faulty/non-existent logic. My "argumentation skills" are not lacking whatsoever. I have seen appeal to authority cited (she has a PhD!), biased samples, and a slew of other fallacies presented as legitimate argument, all under the guise of, "well, we're right and you're wrong". I seriously doubt any of you are remotely interested in a legitimate discussion. Seems to me that you're a bunch of parrots who are incapable of free thinking. And, sorry, I've "refuted my opponent" countless times. It's not my fault you're incapable of comprehending that. (I'm not calling you stupid, merely pointing out that your actions are stupid)
Also, the fact that I went to grad school was a throw-away comment meant to point out that all the credentials in the world are essentially meaningless if the content is lacking.
Also, does it bother you that I have higher education? It must. Using the "logic" thrown around during this discussion, my arguments MUST be more valid simply because I have more education, OR education is meaningless and therefore being an "expert" in a field is irrelevant. Which is it? I find it humorous that half the posts on this site are people touting their own accomplishments, e.g. "I'm a 27 year old woman who is beautiful, smart, educated and have impeccable taste in all things. Why can I not get a raise at work!?!"
You're actually not making any sense now. Who said they were 27 and beautiful, and what does that have to do with this post?
I think the education thing is relevant because we generally expect people who are educated to be good at engaging in logical discussions. Most of what you say is either not a response to the previous comment or a completely false paraphrase of what the person actually said. That is an issue that's relevant to this thread.
You're actually not making any sense now. Who said they were 27 and beautiful, and what does that have to do with this post?
Wow, talk about being an idiot (I'm pointing out behavior; I didn't call you an idiot). I provided an example of the type of posting that occurs on this site. It is relevant to the discussion because I was attacked directly for an off-hand comment. *I* have reading comprehension issues..?
I think the education thing is relevant because we generally expect people who are educated to be good at engaging in logical discussions.
No, you expect anyone who is educated to parrot your liberally-minded agenda. You do realize how loaded this statement is, don't you? Surely ANYONE who is educated/intelligent/successful will see it your way, correct? I mean, the way someone else told you to think...
I think it's safe to say that, after reading all the posts and thinking about it a bit, the majority of posters on here have such a slanted view of reality facts are essentially irrelevant to them if those facts get in the way of their perceived world view. That's unfortunate because that makes this board nothing more than an isolated platform full of yes-men and parrots, too frightened to disagree for fear of being branded a heretic/bigot/idiot.
So, if a serial rapist is caught, and it turns out he was psychotic or abused as a child, would you consider him a victim? Would you be in here screaming about how you "have a great deal of pity" for this guy and it's "society's fault" for not having shelters for sexually abused men?
Somehow I doubt it.
For the eightteenth time, if a man is abused as a child and grows up to be a sexual predator, I view him as both a victim of the situation and as the perpetrator of terrible violence. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Well, I suppose you're at least consistent. You'd be the *only* one taking that stance on Feministing, though.
Oh, so now you speak for not only me, but the entire Feministing community? Wow.
Just so you know, one tenet of feminism is allowing people to use their own voice to speak for themselves.
But thanks for actually speaking to me this time, instead of making generalized passive-aggressive comments about me.
Wow, you're not from around here are you?
Or maybe you're just trying to be inflammatory?
In either case, there doesn't seem to be much point in engaging with someone who is either A) so intellectually bankrupt that they genuinely believe that feminists are ignorant of how society victimizes men as well as women; or B) so intellectually dishonest that they're willing to make that same claim even though they know it isn't accurate.
I actually take that stance as well, so Rachel_in_WY is not the only one.
A victim of abuse, mental illness, poverty, and other systemic/emotional/physical disadvantages are victims of those things IN SPITE OF their subsequent or concurrent crimes or misadventures.
A person can be more than one thing at a time. I don't know how many times this needs to be said.
As an example, a child whose parent physically assualts them on a regular basis is a victim. If that same child commits heinous acts against an animal is certainly a perpetrator of violence, but it does not erase the fact that they were abused (insert - have a mental illness).
Can you see now that there is a difference between saying that someone is ONLY a victim, and saying that someone is a victim AND a perpetrator?
This is the only point that I am making.
I can't speak for Rachel, but I agree with what she's been saying in this thread and I can speak for myself. If a person (male or female) commits a crime while in the grips of a psychotic break due to mental illness I absolutely have pity for them.
Case in point: yesterday was the one year anniversary of the Greyhound bus murder. Tim McLean was stabbed to death (in his sleep), dismembered, and partially cannibalized. Vince Li was suffering a psychotic break caused by schizophrenia: he believed McLean was a demon and that God was ordering him to kill "the demon". He dismembered the body because he believed it might come back to life otherwise.
I have pity for Tim McLean, I have pity for his family and everyone who loved him, I have pity for the other passengers on the bus for having to go through such a terrifying ordeal. I also have pity for Vince Li who committed a horrible act, one that there is no reasonable expectation he would have committed if he had been well.
Incidentally Li was found not criminally responsible for his actions. He's being treated at a secure mental facility until it can be assured that he is no longer a danger. His doctors say he's slowly recovering although he's still suffering from delusions, and he cannot yet accept that he cannibalized another human being.
And I think it's telling that we don't hear more about people like Vince Li. As soon as the shock value is gone and it's clear that the person can't be tried for it, nobody's interested anymore. It's another way in which the mentally ill are disposable and viewed as less-than.
Also, if you're at all interested in "what I know" about our penal system and class and mental illness and the amount of sexual and physical abuse that many inmates endured earlier in their lives, feel free to read my blog, where I frequently discuss these things. Or, just keep assuming that I'm ignorant and stupid, as you seem to be doing now. Oh, your passive-aggressive approach of not speaking directly to me is also charming. Nice. Keep up the good work. You give feminism a great name.
Honey, I thought you said you were done.
But it is so hard to ignore idiot trolls!
Of course, "idiot trolls" refers specifically to people who disagree with you, right? No matter how many cogent counter-arguments I provide, I'll be branded a troll simply because I don't think calling a murderer a "victim" is valid. If the father was the murderer in this case, I highly doubt 95% of this rhetoric would be taking place.
Boo hoo - poor little Brad. Are you missing your priveledge - my heart bleeds!
I rest my case. Also, "privilege".
What the hell are you even talking about? He's "missing privilege" because he disagrees with you? Maybe you should step off your knee-jerk buzzword and actually make a worthwhile comment. Idiot.
It's called "ableism," and you might educate yourself on it.
Again- what are you talking about? Brad made the statement "if this was a male, I doubt 95% of this conversation would be taking palce". Whether you agree are disagree is one thing, but earwicga responded with "Is your privilege missing", which strikes me as somewhat moronic. He's missing his privilege because he disagrees with her?
Perhaps you're unsure of how privilege works? I encourage you to educate yourself on privilege and ableism and then we can have this discussion.
If you cut and pasted others' comments you may have a chance of quoting correctly. As it is you are commented on misquotes, which is stupid, or is that the effect you are going for?
"If you cut and pasted others' comments you may have a chance of quoting correctly..."
Yes! Seriously, that's excellent advice for here and everywhere else too.