I think the gender issues get raised because quite often they are at the heart of the article by the original author. Some authors seize the moment to push their own barrow about issues which have nothing to do with the current news item. It is not what they say but the way they say it which belies their true agenda. If they were more honest and even in their language then we would be more inclined to listen to their arguments. They sometimes try to appear fair but you cannot cover up attitudes of bitterness, resentment and revenge – they just come to the surface unconsciously.

Various OLO posters take sides depending on whether or not they identify with or against the hidden agenda and this distorts the debate that could take place about real social issues even if that was not the intent of the original author. Some posters see through the language of the original author and subsequent comments to rightly criticize the use of a public forum for the pursuit of personal grievances. This is a good thing because it keeps the forum on track to achieve its real purpose which is to try and contribute to the solving of social problems.

It is usually easy to pick what the motivation of any author or poster really is and if it is the wrong motivation then they should expect to be criticized not for their opinions but for their behaviour.

Cornflower:"the woman, who cannot be named, was upset by a marriage break-up and a sudden change in schooling arrangements"

Barbara? Are you there Barbara? Do you see what the gender of this person is?

Sadly, parents of both genders are capable of terrible acts when their breaking point is exceeded.

While the specific issue mentioned seems relatively trivial, the fact that it was "sudden" indicates a serious breakdown in communication between the parents. If it was a change from private to state school, then it probably also indicates financial issues.

If that is enough to drive a mother to this sort of action, imagine how much harder it is for a loving father, who has all of those same issues to face and very probaly also has a spurious claim of violence or child molesting or whatever else the leec..lawyer acting for the mother decides to have a go at. No wonder some of those cases become self-fulfilling prophecy.

What I find quite disgraceful is that this woman was given bail. After all, this was an attempted murder and a self-acknowledged intent to commit arson. I somehow doubt that if the person involved had been the father, rather than the mother, that he would have been so fortunate as to be allowed out of custody. That situation applies because dimwitted knee-jerkers like Barbara have created such an enormous fuss and published so much deliberate misinformation. The even dimmer bulbs in politics naturally listen to the loudest voice and the strident tones of the fishwives like Barbara are hard to ignore, especially when amplified through the uncritical, "grrls can do anything" pages of the women's magazines.

Cornflower

Re the Courier Mail article, I think you're trying to create a gender double standard that isn't there.

Firstly, the article is a poor choice of example as it is very sketchy with the facts and continuity is hard to follow.

For example, if the mother knew the police would be at her home after the McDonalds visit, then she must have 'come forward' either by notifying them herself or by telling someone else who then notified them. (Also, if her 'partner' lives in Sydney, who is looking after the kids? Is the partner the children's father??)

Secondly, even with the confused reporting, the magistrate's decision appears to be fair. He granted bail on condition the woman undergo further psychiatric treatment, that she is to have no contact with her children and she is not allowed to return to Queensland until her next court hearing. I can't see that any magistrate would have acted differently if the defendent were a father.

And for heaven's sake, do you honestly think that a woman (or a man) would try to poison, suffocate and incinerate their kids simply over a marriage break-up and choice of schools? She is clearly disturbed and, unlike many disturbed people, she seems to be taking responsibility for what she has done.

I think the real 'double standard' is in the way the media handled both stories. One was publicly spectacular and the other was not. Had this woman taken her kids to the Storey Bridge and tried to throw them over the side in front of thousands of motorists and onlookers, then the media coverage would have been much the same as the Darcy Freeman case.

"I think the real 'double standard' is in the way the media handled both stories. One was publicly spectacular and the other was not." SJF

I agree with you on this,(shock, horror, James H agreeing with SJF)

The media is not a reliable source for information. Fullstop.

Depending on how the media wishes to respond to a story, they will either beat it up or play it down.

SJF

Sure, either report can provide fodder for speculative gossip, but I am not interested in that. Apart from the usual brief stuff from the police there is no evidence to go on in either case. That is why the OLO article is problematical.

As regards the gender of the perpetrator, I think my concern was clear enough:

"...we are socialised into believing that it is 'impossible' for a woman, much less a mother, to harm children.

It is precisely because it is unthinkable that a woman could harm a child that many women who suspect (or know) they are risks to their children do not come forward for assistance and treatment."

Fact is, the more we dump on men and fathers the harder we make it for women and mothers because they have to live up to an impossible ideal. Our first concern should be the children and getting people to come forward and proactively if possible. Hard to do if mums are supposed to emulate Mary Magdalen.

I honestly think, Cornflower, that you could turn a discussion about Jack the Ripper into a treatise on embattled male integrity.

Women at risk to their children ARE coming forward and seeking help. The chances are, however, that the help they seek is no longer there … because some idiot bureaucrat has cut the funding.

If society is supposed to have trouble believing that women can be violent towards children, then most women certainly don’t. That is why there is so much women’s advocacy to recognise and support mothers under stress – from post-natal depression, domestic violence, financial dependence, limited work options, a history of being abused in childhood, poor communication skills, substance abuse and traditional expectations that women must be the primary caregivers for their children … to name a few.

Unfortunately, the women’s advocacy groups that provide these support services have to fight just to stay alive – not just against government indifference, but against attitudes like yours that assume that any gains for women are automatic losses for men.