10 happy lies husbands tell.

**The Phantom** · 13th-January-2006

This is quite an old article, but it demonstrates the way women get special treatment in the courts.

While feminism may be partially responsible for this, the answer appears to be more profound. Lizzy Borden's parents died long before the appearance of this form of collective insanity.

Feminism may not be the original cause of this, but it shows that feminism is NOT about equality, because feminists never complain about the way women are excused of their crimes. I have only ever seen/heard feminists complain that too many women go to prison.

WOMEN: THE FORGOTTEN CHILD MURDERERS

After six years of searching for compassion from Canadian legal system, Robert Latimer must finally, as the statists like to put it, Â« pay his debt to society Â» for the crime of killing a vegetable in human form. After three trials, the Supreme Court of Canada has delivered its verdict. There will be no more appeals. He will spend at least ten years in prison.

Almost forgotten in the national debate over this case is the fact Latimer's case has finally established the principle in Canadian law that if the Crown doesn't like a jury's verdict, it simply has to appeal to one of its own in order to get it changed. Formerly, the most an appeal court could do was to order a new trial. Yet another limit on state power has been erased.

Equally forgotten is the fact that Mr. Latimer had an accomplice. He did not make the decision to terminate the existence of his misbegotten daughter on his own. He discussed it beforehand with his wife Laura and they both agreed that it was time for Tracy to die.

A simple error

Why would apparently-loving parents decide to terminate the life of their only daughter?

Well, advocates for the disabled may applaud the court decision, claiming that it demonstrates respect for their rights, but the fact remains that Tracy Latimer was not handicapped. As I said, she was a vegetable.

A vegetable who knew nothing of life except excruciating pain. She couldn't walk, talk or feed herself. She functioned at the level of a three-month-old. She had already endured several major operations and would certainly have needed many more.

After twelve years, her parents decided to end the life of this travesty. No one will ever know whether they did this to end her pain or because they needed to move on in their own lives. Probably they cannot even sort out their motives themselves.

Whatever you think about the ethics of their decision, Robert and Laura Latimer made a simple error which would have prevented the Canadian legal system from hounding them for six years, destroying their family, slandering their reputation and committing him to prison.

They chose the wrong person to perform the deed.

Had Laura killed their daughter, it is almost certain that no one would have gone to prison. The system would have been sympathetic and sentenced her to Â« treatment Â», not prison. This assumes that case would ever have reached trial. This is far from certain.

There is a vast difference in the way that women and men are treated for the crime of killing their children.

Surprised? You shouldn't be. Consider.

Female compassion

In the time between Latimer's first and second trials, Danielle Blais of Montreal drowned her six-year-old son Charles-Antoine in a bathtub. Like Tracy Latimer, Charles-Antoine had a handicap, in his case autism. Unlike Tracy, he had a life. He could get out of his bed. He attended school. He had the hope of one day becoming independent, perhaps even productive.

Like Robert Latimer, Danielle Blais was charged with murder for her act. Like Latimer, Blais was initially sentenced to two years in prison. Thereafter, the stories differ.

The Latimer verdict provoked a national outcry. The Crown appealed with the result, as we have already noted, that he will spend at least ten years in prison.

And Blais? Her sentence was suspended. Few people, even in Montreal, have ever heard of her. There was no appeal. Did disabled activists react with outrage at this travesty of justice? Well, not exactly. The Quebec Society for Autistic Children hired her as a spokesperson Â– to explain how difficult it is to live with autism.

Want more?

While the Latimer case waited to be heard before the Supreme Court of Canada, in British Columbia Cheryl Baker let her ten-year-old daughter Katie Lynn die from starvation. At the end Katie Lynn weighed 20 pounds. Yes, you read that right. She was ten years old and weighed 20 pounds.

In mommy's defence, Katie Lynn had Rett's Syndrome, a severe form of autism and one of the symptoms of this disorder is a lack of the desire to eat. Still, like Charles-Antoine Blais, Katie-Lynn Baker was well enough to attend school. Her mother has never been charged for criminal negligence, let alone murder. Nor have any of the numerous social workers and school officials who watched her die. In all likelihood, no one ever will be charged.

Â« Women who kill their children are given sympathy and sentenced to "treatment" while men who do the same thing are charged with murder and sentenced to life. Â»

At the same time as the Supreme Court rendered its verdict on the Latimer case, an inquest in Toronto tried to make sense of the death of Jordan Heikamp. Like Katie Lynn Baker, Jordan died of starvation under the watch of social workers and women's shelter bureaucrats. As in her case, society's protectors did nothing.

Unlike Katie Lynn, Jordan Heikamp was not handicapped. He suffered simply from the misfortune of being born to the wrong woman. She never provided him with any sustenance and he therefore died. Renee Heikamp was charged with criminal negligence, as was a social worker. StillÂ… the result was the same. When the case went to court, the judge threw out the case, absolving both women of all blame. And yes, there was no appeal.

Parenting skills

All of this points to one conclusion: women who kill their children are given sympathy and sentenced to Â« treatment Â» while men who do the same thing are charged with murder and sentenced to life.

Perhaps it is not a coincidence that women are many times more likely to murder their offspring than men.

A hospital in Great Britain installed hidden cameras to survey children who they feared to be at risk of abuse by their parents. They found dozens of cases and made headlines about abuse by Â« parents Â» and Â« step-parents Â». The Life Channel chronicled the story (this version was translated and ran on Canal Vie as well).

What all the commentators carefully hid was who these Â« parents Â» were: there was one grandmother, one father... and thirty-seven mothers. Judging from the references to Â« step-parents Â», I suspect that the man wasn't really a father either.

How did the hospital choose the people to watch? Every case involved previous children who had died in mysterious circumstances. To be more precise, 37 killer moms murdered 40 children. Total jail sentences imposed: 0, even though some of the women confessed when confronted afterwards.

About 1300 child murders took place in the US last year. About 500 perpetrators were non-parents, roughly divided between men and women. Of the rest, only 30 (!) were fathers. In other words, mothers were more than 25 times more likely to kill their progeny than fathers. Yet somehow, men are viewed as being more dangerous to their children than women.

In Canada, many crime statistics are presented in such a way as to hide female malevolence. As an example, we do not break down statistics on child murder by sex of the offender. Consequently, this information is not available here. However, there is no reason to assume that things are any different north of the border.

This favoured treatment of women is not limited to child murder. Rose Cece and Mary Taylor, a lesbian couple in Toronto, decided on a lark to kill a police officer. Had a man done so, he would have been convicted with first-degree murder almost without regard to the facts. If not, police associations across the country would have been outraged. In fact, Cece and Taylor were convicted of manslaughter and no one commented.

At least they went to jail. Women are often let off with suspended sentences. As the Ottawa Citizen said in one case, Â« husband-killer Lilian Getkate's sentence of two years less a day at home is an insult to our sense of natural justice. Â» The murderer herself reacted by saying: Â« I was startled. I took someone's life and I'm not going to jail. Of course I'm surprised by that. Â» Once again, the Crown did not appeal.

Getting away with murder

This reluctance to convict women murderers goes back a long way. In fact, it is the reason for the invention of the crime of infanticide at the turn of the last century. Juries refused to convict women of murdering their own children.

Or their parents, it would appear.

Lizzie Borden took an axe
Gave her mother forty whacks
When she saw what she had done
She gave her father forty-one.

What the ditty doesn't mention is that the 1892 Boston jury let Lizzie off. One of the main reasons for this is that her judge, like the one in the Getkate case, practically directed the jury to acquit. Plus Ã§a change...

One difference between women who are committed to jail and those who are not appears to be familial relationships. Only two women have ever been convicted of first-degree murder in this country. Yvonne Johnson killed a man she barely knew. Sarabjit Kaur Minhas strangled her nephew. In other words, women are given greater latitude when they kill their husbands, parents or children. Of course, they always get some slack Â– Cece and Taylor are proof enough of that.

The discrimination of the courts in favour of women is not limited to murder. It is true of all crimes. Officially, women commit 15% of serious crimes in Canada, almost certainly an understatement of the facts. Whatever the real number, they form approximately 1% of the people in our prisons. Texas statistics indicate that women are actually more likely to commit fraud than men. Despite this, men are ten times more likely to serve time for the offence.

There seems to be a fundamental refusal to admit that women are capable of committing crimes. When they do, we tend to downplay the act and to view her as the victim, not as the victimizer. A book has been written about the Johnson case. Its title is Stolen Life. Guess whose life the author feels was robbed. It isn't the man she killed.

While feminism may be partially responsible for this, the answer appears to be more profound. Lizzy Borden's parents died long before the appearance of this form of collective insanity. The reality is that people, in all societies, assume that the female of the species must be protected, even from the consequences of her own actions.

Whatever. The bottom line is that male misbehaviour, however you to define this word, is treated far more severely than equivalent female crimes.

Robert Latimer would be free today had he insisted that his wife take responsibility for her decisions instead of doing it for her. So would she. After all, she was never even investigated for her part in the killing, let alone charged, convicted or sentenced.

**Marx** · 13th-January-2006

Not exactly feminism orientated, but still an ok read:

The Top 10 Lies Happy Husbands Tell

You want to know the truth? Guys lie -- occasionally, compulsively, desperately. We certainly don't have a monopoly on lying, and I've seen women pull off some whoppers, but we men, over centuries of tinkering, have developed hardy, scrutiny-resistant strains. In the interests of furthering intergender understanding, I talked real guys into identifying, and explaining, their biggest lies.

"Sure, honey, that dress looks fine."

Why he tells it: Hassle avoidance

Men employ these "forgivable fibs" not just to avoid hurting you ("Of course you don't look fat in that outfit") but to make their lives easier ("I think that wallpaper looks great") and to steer clear of trouble ("I guess Cindy Crawford's 'sexy' in a conventional kind of way, but she's not my cup of tea").

"Lies at this level are a way to cushion the shock of two individuals interacting with each other," says Arthur L. Kovacs, Ph.D., a psychologist in Santa Monica, California. It's not that your man doesn't care what you wear or what the living room looks like -- he does. It just doesn't matter as much to him as it apparently does to you, and often he'll decide that voicing his real opinion's not worth the cost of disrupting an otherwise pleasant car ride or spending another half hour at Home Depot.

The bottom line: We lie because we love you. (If one of our buddies asked us to help choose wallpaper, we'd say, "Why don't you Xerox my butt 500 times and put that up?") In the interest of truth, you can ask him if he wants to weigh in, then simply let him off the hook if he doesn't.

"I can fix it."

Why he tells it: Ego protection

Whether it's home repair, barbecuing or wiring stereos, there are certain domains guys feel compelled to know everything about. If a man cannot fix his own power tool, he must lie and declare it beyond repair, because if he admits defeat and lets his wife fix it, he's officially banished from the Regular Guy club forever. That's the way it feels, anyway -- and that's why, every year, perfectly competent certified public accountants get their fingers cut off in circular saw accidents.

Being visibly proficient at the guy basics cuts to the core of our identity. These "I can fix it" lies tend to lessen with time, as couples start to divide tasks and responsibilities along realistic lines of personal strengths and weaknesses rather than traditional gender roles. But take it slow. "Reassure him that he's lovable for who he is, and that he doesn't need to solve every problem," advises Kovacs. "There's no shame in realistically evaluating each other's skills and sorting out who should do what."

"I was not looking at her boobs."

Why he tells it: To achieve a delicate balance between marital harmony and 4 million years of biological conditioning

No matter how long you've been together, I guarantee your man hasn't stopped being attracted to other women. You can't promise to stop liking chocolate -- only to stop eating it. When a good-looking woman walks by, he notices. If her skirt is momentarily caught in a crosswind, even a legally blind man will get whiplash.

Guys are responding to millions of years of biological conditioning. Why bother lying? Because it's obvious our looking bothers you. "This is what I call a 'blessed lie,'" says Kovacs. "Men are given more license to acknowledge a wandering eye, but at the same time, we have to always treat our woman as if she's the only thing in our field of vision."

I once dated a woman who discreetly pointed out the awesome cleavage of a girl standing next to us. I was thrilled, and not just by the view: With that one self-confident gesture, my date relieved my subconscious worry of being caught checking out other girls. She's now my wife. (Okay, she did a lot of other cool stuff, too.)

"Nothing's wrong."

Why he tells it: To lick his wounds in private

Sadness, depression, disillusionment: Correct me if I'm wrong, but for women, a man's loneliness seems to offer an ideal consoling/bonding opportunity. If only men felt the same way. For us, your heartfelt concern only confirms that our personal weakness is now blatantly visible. And that's why, when pressed by a loved one to unburden our souls, we quickly poke our heads back in our shells. Remember that for men, to bleed is noble, to refuse a Band-Aid, divine. In the psychological realm, this sometimes means lying and dissembling to avoid The Dreaded Talk.

Should you ever offer a shoulder to cry on? Yes. "If I think there's a solution to be found, I'm glad to talk to my wife about it," says Jared, 31. "She's pretty insightful. But if I can't change the situation, for God's sake, just let me go out to the garage and bang some boards together or something."

"I tried to call you."

Why he tells it: Self-defense

All men secretly think they're saints -- or exceedingly nice guys, anyway. We can't understand how women could ever be disappointed with us, given the glorious single life we've willingly given up. So when you get angry because your husband didn't call, or he showed up late, or he forgot to pick up your insulin before the pharmacy closed, the excuses kick in. You're complaining about a small, specific crime; his lie is his way of saying, "But doesn't it matter that my intentions were pure?"

"Whenever I do something wrong, my wife totally overreacts and gets hostile," says Jay, 34. So essentially, lying is damage control: When we sense undue distress, we assume our petty crime can't account for it all. Rather, your complaint must be the tip of an iceberg of criticism, and a simple apology may be admitting to more than we bargained for. If we confess to forgetting to call you when out with the boys, will you take it to mean we didn't think about you once all evening, or that we were glad to be away from you? Far safer to simply pretend the phone went inexplicably dead.

"I don't want to have sex unless you want to."

Why he tells it: To avoid seeming like a sex-crazed monkey

Women love sex -- with the right person, in the right mood and armed with the right underwear. Men's love of sex is unconditional. When unburdened by physical problems or moral restraints, the typical man can happily have sex any time, any place. He doesn't have to be in a good mood, or like the person, or "feel right about it," or know her name. Even porn movie dialogue doesn't turn men off. What's that tell you?

Men aren't insensitive to the dismaying effect our God-given, fraternity-seasoned lust can have on the women we love. "If women knew what we were thinking about most of the time, they'd never let us on their carpets," says Dan, 30. So we do our best to smooth over the rough edges. If you're not in the mood, we'll hide our disappointment so you won't think we're raging sex maniacs. If you're averse to our new idea involving handcuffs, a lingerie catalog and a balloon full of Jell-O, we'll quickly pretend we were kidding so you won't think we're perverts. (And if we feel too tired for sex, we may "perform" anyway so you won't cast your eye on the cable guy.)

It's tough for men today. We're required to be sublimely romantic and respectful, and to ask for permission before touching your nose. But we're also expected to be harder than nuclear physics, last longer than an impeachment trial, be ready for action whenever you are,and bring you off every time.

Juggling all these concerns, a guy will lie in the bedroom whenever he thinks the truth would (a) make him seem like an oversexed animal, (b) make him seem undersexed or (c) offend you and get his horizontal privileges cut off. And we don't want anything cut off, now do we?

"I'm the best, baby."

Why he tells it: To make you glad you married him

Virtually all guys engage in a little creativity when describing their bravery and fortitude, the wildness of their past exploits or their critical role at work. We're just making sure you never forget what a superlative guy you married.

"I think women expect you to talk yourself up," says Kenneth, 34. "It's your duty to give her great stories."

More important, embellishing our personal histories gives a small but regular booster shot to that ever-susceptible male ego. It's hard for the average guy to accept his averageness -- to drive his average car to his average job, take home his average salary and so forth -- especially when beer ads are blasting us with exciting images of exceptional people. If stretching the truth helps justify our unique importance to the planet, great. (This doesn't apply to me, of course: I'm legitimately extraordinary. Have a seat and I'll tell you all about it.)

It's harmless, in moderation. Is it important to him that you believe he "forced them" to fire him? Don't worry, he's normal. Is it important to him that you believe he's the CEO of Disney? You're in trouble.

"My old girlfriend? She was just okay."

Why he tells it: Self-preservation

What details from your past become common property when you marry? A man is duty-bound (and legally bound, usually) to tell his wife if he's ever contracted a sexually transmitted disease or fathered any tykes. Beyond that, it gets hazy fast. Does his wife have a right to know how many women he's slept with? Or how good it was? When privacy-minded guys are faced with probing questions, you can guess what happens.

"My wife asked me if I'd ever cheated on a girlfriend," says Bob, 32. "I did, once, but it was an isolated thing. I'd never do it again. But women think 'once a cheater, always a cheater,' so I told her no. I hated lying, but I felt like what she was really asking was, 'Would you ever cheat on me?' And that question I answered truthfully."

Men understand the importance of honesty, but we're talking about the big picture. When, in his judgment, to tell the literal truth would plant an unnecessary seed of doubt or hurt, fibbing often seems the nobler path.

Yes, this strategy conveniently keeps us from having to disclose uncomfortable information. But men, for whom intimacy is always learned behavior, can feel naked without a few private places a marriage doesn't reach -- and events truly in our past are a safe private zone.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Why he tells it: Desperate self-preservation

When a man does something that poses a significant risk to his marriage, the temptation to lie like there's no tomorrow is strong. There's nothing forgivable about this kind of lie, but in his mind at least, it can still be the lesser of two evils. "Anything likely to tear a marriage apart is also likely to be lied about unless the man is prepared for divorce," says Kovacs.

An otherwise happily married man, regretful and repentant after an isolated one-night stand, may choose to lie about it and live quietly with the guilt (and the eternal fear of exposure) rather than risk his home life. It's an act of both cowardice and compassion, since confessing to betrayal is bound to rain hostility on him and misery on his wife.

"Some things supersede truth," says Marcus, 35. "If you're never going to cheat again, who's to say honesty's the best policy?"

If your husband had a onetime affair and resolved never to do it again, would you want to know? If so, take it seriously when you feel like things have changed between you, or you feel like he's drifting away. "Give him an opportunity to come forward," says Kovacs. "Say, 'I wish you felt you could tell me anything, and I'm here whenever you want to talk.'" Just be sure you really want to hear it -- there's no going back.

"I'll never lie to you."

Why he tells it: To live happily ever after

This is the kind of romantic, reassuring thing men say because there are times when what women really want is a movie line. But even if your guy means it -- and we usually do, when we say it -- time will tell. Will he ever fib, evade or stretch the truth? Yup. Will he keep his word about the important things? That depends on his character and the strength of your marriage. And it might take a shared lifetime to find out.

But does he want the happy Hollywood ending? Yeah.