Regarding the saga of Andrea Yates, I stand by Rusty, her husband, 100%. Here's why you should, too, and why the Yates saga is one of the worst cases of male -bashing in history.
It is understood that before two individuals commit to marriage, the terms of the union, as well as the couple's expectations of one another are thoroughly discussed. Given how freely
Rusty Yates discusses his marital views before a nation of strangers ("Man is the breadwinner, Woman is the homemaker," he famously quipped. "It's been that way for years.") It is
dubious that Andrea was not aware of them at the time of their engagement.
Yet, when Andrea committed the criminal act of treacherously drowning her 5 young children in a bathtub, the couple's mutually agreed upon marital arrangements ironically come under
fire. Karin Kennedy, Andrea's mom, rips the grieving Rusty as a sexist, and blames her daughter's behavior, among many other allegations, on the fact that the family lived for several
years out of a converted van. Friends expressed concern over Andrea's solitary workload and home-schooling duties. Why the shock? Can Ms. Kennedy and friends honestly testify
that they were unaware of Rusty 's traditional proclivities when Andrea married him?
Even if one is to bigotedly declare a voluntary traditional lifestyle unhealthy, they must take into account the fact that such a lifestyle is willfully agrees upon by both participants, each
with equal legal (And in the Yates case, financial) freedom to dodge out of the arrangement at any given time under any given circumstance. Why, then, is this mutually agreed upon
lifestyle used as a weapon against an innocent father whose 5 children were murdered by his own wife? Where is the wife's culpability in her own agreement to take on a lifestyle for
which she was not emotionally prepared?
The enormity of the tragedy that Rusty had to endure has not stopped the public from raining meanness upon him like a thousand Tommy guns. After running a cover article on Andrea
Yates's infanticidal massacre, Newsweek magazine was swamped with letters demanding legal action against her husband. In fact, Rusty and his mother had testified that he had done all
he could for the insane wife, and they are right. Evidence shows that Rusty had, indeed, sought psychiatric help for his woman, even going so far as to have her hospitalized on several
occasions. What more could a man relatively inexperienced with mental illness have done, and who is this nation of critics to point their ignorant fingers at a man whose shoes they do
not walk in? Why is man who does not play G-d suddenly equal to a murderer?
Media helped promulgate these views. For example, radio talk duo Curtis and Kuby not only condemned the possibility of death penalty for Andrea, but also held Rusty to a greater
level of culpability. Curtis suggested that Rusty get death penalty, while Kuby called for his castration. Judging by the dialogue that took place between the two yodeling yappers
(One of whom is supposedly a conservative), it appears that Rusty 's only crime for which they would inflict these punishments is that he refused to blame himself or his wife for the
murders. The ludicrousness of this thinking aside, what C & K seem to be suggesting is that certain speech, or lack thereof, is deserving of death or castration.
Is a man who had lost his 5 beloved children in one morning supposed to give up his wife as well? Perhaps these people should examine their own vocation. If the refusal to take a certain
stance were in fact a crime punishable by these people's solutions, then Curtis would be dead and Kuby would be, ahem, finished with his history of womanizing within a month of their
show's opening.
The nation's disappointing response to the Yates case reveals a hatred of men and a childish desire for a matriarchal society. What else am I supposed to conclude when I see a people
hold a man responsible for what a woman does? In this unjust spirit of blaming the man, the only logical consequence is to hand men legal control over our lives. After all, if we are not
responsible for them, some one has to be. Then what, ladies? Do we want to be barred from workplace and voter booths simply because others are fed up with paying for the mistakes we
are entitled to commit? Is that how we regard our hard-earned rights?
It is time we overcame our hysteria and placed the blame where it rightfully belongs: In the hands of the murderer and her own irresponsible decisions.
Copyright 2002 by Esther Hartstein. Not to be reproduced in any fashion,
in whole or in part, without written consent from the author. All
rights reserved.