Blame it on Mom

[diana]

Much of Freudian Psychology has been disproved. In the past almost every abberation a person could have was put down to a cold unfeeling or abusive mother.

I am somewhat knowledgeable about autism having worked in an autistic unit for a year. Bruno Bettelheim popularized the idea that autism was caused by what he called "refrigerator mothers". That wrong view held sway for decades. Marriages were broken and women committed suicide.
While the cause of autism is not yet known, Moms have been let off the hook.

Today when I read that experts are blaming the mothers of serial killers for their child's abberations I have alarm bells go off in my head.

First of all that tired old explanation has been used for just about anything that can go wrong with a kid for years and it has already been proven wrong for at least some disabilities.

Secondly, psychopaths are notorious for telling self serving lies. And they tend to blame everyone else for what they do including the victims. Why should Mom be exempt? So when I read of some SK in prison, detailing the horrible things Mom did to him when he was a kid, I'm wondering if he's telling the truth.

Thirdly, even if these stories are true, might it not be that we are dealing with a genetic abberration which this SK got from Mom? Maybe it affected her behavior and then was passed down to him?

Finally, there are some SK's who had apparently normal upbringings. Dennis Rader insists that his upbringing was normal. I anguished along with Jeffry Dahmer's father as I read about his soul searching, trying to decide where he had gone wrong.

My suspicion is that someday it will be shown to be biological or spiritual. Then Mom will be off the hook -- for this at least.

[protohistorian]

Much of Freudian Psychology has been disproved. In the past almost every abberation a person could have was put down to a cold unfeeling or abusive mother.

I am somewhat knowledgeable about autism having worked in an autistic unit for a year. Bruno Bettelheim popularized the idea that autism was caused by what he called "refrigerator mothers". That wrong view held sway for decades. Marriages were broken and women committed suicide.
While the cause of autism is not yet known, Moms have been let off the hook.

Today when I read that experts are blaming the mothers of serial killers for their child's abberations I have alarm bells go off in my head.

First of all that tired old explanation has been used for just about anything that can go wrong with a kid for years and it has already been proven wrong for at least some disabilities.

Secondly, psychopaths are notorious for telling self serving lies. And they tend to blame everyone else for what they do including the victims. Why should Mom be exempt? So when I read of some SK in prison, detailing the horrible things Mom did to him when he was a kid, I'm wondering if he's telling the truth.

Thirdly, even if these stories are true, might it not be that we are dealing with a genetic abberration which this SK got from Mom? Maybe it affected her behavior and then was passed down to him?

Finally, there are some SK's who had apparently normal upbringings. Dennis Rader insists that his upbringing was normal. I anguished along with Jeffry Dahmer's father as I read about his soul searching, trying to decide where he had gone wrong.

My suspicion is that someday it will be shown to be biological or spiritual. Then Mom will be off the hook -- for this at least.

It is not a matter of blaming mom. If a killer developes a pathological hatred of women, the most logical candidate for him to start with is mom. The mother cannot be blamed for what is percieved to be true in the son's mind, it is rather a case of being the woman who the killer was most associated with. Being as it is that misogynistic pathology ofen starts at a young age, you are lead back to mom. It could just as easily be rejection by contemporaries that at women.

[protohistorian]

Much of Freudian Psychology has been disproved. In the past almost every abberation a person could have was put down to a cold unfeeling or abusive mother.

I am somewhat knowledgeable about autism having worked in an autistic unit for a year. Bruno Bettelheim popularized the idea that autism was caused by what he called "refrigerator mothers". That wrong view held sway for decades. Marriages were broken and women committed suicide.
While the cause of autism is not yet known, Moms have been let off the hook.

Today when I read that experts are blaming the mothers of serial killers for their child's abberations I have alarm bells go off in my head.

First of all that tired old explanation has been used for just about anything that can go wrong with a kid for years and it has already been proven wrong for at least some disabilities.

Secondly, psychopaths are notorious for telling self serving lies. And they tend to blame everyone else for what they do including the victims. Why should Mom be exempt? So when I read of some SK in prison, detailing the horrible things Mom did to him when he was a kid, I'm wondering if he's telling the truth.

Thirdly, even if these stories are true, might it not be that we are dealing with a genetic abberration which this SK got from Mom? Maybe it affected her behavior and then was passed down to him?

Finally, there are some SK's who had apparently normal upbringings. Dennis Rader insists that his upbringing was normal. I anguished along with Jeffry Dahmer's father as I read about his soul searching, trying to decide where he had gone wrong.

My suspicion is that someday it will be shown to be biological or spiritual. Then Mom will be off the hook -- for this at least.

You intuition is correct, as recently as 2003 a survey was started to lokk at the brains of inmates that were diagnosed as sociopaths, and the resulting paper, 2006, found that among the sample of several dozen that most were missing a protien that in the brain functions as an integral part of feelings like remorse and guilt. For the poor souls, every behavior they ever engaged in was internally, positively, reinforced. It wouldn't take long to end up with a trunk of dead hookers if that was the state of functioning within your mind.

[Jon Guy]

Peter Sutcliffe literally hung onto his mothers skirt when he was a young boy.

Around this time family life at the Sutcliffe`s was shattered by the relevation that his dad had been having an affair. The woman in question seems to have been a more "glamorous" woman than his homely wife.

Sutcliffe would later note that when the prostitutes jumped into his car he would be quite calm until he smelt the alcohol, sweat and perfume and then the anger would well up in him.

It`s probably much more complicated than this but an easy connection can be seen here.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

The thing about Jack the Ripper is that, to me, there's only two clear motives for his killings: sexual satisfaction or misogyny.

Given that he didn't jack off at the crime scenes, there's not much physical proof of these being lust killings other than the women (i.e. prostitutes) and the bodily areas that he homed in on.

Assuming Jack didn't have a sexual preference for overweight and drunken older women, wouldn't he have targeted prostitutes that were more his type if these were sexual murders? To me, the women he eviscerated (apart from MJK) were all the right 'type' to be mother figures in his warped point of view. That on top of the organs he removed (reproductive) makes me inclined to seriously consider that he had a hatred for his mum.

I don't like to put too much thought into it as I think it's a lame and clichéd reason for him to do what he did and it diminishes my view of the killer , but looking at what we know of these murders that's the only obvious motive I can see for him doing so.

[protohistorian]

The thing about Jack the Ripper is that, to me, there's only two clear motives for his killings: sexual satisfaction or misogyny.

Given that he didn't jack off at the crime scenes, there's not much physical proof of these being lust killings other than the women (i.e. prostitutes) and the bodily areas that he homed in on.

Assuming Jack didn't have a sexual preference for overweight and drunken older women, wouldn't he have targeted prostitutes that were more his type if these were sexual murders? To me, the women he eviscerated (apart from MJK) were all the right 'type' to be mother figures in his warped point of view. That on top of the organs he removed (reproductive) makes me inclined to seriously consider that he had a hatred for his mum.

I don't like to put too much thought into it as I think it's a lame and clichéd reason for him to do what he did and it diminishes my view of the killer , but looking at what we know of these murders that's the only obvious motive I can see for him doing so.

I am wondering just how developed his misogyny was? I would not be surprised if the killer was misanthropic in worldview, and misogyny was an overlying level of cognitive impairment. There is also the issue of women targets as percieved as weak and therefore more readily attacked.

[KatBradshaw]

This is an issue which has long bothered me. When I was writing my dissertation one thing which always struck and bothered me was the fact that women are always blamed for being the victim. The killer had been taunted by a prostitute, had a cruel mother, a posh girlfriend, whatever! Its the Eve complex of the judao-christian world. (appologies for my spelling)

[Sam Flynn]

There is also the issue of women targets as percieved as weak and therefore more readily attacked.

There's more than just a perception of weakness in the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes too. They were all either slightly built, weak, thin, drunk, ill... or a combination of these things. At least in the case of Nichols and Eddowes - and arguably that of Chapman - they were also out on the (somewhat deserted) streets, alone.

He needn't have been misogynistic at all, therefore - merely a coward picking off easy targets.

[DarkPassenger]

People so vastly misunderstand the psychology of serial killers.

It cannot be reduced to "blaming mom" but on the complexities of development.

[caz]

Assuming Jack didn't have a sexual preference for overweight and drunken older women, wouldn't he have targeted prostitutes that were more his type if these were sexual murders?

Hi M&P,

But how do you know what his type was? How do you know that he was such a young, slim and sober specimen himself, or that he would automatically target slim and sober young things if mutilating women got him off sexually? Could he not have been a podgy, older drinking man, who found it easier to 'impress' and overcome women who were drunk or past their prime or just desperate?

I can't help but think the killer was only interested in ripping up female bodies, even if he was not primarily motivated by any sort of sexual fantasy. If suitably weak and vulnerable males had been equally available to him, would he have bitten? I don't think so somehow.

I have no doubt that inattentive or overbearing mothers can make a child's life bloody miserable and leave permanent emotional scars. But unless a man also happens to be mentally ill, the moment he becomes a man and takes out his childhood resentment on others, he alone is responsible and he alone must take the blame. I don't think there are many of us who could not conjure up tales of woe from our early days if we wanted an excuse for bad behaviour.

Love,

Caz
X

[protohistorian]

People so vastly misunderstand the psychology of serial killers.

It cannot be reduced to "blaming mom" but on the complexities of development.

Amen Brother! Well said

[protohistorian]

There's more than just a perception of weakness in the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes too. They were all either slightly built, weak, thin, drunk, ill... or a combination of these things. At least in the case of Nichols and Eddowes - and arguably that of Chapman - they were also out on the (somewhat deserted) streets, alone.

He needn't have been misogynistic at all, therefore - merely a coward picking off easy targets.

misogyny is implied by the lack of male victims. Surely, with all the overcrowding in the east end, the killer would have at least one potential male victim. I contend that there are none as a functioning within his own perception.

[protohistorian]

This is an issue which has long bothered me. When I was writing my dissertation one thing which always struck and bothered me was the fact that women are always blamed for being the victim. The killer had been taunted by a prostitute, had a cruel mother, a posh girlfriend, whatever! Its the Eve complex of the judao-christian world. (appologies for my spelling)

Please do not misunderstand, I do not believe anyone is asserting that the victims are to blame. The fact remains that the entirety of the victims are women which strongly suggests a developemental problem within the killer regarding women as a subset of human beings. The reason for exploring this issue is an attempt to isolate the nature of that dysfunction. I readily admit that some people deserve to have their existence ended in such fashion, but not these people.

[protohistorian]

Hi M&P,

But how do you know what his type was? How do you know that he was such a young, slim and sober specimen himself, or that he would automatically target slim and sober young things if mutilating women got him off sexually? Could he not have been a podgy, older drinking man, who found it easier to 'impress' and overcome women who were drunk or past their prime or just desperate?

I can't help but think the killer was only interested in ripping up female bodies, even if he was not primarily motivated by any sort of sexual fantasy. If suitably weak and vulnerable males had been equally available to him, would he have bitten? I don't think so somehow.

I have no doubt that inattentive or overbearing mothers can make a child's life bloody miserable and leave permanent emotional scars. But unless a man also happens to be mentally ill, the moment he becomes a man and takes out his childhood resentment on others, he alone is responsible and he alone must take the blame. I don't think there are many of us who could not conjure up tales of woe from our early days if we wanted an excuse for bad behaviour.

Love,

Caz
X

Agreed, no ducking behind history. I also think he had many chances for male victims, but for some reason they did not fit his targeted type.

[claire]

Hmmmm. Certainly, we can imagine the deleterious effects of a mother's misconceived or plain evil actions, but if you're looking specifically at a Freudian model here, it's probably worth remembering that Freud's scope didn't include the poor and downtrodden living in overcrowded slums (ie. the demography our killer likely was part of). Further, although to get out of a professional hole, Freud stated at times that his theories were literal, there is much to suggest that they were figurative (ie. these weren't literal individual mothers he was talking about, but the relationship of self with the feminine, and the tensions that that produced). Lastly, Freud's model is hardly an analytical manual, despite certain practitioners' attempts to make it so.

On another matter, how do we know JtR didn't kill men too?