It has happened again. Another baby will not live to see her first birthday and her mother appears to be at fault. The Associated Press reported the details.
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) - A woman has been charged with murder in the death of her 10-month-old daughter, who deputies say was bitten and violently shaken because she was crying.
Sashine Howell, 23, was being held without bail Sunday.
Broward County sheriff's deputies said Howell gave conflicting stories, first saying a boyfriend shook her daughter, Faith, and then admitting that she didn't have a boyfriend and that she shook the child herself.
According to sheriff's reports, Howell shook the baby and bit her because the infant was crying and had bonded with her father during a recent visit.
The infant had a bite mark on her back, intercranial bleeding and a swollen bruise on her head. She died Saturday at Jackson Memorial Hospital.
Why am I blogging about an occurence so commonplace? Because, I was recently reminded the message that family members, friends and acquaintances are more likely to abuse children than strangers has not sunk in with many Americans. David Flanagan, a blogger with ties to Free Republic posted an entry lauding women for being naturally good parents.
. . .Even more impressive is the fact that Moms everywhere seem to have formed this unofficial child safety pact that I never knew a thing about until just recently. That was the day my wife, Julie, was in a children's clothing store in our local mall and lost sight of our oldest for about ten seconds. Julie called out, no response. Then, with the slightest edge of panic in her voice, she called out again for our daughter. Immediately, every woman in the store stopped what they were doing and began looking for our daughter. Suddenly, all those Moms of various ages, races, and creeds were as unified and focused as any military force preparing to do battle.
It took only about 15 or 20 seconds before a woman from the back of the store called out that she had located our daughter. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief, then went back to whatever it is they were doing just seconds before, almost as if nothing had happened.
Article comments
1 - David Flanagan
Parents are the greatest peril to children? If that is the case, then who is a child's greatest caretaker? I think you have misconstrued the data because, though abuse occurs more often in the home, what is the answer? Should we not have children, or perhaps we should take all children from their homes on the off chance that they live in abusive households.
The whole point of my article was just to point out a personal experience where my wife had lost sight of our four-year-old daughter in a children's clothing store and immediately other mom's around her began to help search for out daughter. My observation is that this is a strength that women possess and one that I greatly appreciate, the ability to work together to protect children.
From that, you extrapolated far more than I ever intended to convey, which I think is indicative of your personal life experiences, but which have nothing to do with healthy mom's who can partner to help one another out when the need arises. It's what Hillary Clinton meant when she said, "It Takes A Village To Raise a Child." Do you disagree with that?
One more quick request. Could you please point out where I said that you did not know what you were talking about? As far as anything I've written, I may have disagreed with you, but that hardly constitutes a tone of disrespect. Do you always assume insult when another person disagrees with you?
Regardless, thanks for taking the time to post an entire article to highlight your concern regarding child abuse. I don't disagree with you at all regarding the seriousness of this problem. Fortunately, we can also look at the other side of family, one where parents work together to lovingly raise their children in a safe environment. And that, of course, is exactly what my article was written to emphasize.
Thanks.
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
2 - jadester
i do not think that is quite what Mac is trying to say, although i can understand your annoyance at his singling out of your article.
To me, it is commonsense that if you ignore a problem it is almost guaranteed to simply get worse. Combine this with the fact that (i imagine, not having done so myself yet) raising a child is stressful at the best of times, especially in today's world - where we may not have such problems they had in the past, but we do have multitudes of others - and you have a very delicate situation. New parents need to know that
1)if they have difficulty raising their child, that doe not make them a failure. There *are* places you can go for advice, counselling, etc.
2)they are not alone if they do have difficulty. All parents run into problems, it's just a matter of how they get solved. It helps to be part of a group of new parents of some kind so that you can talk to each other about the problems you run into. Before we went to primary school, both my sister and I went to a pre-school on some weekdays, which meant our mum was bound to meet other parents to talk to, which i must admit i think was beneficial. We were lucky to have good grandparents too, but that's not exactly a controllable thing
3 - Mac Diva
Thanks, Jade. You are on the money. I just want people to have realistic information about child abuse instead running away from the facts and embracing myths.
Most of David Flanagan's response is just plain inane. Obviously, parents being children's "greatest caretakers" does not prevent parents also being their most likely abusers. That is why we need not to delude overselves. Rusty Yates, the husband of Andrea Yates, the psychotic woman who drowned their five children, is a Flanagan type -- rigidly Right Wing and unwilling to hear anything that suggests his idealized notion of 'the family' is not accurate. Even now, he insists there was nothing wrong with what was occurring in his family, from the forced pregancies to the efforts to turn Ms. Yates into Super Mom, despite her barely being able to function. If we are to prevent future tragedies, we can't let this kind of myth making prevail.
4 - Chris
I am going to call bullshit on this:
That is why we need not to delude overselves. Rusty Yates, the husband of Andrea Yates, the psychotic woman who drowned their five children, is a Flanagan type -- rigidly Right Wing and unwilling to hear anything that suggests his idealized notion of 'the family' is not accurate.
Out of Bounds. Unless you can produce something, other than the voices in your head, that sheds light on this comparison, you have lost any shred of credibility as far as I am concerned. Despicable.
5 - Eric Olsen
Any light on child abuse is fine and welcome, but I think the obvious answer to parents being the most likely abusers is that parents spend the most time with children, and if the parent is immature, unstable, violent, a drug or alcohol abuser, mentally or emotionally ill, etc., the pressures of child rearing cause many to snap. That's why everyone needs help, needs a break, needs a chance to regain some perspective. Raising children is a very difficult, demanding job - of course some parents snap.
What astonishes me is that some child advocates would force even more people to be parents by removing the option of abortion, or even birth control - not everyone should be a parent.
6 - Mac Diva
More of the same. Daddy did it.
Some people may not know it, but there is an organized 'pro-family' movement among far Right Christians. The Yates were members of it and so are many Free Republic type conservatives. The Yates were very involved with one of the ministers who leads the movement. He influenced them to have a child every year (Andrea miscarried one or there would have been six stair steps), home school and perform household chores in the traditional manner, such as cooking from scratch. The pressure and mental frailty resulted in the tragedy we are familiar with.
Does this mean every Free Republic Right Winger is a child abuser? Of course not. Only someone as clueless as Chris would jump to that conclusion. But, it shows child abuse is not the province of 'those people over there' as David Flanagan wants us to believe. It happens in all demographic groups.
7 - Chris
What I called Bullshit on was the comparison made: that Yates was a "Flanagan" type.
You know nothing about David Flanagan except that he wrote an interesting piece on the cooperative nature of women and the instinct to protect kids. Which is true, as far generalizations go. Counter examples do exist, but they are outside the normal, which is why they are considered NEWS.
Good grief, no one likes child abuse and no one was defending it.
8 - David Flanagan
First of all, thanks Carl for defending me with some of the accusations that Mac has leveled at me. For some reason, I wrote one article talking about the experience my wife had at a child's clothing store and yes, the generalizations that I drew from that and other similar life experiences, and suddenly I am public enemy #1 to Mac.
I've said it already, but I guess I need to say it again. Child abuse is real, it is significant, and I would never try to ignore this fact. Child abuse destroys lives and damages society.
With that said, Mac's attempt to accuse me of being an abuser myself seems a bit over the top. I suppose that if I had written an article about the joys of driving a new car, Mac might have written an article about all the people who die violently each year on the highway, or the damage that cars do to the environment. Or, perhaps if I had written an article talking about a movie I enjoyed watching recently, Mac would have written an article talking about rampant heart disease because of lack of exercise.
It just seems so silly to me that she should take my one article and then, without knowing a thing about me, label me in such an extreme fashion. And the tone of her posts continues to grow worse. I'm trying to be reasonable and discuss the subject intelligently, but what I am getting in return is a bit disturbing.
I've seen Mac attack several other bloggers and authors across various sites on the Net and there seems to be no rhyme or reason that I can discern other than it perhaps gives her a sense of power to label people this way. Whatever Mac's motives, I prefer not to respond in kind.
Thanks again for coming to my defense Carl.
Sincerely,
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
9 - Mac Diva
Nowhere in my entry have I said David Flanagan is a a child abuser, contrary to what he states above. He is liar. What I said is I believe he is the kind of person who prefers self-affirming myths to reality. I cited Rusty Yates, who is not a child abuser either, as an example of what a closed mind, conservative perspective on childrearing and gender roles can lead to. I could have just as easily have cited the Susan Smith case as an example of why we should be skeptical of 'a stranger did it' stories when children are abducted. Both dramas highlight the realities of child abuse.
Flanagan is coming from Free Republic, a politically and socially reactionary site that is pretty much a parody of the Ugly American. I'm sure no one questions the Right Wing bromides that pour from him there, but if he is going to reach into a larger audience, people will. He might as well get used to it.
The person who supported Flanagan to an extent is 'Chris,' a fellow conservative. However, since Flanagan can't possibly be in error, maybe Chris' name is really 'Carl.'
10 - Mac Diva
Oops, typos! He is a liar. On second thought, make that: He is a big liar. On third: A big liar and a wimp. His entire response to a stating of facts has been to whine, lie and fume. He did not just chat about his wife. He claimed there was some biological difference between men and women that makes women natural nurturers. He has emphatically said that what he terms 'the power of motherhood' is real, despite offering no evidence of that. One of Flanagan's fellow travelers, Kim du Toit, made pretty much the same kind of 'biology is nature' claims in a piece just about everyone, other than people like Flanagan, saw the errors of reasoning in. And, like du Toit, Flanagan's defense consists largely of whining while declaring himself a he-man. Spare me the posturing.
As for Flanagan's latest lie, that I am all over the Internet attacking people, I have neither the time nor the desire to be. However, if I see third-rate thinking that I believe misleads people about an important issue, I will definitely offer factual information as an alternative. I call that being an intelligent and responsible person.
11 - Chris
If I were going to post this on Fark, the tag line would be "Sanity surrenders."
MD -- You explicitly equate Mr. Flanagan with Rusty Yates, going so far as to say Rusty Yates was a Flanagan Type, which would make Mr. Flanagan the archetype.
I give up. Clearly words don't mean the same thing in your world.
12 - David Flanagan
As for Flanagan's latest lie, that I am all over the Internet attacking people, I have neither the time nor the desire to be.
Well Ms. Diva, lets explore this claim. Here are complaints I found regarding your attacks when I ran just one Google search on your name(URLs):
-> http://naproom.mu.nu/archives/006996.html
-> http://sayanything.typepad.com/sayanything/2003/10/not_making_any_.html
-> http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/27/221832.php - This article, posted on Blogcritics.org, is fascinating because, apparently Mac resigned from this site after this incident but suddenly decided to return? Did I bring you back Mac? I'd be so honored if it were true. ;-)
-> http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000626.html - This post also points to an attack by Mac on another poster's WIFE! Please pay close attention to this link because Ms. Diva apparently runs two blogs and apparently uses them to generate false self links.
-> http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/000434.html - Here is the wife attack link
-> http://www.mars-or-bust.blogspot.com/2003_04_13_mars-or-bust_archive.html#92922031
-> http://www.gweilodiaries.com/archives/001132.html - Another interesting post with lots of detail regarding attacks by Mac.
-> http://www.richardpoe.com/blog_single.php?rowID=153 - Not only talks about attacks on him personally, but also links to some others she has attacked
-> http://home.houston.rr.com/skeptical/arc20030301.html#BlogID158 - This is a link to a post by Mac where she does not feel that the Blogosphere should be nicer and more congenial.
-> http://pla.blogspot.com/2003_06_08_pla_archive.html - This posts details the near closing of one blog because of Mac's personal attacks and talks of attacks on other bloggers as well.
-> http://greenehouse.net/archives/000691.html
-> http://www.rjwest.com/mtarchives/my_get_up_go_musta_got_up_n_went/000847.html
-> http://www.leanleft.com/archives/001353.html - This post explains why one liberal blogger removed a link to one of Mac Diva's sites from his page.
-> http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/000796.html - A corraborative post regarding Mac's attacks on several liberal bloggers.
->
http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/002389.html
-> http://www.pandagon.net/archives/00001688.htm
-> http://www.morethings.com/log/2003_08_24_culpepper_archive.html
-> http://www.ruminatethis.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1432 - Interesting link because it praises Mac's writing skills while decrying her habit of launching personal attacks.
-> http://38.144.96.23/tacitus/archives/000698.html
-> http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2003/06/this_is_not_abo.html
-> http://thatsaid.blogspot.com/
-> http://atriosjr.blogspot.com/2003_06_08_atriosjr_archive.html - This post talks about the fact that many blogs and sites are delinking her site.
-> http://www.atriosjr.blogspot.com/2003_06_01_atriosjr_archive.html - One of Mac's supporters posts a comment about her over-the-top attacks
-> http://billscontent.com/comments/95_0_1_0_C/
-> http://hotbuttereddeath.ubersportingpundit.com/archives/004137.html - Here is a post where Mac goes off on both conservatives and liberals
-> http://www.babylonianmusings.com/archives/000009.html
Okay, I could likely post a dozen other links, but I think I've made my case. Apparently, I'm only one of many that Mac has chosen to attack, not that her attacks do anything more for me than present an interesting challenge.
Mac Diva: Would you care to revise your story? Just thought I'd ask.
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
13 - Mac Diva
You have it backwards as usual, liar. Looks like a list of people attacking me. And, there isn't a blogger worth his or her salt among them. Others of these links just show David Flanagan is a hell of a liar, again. Anyone who looks at, for example, Matt's or James' posts, will see they are not attacks at all.
Some of the others:
Gene Expression -- A group of racists who claim people of color are genetically inferior. Shark, Poe, etc., are members of Gene Expression. Natasha Chart (see below) also is an associate of theirs.
Gweilo Diaries -- A porn blogger who builds traffic posting pictures of nude Asian women. Blew a gasket when I pointed out he has some deep bigotry problems.
Natasha Chart -- A woman with Asperger's Syndrome who follows other bloggers around attacking them. I was her major obsession for a time. (She has moved on to someone else since.) Most of the people above, including Leah, who was guest hosting for Atrios, are 'friends' of my neighbor over in Bellevue, Washington, now having her mental breakdowns at Pacific Views. (Friends of one blogger are often folks who think they can get attention by joining in an attack on another blogger.)
Atrios, Jr.? Babylonian Musings? Ricky West? -- Bah wah hah hah hah!
When I last heard from you, above, you were claiming I accused you of child abuse. You definitely belong on your list of attackers of the Diva, yourself.
Chris, I gave up on you ever being anything other than an aider and abettor of numbskulls like David Flanagan ages ago.
14 - David Flanagan
Mac Diva:
First let me say that having you call me a liar is, for me, a badge of honor. Think on that and make sense of it if you can.
As for my post above, I've MORE than made my case regarding your habit of launching ad hominem attacks against people with whom you disagree. Anyone who takes even just 30 minutes to scan through the links I've provided will likely agree with me.
Taking what I've provided above in the way of links from various sites, I'm content to let people make up their own minds. Thats the beauty of the Blogoshpere, people can weigh in on an issue for themselves.
As for the fact that I've posted to Freerepublic.com; I most certainly have! I'll post my commentary anyplace that I'm allowed. What can I say, I'm easy that way. I would post to liberal sites as well, but everyone that I've come across won't take conservative commentary. Sites like the Democratic Underground will boot you if they even SUSPECT you of being a conservative.
Nuff said.
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
15 - Chris
Well, at least now I know. Just so we can be straight on this, I now aid and abbett (lawyer jargon by the way) numskulls like David Flanagan, who you think is the archetype for really disturbed husbands.
My barefoot, pregnant and as we speak, getting dinner ready wife will be so proud.
16 - Mac Diva
Chris, I said that Rusty Yates and David Flanagan are both Right Wingers who don't get when it comes to seeing what is wrong with the myths that:
(1) Women are natural nurturers, and,
(2) Conservatives never have problems with childrearing.
There is no way anyone could confuse that with saying Flanagan (or Yates) is a child abuser. Unless that person has an agenda. You do. You share their Right Wing agenda, apparently to the extent of helping make up lies when anyone challenges it.
I do appreciate Flanagan reminding me of, 'Say No to Mr. Nice Blog,' a piece I wrote back when I was everyone's favorite guest blogger. I enjoyed reading it again and may post it to one of my blogs, which did not exist when I wrote it.
17 - David Flanagan
Mac Diva,
I stand by my article, of course. I told my wife about your response to my article and your comments and she had a good chuckle that she was supposed to be some kind of "traditional" wife while I'm the clueless, "traditional" husband who forces his wife into a certain mold and keep her at home to bear children and remain socially isolated.
She asked if I would like a post in my defense, but I let her know that you would just ignore anything she said anyway. Either that, or you would come up with some choice insults for her as well.
Do me a favor, please tell me where in my article or in my comments that I stated, or even hinted, that conservatives never have problems raising kids. This is a silly accusation and I expect to see some evidence before I'll let that one lie.
In one of your recent posts on your Macaroni blog, you were the one to state that bloggers should use some minimum standards in posting to blogs. You also mention that we should teach people to recognize real content from
BS. I agree with you on both points and, as a matter of fact, have been teaching people how to do just that on the Internet for close to seven years now.
You can claim that my statement regarding women being better nuturers, than men -- I used the term natural nuturers, I believe -- is false, but quoting family child abuse statistics does nothing to disprove my statement. It does not matter whether you believe in God or a purely material universe, with life on Earth nothing more than the product of chance and evolution, either way, it makes perfect sense for men and women to have certain abilities and instincts around raising children.
The fact is, my wife DID have the experience that I described in my article, where the other moms in the store heard the edge of panic in her voice when she called for our daughter, they ALL reacted immediately to help her locate our daughter (who was playing a game and hiding from her Mommy), and then went back to what they were doing.
It was the perfect example of the old saying that "it takes a village to raise a child." The community of Moms reacted to protect a child, and thats a wonderful, hopeful thing in the midst of all the violence and death in this world, don't you think?
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
18 - Chris
Man, the slip slidding around here is getting a little out of hand . . . let's go back and review what my intial object was:
That is why we need not to delude overselves. Rusty Yates, the husband of Andrea Yates, the psychotic woman who drowned their five children, is a Flanagan type -- rigidly Right Wing and unwilling to hear anything that suggests his idealized notion of 'the family' is not accurate
This was the basis of my entire objection. You use Rusty Yates and then call him a "Flanagan" type. Which means that Flanagan is the poster boy for disturbed husbands.
I don't have any agenda, just wanted to point out what I thought was a really out of bounds comparison, especially when you consider that there is evidence Yates ignored all the warning signs that his wife might be cracking. Which means that Mr. Flanagan, whoever he is, and I don't know him anymore than you do, is on the verge of his wife killing their child because he is ignorning reality. And, even better than that, Mr. Flanagan is not a Rusty Yates type, but that Rusty Yates is a "Flanagan Type."
No one is ignoring the very real issue of child abuse, no one is minimizing it, no one is saying it ain't a big deal. It is. But, the idea that moms are better the nuturing aspect, in general, is not some part of the Right Wing Agenda. The whole Earth Mother idea for example.
If you wanted to make the point better, you could have said something a lot less inflammatory like: "The generalizations found in David Flanagan's post are true as far as they go. But, generalizations are dangerous when the person making them may not be aware of the consequences of taking them too far. For instance, child abuse. Moms can be abusers and sometimes can inflict worse abuse than fathers because it may not always be physical. Some women may just not be built to have children and may not understand that they are not able to handle the very real frustrations that can accompany raising children. It would be an interesting public policy proposal to require child rearing training when a couple applies for a marriage license . . . " and so forth .
You can believe this or not, but here is my life's Agenda in descending order:
1. My wife
2. My kids
3. My job
4. My parents, in-laws and extended family.
5. Others
6. My Dogs.
19 - Chris
Man, the slip slidding around here is getting a little out of hand . . . let's go back and review what my intial objection was:
That is why we need not to delude overselves. Rusty Yates, the husband of Andrea Yates, the psychotic woman who drowned their five children, is a Flanagan type -- rigidly Right Wing and unwilling to hear anything that suggests his idealized notion of 'the family' is not accurate
This was the basis of my entire objection. You use Rusty Yates and then call him a "Flanagan" type. Which means that Flanagan is the poster boy for disturbed husbands.
I don't have any agenda, just wanted to point out what I thought was a really out of bounds comparison, especially when you consider that there is evidence Yates ignored all the warning signs that his wife might be cracking. Which means that Mr. Flanagan, whoever he is, and I don't know him anymore than you do, is on the verge of his wife killing their child because he is ignorning reality. And, even better than that, Mr. Flanagan is not a Rusty Yates type, but that Rusty Yates is a "Flanagan Type."
No one is ignoring the very real issue of child abuse, no one is minimizing it, no one is saying it ain't a big deal. It is. But, the idea that moms are better the nuturing aspect, in general, is not some part of the Right Wing Agenda. The whole Earth Mother idea for example.
If you wanted to make the point better, you could have said something a lot less inflammatory like: "The generalizations found in David Flanagan's post are true as far as they go. But, generalizations are dangerous when the person making them may not be aware of the consequences of taking them too far. For instance, child abuse. Moms can be abusers and sometimes can inflict worse abuse than fathers because it may not always be physical. Some women may just not be built to have children and may not understand that they are not able to handle the very real frustrations that can accompany raising children. It would be an interesting public policy proposal to require child rearing training when a couple applies for a marriage license . . . " and so forth .
You can believe this or not, but here is my life's Agenda in descending order:
1. My wife
2. My kids
3. My job
4. My parents, in-laws and extended family.
5. Others
6. My Dogs.
20 - Chris
Sorry about the double post.
21 - victor mature actor
i feel good!
22 - Richard Brodie
Women, I believe, are the nurturers of society. Whether its social, biological, or both, they feel compelled to comfort and protect in a way that men do not.
Nobody cries "Sexism!" when someone points out that WOMEN are inherently more suited and capable, intellectually and emotionally, for certain of society's tasks. But let someone so much as suggest that there might be other such areas (like presiding over the Executive Branch of government, for instance) for which MEN might be better suited, and suddenly you will be deluged with charges of "gender discrimination".