chris benoit and the murder/suicide thing

[K9]

If this guy was insane or on drugs or depressed that might be a reason why, but why his whole family and not just himself? Why do men do that?

But then why do the Andrea Yates and that woman in Texas kill their families?

My issue here is look at the Texas murder/suicide thread. Men railed on that woman for killing her kids, never offered an opinion as to why except when it was mean and had no consideration for drugs, hormones, depression etc. Now some guy does it and right away lets defend him? I spit on this guy. No matter how good of a wrestler he was or athlete, he did NOT have to murder two innocent defenseless people. He killed a helpless boy, HIS OWN SON for God sakes. I hope the hottest place in hell is reserved for this freak.

C'mon guys. Apply the same standards. If this was a woman who had killed her kid and her husband would we be posting about why this guy did it and "it was the drugs"? Either bring the hammer down on this guy or lighten up on the women who do this.

The Yates thing wasn't about condemning Yates; it was about the deferential treatment given females as in the media gasping about what could have caused her to do such a horrid thing, yet when men do it, they face the reaction you have shown. Sympathy and wonder for women, disgust for violent evil men.

If we are to treat the cases the same, then we also need to wonder what would cause a loving, caring father to do this. Was it steroids? What could have caused him to use steroids? Perhaps it was a gold digger wife who demanded more and more, or maybe it was the self applied pressure to out-perform other contenders.

Any condemnation of Yates was probably an understandable knee-jerk reaction to the media spin.

[neonsamurai]

C'mon guys. Apply the same standards. If this was a woman who had killed her kid and her husband would we be posting about why this guy did it and "it was the drugs"? Either bring the hammer down on this guy or lighten up on the women who do this.

I'm not defending what he did Mr X, but I just wonder what it is in the male psyche that leads to the death of an entire family and not just themselves. Why do that? Women seem to kill their kids and then not themselves, but with men it's maximum body count. Does anyone know why? Is it like Tony says, and they know what they've done is abhorent and will be held accountable?

[Mr. X]

Phil Hartman's wife killed herself after shooting him.

[Mr. X]

The Yates thing wasn't about condemning Yates; it was about the deferential treatment given females as in the media gasping about what could have caused her to do such a horrid thing, yet when men do it, they face the reaction you have shown. Sympathy and wonder for women, disgust for violent evil men.

Well I think its fine to BOTH condemn these people but also try and find out why this happened. Yes you're right the attitude with Yates was one of "something must be wrong cause women never do this" and she got off. Same with Winkler. Winkler shot her husband in cold blood.

But my point is the board appears to condemn Winkler, Yates and the woman in Texas for their crimes. We should also condemn this guy as well. Actually, if women's groups do want to cry about DV, THIS is a grand example of DV. Same with OJ and now apparently with Stone Cold and others. I don't want men to suffer in silence and I don't want women to suffer either. Its not about shutting women up but about allowing BOTH parties to tell their stories and for people to see both sexes abuse. Phil Hartman's wife killed him then herself.

But I personally do not want to play some double standard game of denouncing people like Yates, Winkler etc then treating this guy the same way women treat Yates. Bad is bad.

[shard43]

But I personally do not want to play some double standard game of denouncing people like Yates, Winkler etc then treating this guy the same way women treat Yates. Bad is bad.

I fully understand your point and where you are coming from.

I will show my support to a woman accused of murdering when society as a whole stops giving murderers the royal treatment based on their sex.

I will denounce a man accused of murdering when society as a whole stops trying to criminalize masculinity. When society stops saying "women good, men bad."

[neonsamurai]

Here's an article dealing with similar cases to the Chris Benoit one, namely in that a father murdered his wife and kids, and reasons why this sort of thing may happen. This is taken from the Observer/Guardian (so feel free to be as skeptical as you like) and the highlights are mine:

Fathers who kill their children

In the week when one father murdered his four children, and another was jailed for life, Lorna Martin investigates the motives and twisted minds of the men Americans call 'family annihilators'. Are they driven by hatred, revenge or mad, possessive love?

Sunday November 5, 2006
The Observer


Sarah Heatley sits in the warm kitchen of her East Midlands home while her son, George, plays in the room next door on his computer. Her cat is curled up on the cooker and her dog is asleep at her feet. In a cabinet behind her there are numerous framed photographs: of her completing London marathons; of George, who is 11; of her parents, her twin sister and her nieces and nephews. At first glance, it could be any typically proud family. But then you remember the two people who are missing - her son, Jack, and his older sister, Nina.

'It is the only room in the house where there are no photos of them,' Sarah, a 42-year-old nurse, explains. 'Because I need one place where I can laugh, if I want to, without feeling guilty.'
It is almost 13 years since her husband, a GP, killed their children. Jack was three and Nina four. He strangled them with a pyjama cord and wrapped their bodies in duvets, before placing them in a cellar. When their mother went to identify them in the mortuary, their faces were still stained with traces of her lipstick which they'd been playing with earlier that day.

The day before he killed his children, he videotaped them, responding to his questions about whether they wanted to 'stay with daddy' and whether they agreed that 'mummy was bad'.

On police advice, Sarah never watched it, but she believes he intended to leave it for her as some sort of justification for his actions. His body was found hours later at the foot of a block of flats.

'Even now, everywhere I look, there are reminders of them,' she says. 'Earlier this week I heard a little boy saying "Mummy" and I just burst into tears. I just heard that sweet two-year-old baby voice, and I saw this angelic, totally innocent little boy and I thought it could've been Jack.'

Of all violent crimes, those where a parent takes the lives of his or her children are the most baffling. Most parents would die to protect their child. So for a mother or father to look at their son or daughter, perhaps hear their cries, and see their uncomprehending faces, and kill them, is almost too abhorrent to think about. They must have snapped, lost their mind in a moment of madness or insanity, is the most common and convenient explanation.

It isn't surprising that we tend to recoil in horror at such tragedies and seek comfort in the belief that they are isolated incidents, senseless - and, as a consequence, impossible to avert. But the truth may be slightly less palatable. Although rare, figures show that a child in the United Kingdom is far more likely to be murdered by his or her parent than by a stranger. Even more disturbing is that many experts insist that they are virtually all premeditated.

The most recent crime statistics, for 2002/03, show that 99 people under the age of 16 were murdered in England and Wales, and seven in Scotland. More than half were killed by a parent, another 10 per cent by someone else they knew, and fewer than 20 per cent by a person unknown to them. Further analysis of the figures has shown that it is more likely that your partner is going to kill your children if you leave him than that they are going to be killed by a stranger in the park. In the past week alone, there have been two cases of what American criminologists have dubbed 'the family annihilator'.

In Northampton, 33-year-old Gavin Hall, a hospital radiographer, was jailed for life for murdering his three-year-old daughter, Amelia, known as Millie. After discovering sexually explicit emails sent by his wife, Joanne, to a part-time judge whom she had met on the internet, Hall set out to destroy his family. The night before he murdered Millie, he killed their two cats. Police believe he intended to kill Millie, her one-year-old sister, Lucy, and himself that night, but received a text message from Joanne, who was working nightshift, that led him to believe the marriage might not be over.

The following night, however, after a row with his wife, he realised it was. When Millie woke up during the night, he brought her downstairs and asked her repeatedly whether she wanted to 'come with daddy'. When she said she did, he gave her sleeping tablets and anti-depressants, then covered her nose and mouth with a handkerchief soaked in chloroform, before strangling her.

During the trial, Hall had pleaded guilty to manslaughter, arguing that his wife's affair had created an abnormality in his mind. But the jury dismissed this, and agreed that it was a premeditated murder, motivated by bitterness, anger and a desire to punish his wife.

Earlier last week, Sayrah Riaz, 16, and her sisters, Sophia, 15, Alisha, 10 and Hannah, three, were killed by their father, Mohammed, after he doused the family home in Accrington, Lancashire, with accelerants, probably diesel or petrol, locked all the doors from the inside, and set it alight. Their mother, Caneze, also died. Earlier that night, the children had been dressed up for a Halloween party, while their mother had been visiting their 17-year-old son, Adam, who is in hospital receiving treatment for leukaemia.

While no one will ever really know what was going on in Mohammed's mind - although he survived the fire, he died later in hospital - it appears that he had convinced himself that his wife was on the verge of leaving him. While both were distraught about Adam's illness, Caneze had a lot of support. She was a well-known and active member of the local community, while he remained isolated. She had become friendly with a man, Jemshad Ahmed, whom she worked with, but he insisted that there was nothing other than friendship between them.

In August, John Hogan, a 32-year-old businessman from Bristol, threw his six-year-old son, Liam, to his death from a hotel balcony in Crete. Moments later, he jumped from the same fourth-floor balcony with his two-year-old daughter, Mia. Both survived with broken bones. In this case, there were also marital problems: his wife, Natasha, 34, was threatening to leave. Again, the response was to kill his children and himself. Hogan, whose two brothers had committed suicide, has since tried again to take his own life and remains in a psychiatric hospital in Athens, accused of murder and attempted murder.

While the perpetrators of murder-suicides are usually men, in 5 per cent of cases it is the mother who is responsible. On Friday, a court in Hull heard that Angela Schumann, 28, had jumped 100ft from the Humber Bridge with her two-year-old daughter, Lorraine, in her arms. Schumann had written a note on her stomach, blaming her estranged husband. Both survived, but Schumann, who had left a note saying she 'didn't have to be a prisoner ... or his slave', faces imprisonment after admitting the attempted murder of her daughter. Another case involving a mother as the perpetrator occurred in April, when 40-year-old Alison Davies jumped from the same bridge, killing herself and her 12-year-old autistic son, Ryan.

At the heart of this is a question wrapped in such complexity that it can never be satisfactorily answered. What drives an individual to carry out an act of such unspeakable brutality against his or her own children? Is it hatred or despair, revenge or a madly possessive love? And what - if anything - can be done to prevent it?

The subject has been most widely studied in America, where there are 10 murder-suicides each week. According to Professor Jack Levin, a leading expert from North-Eastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, the most significant factors are family break-up, male sexual jealousy, a need to be in control and extreme possessiveness.

'The profile of a family annihilator is a middle-aged man, a good provider who would appear to neighbours to be a dedicated husband and a devoted father,' Levin said. 'He quite often tends to be quite isolated. He is often profoundly dedicated to his family, but has few friends of his own or a support system out with the family. He will have suffered some prolonged frustration and feelings of inadequacy, but then suffers some catastrophic loss. It is usually financial or the loss of a relationship. He doesn't hate his children, but he often hates his wife and blames her for his miserable life. He feels an overwhelming sense of his own powerlessness. He wants to execute revenge and the motive is almost always to "get even".'

Research from the States shows that family annihilators rarely have a prior criminal record. However, many experts believe there is often a prior pattern of domestic abuse. A report published two years ago in Britain by Women's Aid, called Twenty-nine child homicides, found that, out of 13 families studied, domestic violence was a feature in 11. In one of the other two cases, the mother spoke of her ex-partner's obsessively controlling behaviour.

'To the outside world, these crimes seem to come out of nowhere,' continued Levin. 'The perpetrators have not previously been involved in criminal behaviour. Nor do they tend to be on drugs or drinking heavily when they commit the crime. However, if psychologists had seen them in advance, they would have spotted the warning signs. They would have noticed how the person reacted to things not going his way - the irrational rage and the blaming of others. These people often also regard their partner and children as their own possessions.'

In the majority of cases, if the perpetrator fails in his own suicide, as in the Hogan and Hall cases, they almost always plead some form of insanity.

But Levin rejected this: 'These are executions. They are never spontaneous. They are well planned and selective. They are not carried out in the heat of the moment or in a fit of rage. They are very methodical and it is often planned out for a long time. There are certain people the killer blames for his problems. If a friend came along, he wouldn't kill him or her. He kills his children to get even with his wife because he blames her and he hates her. The killer feels he has lost control. Annihilating his family is a way of regaining control. It is a methodical, selective murder by a rational, loving father. That's why it is so terrifying.'

Although these cases are more common than child murders by a stranger, they often do not receive the same media coverage. Part of the reason is that the perpetrator often takes his own life as well - meaning there is no court case. But Levin said he also felt people were reluctant to think too much about such abhorrent crimes.

'People don't want to think about it because it makes them feel very vulnerable. When most people think of crime, they typically think of something happening in the street, being mugged or robbed or attacked by a stranger. People don't want to think it is more likely to happen in their own home. It's supposed to be a safe haven, an enclave where we can feel secure.'

In the most recent high-profile cases, such as that of Gavin Hall and Mohammed Riaz, some press reports have focused extensively on the wife's behaviour as a trigger for the crime. For instance, in the former case, one headline said: 'The judge, his sordid affair and the husband driven to murder'. Another said: 'Sex obsession of devoted mother blamed for murder of innocent child'.

But the suggestion that her infidelity was largely responsible for the murder of Millie has angered those involved in investigating the crime. Superintendent John Jones, who led the inquiry, said people seemed to need to cling on to the idea that this murder would not have happened if Hall's wife had not had an affair.

'Affairs happen all the time and people don't respond by killing their children,' said Jones. 'The marriage was doomed. She could have had a fling with a judge, a dustman or left for no one, and there would have been some sort of backlash. It was in his personality. It emerged in court that he was a controlling person and was quite sulky and non-communicative if he didn't get his own way. He didn't have the wherewithal within himself to move on after the end of the marriage.'

He said the crime had affected him and his officers more than any other in his 28 years as a detective. 'Had he killed her, I think people might have been able to understand - not condone, but understand it. But for the life of me I cannot understand why he would kill an innocent child and the person most precious to him, other than to make his wife suffer and to exert the ultimate control over her for the rest of her life. I've spent a lot of time with Amelia's mum and of course she feels guilty and responsible. She shouldn't, but she does and probably will for the rest of her life.'

Dr Alex Yellowlees, consultant psychiatrist and medical director of the Priory Hospital in Glasgow, said there were distinct differences in the minds of men and women who harm their children. Women, he said, tended to be mentally ill, often suffering from postnatal depression. In contrast, men tended to be struggling to deal with feelings of rage, jealousy, revenge and hatred.

'Most men and woman go through life experiencing distressing circumstances such as relationship breakdowns or financial problems, and they have developed strategies to deal with them. Most people, especially women, tend to speak to their friends, perhaps go and get drunk, sometimes chop the sleeves off their partner's suits or destroy his books or favourite CDs.

'But there are people, less functional people, who have not developed those coping skills. They have very low self-esteem. They are almost always very controlling and are less able to handle rejection. They cannot talk about it - it is as if they have failed - and they simply cannot accept it. They feel utterly humiliated and respond with the ultimate act of revenge - if I can't have you, no one can. They know that she will suffer for the rest of her life if he kills the children and leaves her alive.'

As to whether such crimes can be prevented, most experts agree that it is an almost impossible task. It can take years before a woman realises that her husband regards her, and perhaps their children, as his possessions, says Levin. 'Initially, a woman can feel flattered if her partner is jealous or possessive. It can be very hard for a woman to leave a possessive husband. When she does, or even when she tries to, that is when she is at the greatest danger.'

For Sarah Heatley, though, she is in no doubt that her children's murders could have been prevented and would like to see a radical overhaul of the judicial system, particularly the family courts. She found the courage to leave her husband and did not want him to have unsupervised contact with their children. However, the family courts, who believe contact with both parents is always in the best interests of the child, granted it. It was on their first unsupervised weekend with their father that Nina and Jack ate their cornflakes and played with their mum's lipstick before their father strangled them. 'I am still furious that the legal system didn't care about the children's safety when they were alive and nor do they care about learning lessons,' she said.

As she leafs through a photo album of her two children, who would be 16 and 18 now if they had been allowed to live, she explains that she will always feel responsible for their death. 'They were three and four and looked to me to protect them. I left him to protect them and I put my faith in the legal system. But the court ordered contact. They said I was being a hysterical and over-reactive wife. He was a GP and, to the outside world, he was an upstanding member of the community - an intelligent, generous and affable, loving father. People said he was the perfect dad.'

So according to this report in the Guardian (treat accordingly), when women kill it's due to diminished responsibility, but men do it out of revenge, rage and jealousy, and because they don't have decent 'coping mechanisms'.

[typhonblue]

'The profile of a family annihilator is a middle-aged man, a good provider who would appear to neighbours to be a dedicated husband and a devoted father,' Levin said. 'He quite often tends to be quite isolated. He is often profoundly dedicated to his family, but has few friends of his own or a support system out with the family. He will have suffered some prolonged frustration and feelings of inadequacy, but then suffers some catastrophic loss. It is usually financial or the loss of a relationship. He doesn't hate his children, but he often hates his wife and blames her for his miserable life. He feels an overwhelming sense of his own powerlessness. He wants to execute revenge and the motive is almost always to "get even".'

There you have it. A portrait of a man backed into a courner.

No doubt before he snapped he was basically a mangina. No male friends. No support system outside of his wife. Dedicated to his wife. [Note to women. DO NOT DATE MANGINAS! They feel so shattered when you take your holy presence out of their lives that they become unhinged. A man who has a healthy amount of contempt for women would never do this.]

It's obvious from this that men need to step away from women and start developing a male society outside of the auspices of women. That way they can support eachother when they get kicked out of female-society.

Hmm... but I suppose any movement towards _that_ would be considered oppressive to women.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

BTW, women murder their children too. As often as men, I believe. They just don't take their own lives.

I'm with neon. What does that mean? Does a woman just not think she's done the most dispicable thing ever and doesn't believe she deserves to die? Does a mother think that children are ultimately hers to dispose of at will? Do women hold onto a belief that they have value even after they've murdered their own children? Do men feel that once their children are gone they are basically worthless? That they have failed their children utterly?

I suppose a woman always knows she can get more... it's a much harder proposition for men. So any individual man may feel he's invested more in his children and their loss is more significant to him.

All this also leads me to wonder what horrific thing this woman did to this man to make him snap like this? I know, I know... "blaming the victim". But I've seen too many "victims" grinning and pulling strings in the back ground to really feel sorry for them any more.

[Cordell Walker]

'The profile of a family annihilator is a middle-aged man, a good provider who would appear to neighbours to be a dedicated husband and a devoted father,' Levin said. 'He quite often tends to be quite isolated. He is often profoundly dedicated to his family, but has few friends of his own or a support system out with the family. He will have suffered some prolonged frustration and feelings of inadequacy, but then suffers some catastrophic loss. It is usually financial or the loss of a relationship. He doesn't hate his children, but he often hates his wife and blames her for his miserable life. He feels an overwhelming sense of his own powerlessness. He wants to execute revenge and the motive is almost always to "get even".'

There you have it. A portrait of a man backed into a courner.

No doubt before he snapped he was basically a mangina. No male friends. No support system outside of his wife. Dedicated to his wife. [Note to women. DO NOT DATE MANGINAS! They feel so shattered when you take your holy presence out of their lives that they become unhinged. A man who has a healthy amount of contempt for women would never do this.]

It's obvious from this that men need to step away from women and start developing a male society outside of the auspices of women. That way they can support eachother when they get kicked out of female-society.

Hmm... but I suppose any movement towards _that_ would be considered oppressive to women.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

BTW, women murder their children too. As often as men, I believe. They just don't take their own lives.

I'm with neon. What does that mean? Does a woman just not think she's done the most dispicable thing ever and doesn't believe she deserves to die? Does a mother think that children are ultimately hers to dispose of at will? Do women hold onto a belief that they have value even after they've murdered their own children? Do men feel that once their children are gone they are basically worthless? That they have failed their children utterly?

I suppose a woman always knows she can get more... it's a much harder proposition for men. So any individual man may feel he's invested more in his children and their loss is more significant to him.

All this also leads me to wonder what horrific thing this woman did to this man to make him snap like this? I know, I know... "blaming the victim". But I've seen too many "victims" grinning and pulling strings in the back ground to really feel sorry for them any more.

that was my reason for starting this thread TB, I Hypotesize that men who kill thier families kill themselves because of a subcounsious knowledge that there is gnot a post partum/post anything defense

[.]

Today, I listened to the Tom Leykis radio show while he was discussing this very topic:
http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/545160.mp3

In it, Tom blamed Benoit's wife for bringing her death upon herself, because she should have left him long ago.  This reinforced a common mistake that I've noticed a lot of people making in popular culture, especially in response to incidents in which a man is abused by a woman.  Moral culpability for the abuse is mingled with an expectation of responsibility for ending the abuse.  I think they are not the same thing.

I wrote to Tom Leykis ([email protected]) with the following message:

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Tom:

I listened with great interest to your radio broadcast, "Abuser vs. Victim."

I noticed you said you had to attend a batterer intervention program after being falsely accused of domestic violence.  I had the same experience:
http://www.dontmakehermad.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3#3

What I noticed from your broadcast was a tendency to mix blame and responsibility together, as pertains to domestic violence.  You say that a victim is to blame for remaining in an abusive situation.  But what you should be saying is that a victim should be responsible for ending abuses against them, either by leaving, and/or by reporting it.  That's a phenomenon of "responsibility."  But moral blame lies with the person who commits the abuse.

Look at the diagram below:

Domestic Abuse:

	Moral Culpability?	Responsibility?
Victim:	No	Yes
Perpetrator:	Yes	Yes

This describes my view of the situation.  What's worse is that when men are abused, they may return the abuse.  Most domestic violence in America is a phenomenon called "common couples violence," which means both partners are abusing each other.  When I was in a "batterer intervention program," every time one of the men in the class referred to an event in which his partner abused him (either verbally or physically), the feminist director of the class said that he was "blaming the victim."

This meant that the woman is always the victim, and the man is always the perpetrator.  Any of the men in that class could have replied that every individual should be held responsible for their actions, and just because the men were sentenced to that class it doesn't mean they couldn't have been abused (nor do they bear culpability for the abuses of another).

There should be a distinction between moral culpability for abuse, and responsibility to end abuse.  The perpetrator bears both moral culpability and responsibility for abusing.  The victim doesn't bear moral culpability, but should be held responsible to end abuse (either by leaving, and/or calling out for help).

Lastly, I just wanted you to know about a search engine I created specifically to document research about domestic violence against males:
http://www.dvstats.com

Use this to counter individuals who would paint women as victims and men as perpetrators.  The total sample size of all the studies mentioned in this site is 225,000.  Check it out.

[Chris Key]

If this guy was insane or on drugs or depressed that might be a reason why, but why his whole family and not just himself? Why do men do that?

But then why do the Andrea Yates and that woman in Texas kill their families?

My issue here is look at the Texas murder/suicide thread. Men railed on that woman for killing her kids, never offered an opinion as to why except when it was mean and had no consideration for drugs, hormones, depression etc. Now some guy does it and right away lets defend him? I spit on this guy. No matter how good of a wrestler he was or athlete, he did NOT have to murder two innocent defenseless people. He killed a helpless boy, HIS OWN SON for God sakes. I hope the hottest place in hell is reserved for this freak.

C'mon guys. Apply the same standards. If this was a woman who had killed her kid and her husband would we be posting about why this guy did it and "it was the drugs"? Either bring the hammer down on this guy or lighten up on the women who do this.

You're right, people should condemn Benoit's murderous actions.  No matter what people say, his actions were and are unjustifiable.  However, I think it is important to understand the motivation behind his actions.

Here are three speculative theories that I have come up with:

Theory 1:

A possible explanation is his wife -- a former ECW and WCW wrestler who used the stage name "Woman" -- may have been threatening to take his child and house away from him.  There is evidence that she filed a restraining order against him in 2003, claiming he 'threatened' her.  She tried to divorce him in the same year.  Based on this, the restraining order she filed against him may have been a legal ploy to gain leverage during the divorce trial that she wanted.

Theory 2:

Benoit may have been an abusive husband.  His murderous actions may have entailed a web of domestic violence.

Theory 3:

He may have been a religious extremist and a member of a cult.  The fact he placed a bible beside his wife and son adds some weight to this theory.

Personally, I had a lot of respect for the man, and I still admire his ring skills and dedication to the wrestling business.  A couple of weeks ago I was thinking about his dedication to the business and the discrimination he endured.  He travelled the world in order to ply his trade.  His contributions to the business were shunned by the WWF and WCW during the mid-1990's.  Instead, novices such Bill Goldberg were brought in and given a reserved spot at the top of the industry -- even though they had never contributed anything to the business and were only looking out for themselves.

It always made me wonder whether this would have an effect on Benoit.  The reason I say this is because the life of a pro wrestler is arduous, fatiguing and stressful.  A full-time professional wrestler can be on the road for 2/3's of the year.  During his spare time he has to spend the bulk of his time at the gym.  In other words, professional wrestling isn't a job, it's a lifestyle.

When a wrestler's work ethic, contributions and talent is overlooked for money-hungry persons like Bill Goldberg, it must have some effect on his psyche.  This does not justify Benoit's actions, however it might explain why he went over the edge.

Andrea Yates wasn't a professional wrestler.  She didn't make the sacrifices and take the risks that Benoit took.  Nor was she in the spotlight and scrutinised like Benoit.  Compared to Chris Benoit's life, Andrea Yates had it pretty easy.  Therefore, it's understandable that people are less sympathetic towards her.

Also, Benoit punished himself by taking his own life.  Yates didn't do this.  Instead, she evaded responsibility by blaming her murderous actions on 'mental illness'.  This is another reason that people are more sympathetic towards Chris Benoit; he had the guts to punish himself for the horrible things he did.

[Mr. X]

Sorry Chris Key but no matter why you think he did this, its inexcusable. If we don't cut Yates slack for some Post Pardum Psychosis crap then his reasons too are pretty much crap. Divorce, an affair, a cult, job stress, none of it justifies killing a wife or a defenseless boy.

Now I do agree with Typhon and others that men may realize they don't get an out with the court system and can't cry post pardum psychosis like Yates did or abuse like Winkler did so they up and just kill themselves. They know they have no out. But I see that more of taking one final act of responsibility of an otherwise horrible action. Yates should have killed herself for what she did but, instead, clung to every excuse she could to stay out of death row. Same with Winkler, claiming wearing a wig was domestic violence.

The anger should be at a parent and spouse killing their loved ones regardless of gender. We should be gender blind and condemn the act in all cases. Women have earned equality and, so like men, don't get an out.

[Chris Key]

Sorry Chris Key but no matter why you think he did this, its inexcusable. If we don't cut Yates slack for some Post Pardum Psychosis crap then his reasons too are pretty much crap. Divorce, an affair, a cult, job stress, none of it justifies killing a wife or a defenseless boy.

Now I do agree with Typhon and others that men may realize they don't get an out with the court system and can't cry post pardum psychosis like Yates did or abuse like Winkler did so they up and just kill themselves. They know they have no out. But I see that more of taking one final act of responsibility of an otherwise horrible action. Yates should have killed herself for what she did but, instead, clung to every excuse she could to stay out of death row. Same with Winkler, claiming wearing a wig was domestic violence.

The anger should be at a parent and spouse killing their loved ones regardless of gender. We should be gender blind and condemn the act in all cases. Women have earned equality and, so like men, don't get an out.

You're right, Benoit's actions are inexcusable.  However, I wasn't trying to excuse his actions.  What I was saying is his case is different to the Yates case, because unlike her, he didn't evade responsibility for his actions.

[Mr. X]

Interesting stat I heard from Steve Austin's wife in an interview. 60 wrestlers have died over the last 10 years, all under the age of 45 most with enlarged hearts. Now she doesn't state why but she does allude to steroid use. These guys are burning out their bodies like this and paying the price. We see all these articles condemning modelling cause models starve themselves yet how come no condemnation of the wrestling industry for steroid use. Sure they condemn the DV but its all against the men. No sympathy for the men who take these drugs to look big and strong.

Now I do believe both models and wrestlers choose to do this and so its their fault. I don't want government regulation. But their is a obvious double standard that when models starve themselves, its the evil modelling agency that causes it but when wrestlers burn themselves out on steroids its these men being evil and no recognition that they maybe exploited. Wrestling is a grand example of men being exploited for the entertainment of others and YES there are women in the audience, LOTS OF THEM so this isn't just a man-man thing. Why is it when a woman starves herself and poses in a swim suit, she's exploited but when a wrestler burns himself out on steroids and destroys his life its not exploitation? Not only that these guys get into a ring and beat each other senseless for the entertainment of others. Even though some of it is staged they still take a beating for entertainment.

[gwallan]

Interesting stat I heard from Steve Austin's wife in an interview. 60 wrestlers have died over the last 10 years, all under the age of 45 most with enlarged hearts. Now she doesn't state why but she does allude to steroid use. These guys are burning out their bodies like this and paying the price. We see all these articles condemning modelling cause models starve themselves yet how come no condemnation of the wrestling industry for steroid use. Sure they condemn the DV but its all against the men. No sympathy for the men who take these drugs to look big and strong.

Now I do believe both models and wrestlers choose to do this and so its their fault. I don't want government regulation. But their is a obvious double standard that when models starve themselves, its the evil modelling agency that causes it but when wrestlers burn themselves out on steroids its these men being evil and no recognition that they maybe exploited. Wrestling is a grand example of men being exploited for the entertainment of others and YES there are women in the audience, LOTS OF THEM so this isn't just a man-man thing. Why is it when a woman starves herself and poses in a swim suit, she's exploited but when a wrestler burns himself out on steroids and destroys his life its not exploitation? Not only that these guys get into a ring and beat each other senseless for the entertainment of others. Even though some of it is staged they still take a beating for entertainment.

All the silly, or worse, things that women do are the fault of men and therefore are the responsibility of somebody else - most likely the government - to fix. Any silly things men do are, as you say, their own fault and they must wear the consequences on their own.

[who me?]

But I personally do not want to play some double standard game of denouncing people like Yates, Winkler etc then treating this guy the same way women treat Yates. Bad is bad.

I fully understand your point and where you are coming from.

I will show my support to a woman accused of murdering when society as a whole stops giving murderers the royal treatment based on their sex.

I will denounce a man accused of murdering when society as a whole stops trying to criminalize masculinity. When society stops saying "women good, men bad."

I don't understand your point.  Why would you show support for a woman for murdering her child?

Why would you not denounce a man that has murdered?

Society is not set up as women good, men bad.  That's just a view that is created by some using tunnel vision to validate it.

Murder is wrong no matter who committs it.  Excusing it or trying to validate it by use of some brand of tunnel vision doesn't make it right.