"Obsession deprives people of a sense of proportion to such an extent that, in the end, they can countenance their own death and the death of others they love in pursuit of that obsession."
The journo then adds:
A man [note the change from "people" to "man"] who has become obsessed with revenge against his partner and who is pathologically jealous of her can allow his children to become caught up in his delusions. His feelings about her fidelity can morph into doubts about the paternity of the children.
Bollocks. Another shoddy, female, PC, gutless* journalistic polemic against men. The moment she changed "people" to "man", she started writing of "his delusions". Subtle shift but heavily indicative and deeply dishonest of her as a journalist.
As for the issue, it's doubtful the kids even knew what was going on.
I don't blame women for completely misunderstanding the wrong they do and for steadfastly refusing to accept responsibility for their part in breakups. They're biologically not wired to accepting responsibility in matters involving men. To be fair, the mother is quoted as well in the article:
Cindy Gambino told the court that her ex-husband had been a good father and was a "softie" who always agreed to do what she wanted over matters such as whether to have another baby.
So what would drive a "softie" to kill his kids? You really want to know? Seriously?
I can completely understand not wanting my kids brought up by another man whom my ex had sold herself to and this feeling would be so strong, the thought would definitely flicker through the brain of how to make her truly understand.
Women will never, ever, understand what a man puts into his family emotionally and spiritually though society as a whole, both men and women, accept what she puts in - the eternal mother figure is a powerful icon.
When she decides to move on because he fails to satisfy or she has a better offer, this is the calculating nature of the female who sees the kids and herself as one unit and the man as just some poor sod who brings home a little over half the bacon and therefore interchangeable with someone else.
It all comes down to mental sets and I've surveyed this with the women I know so often that the correlation is indisputable. Women are never concerned with "state of being". If they marry, it's for advantage but this advantage alters with time and with changed circumstances. For her, the initial flame is replaced with the primary bond of the children with herself and society supports this bond against the man in the divorce courts.
If he doesn't spend enough time on his family [in her eyes] and on her [they might both happen to be out working for money most of the day to pay the credit debt which is a consequence of the "onwards and upwards" mindset], if he starts drinking to blot out her constant carping and shopping list of his faults, if the Camelot he envisaged and worked hard to set up now seems to have been built on a swamp rather than on a rock, if she decides he's now surplus to requirements and in true neanderthal fashon moves onto another mate - then, in her eyes, she's moved "onwards and upwards" and everyone should be "mature enough" to just move along with her but in their own separate directions.
Men are justly accused of being territorial but their territory is the whole show - the wife, kids, property, plans, dreams - it all goes with the territory. If there's one thing he's never, ever, ever going to accept it's her upping sticks, shutting the gate on him and inviting another man in to share the spoils of their joint labour of love.
It's a measure of a woman's mind if she could imagine for one second that he's going to just sit back and accept that and here's the rub - the less responsible the father, the more chance he'll just drift off and "move along" with her but the more he is, in wife Cindy's words, "a good father and... a softie who always agreed to do what she wanted", the less likely he would ever be to accept her shacking up with another man.
So yes, evil obsession consumed him, as it has countless people, male and female, whom it comes to and in these circumstances, the children were the victims. Totally wrong and the killing unjustified, no question, as killing is never justified and he must pay the price for what he did.
But to lightly skip over her own culpability in this and in all the other points of dispute in their marriage and for the journo to subtly shift all culpability onto the man and champion her would be an equal travesty.
Women MUST accept responsibility for the consequences of their snide actions, must understand, in a marriage, a dedicated father's mindset, just as he must be willing to move onwards and upwards with her. Any woman who truly loved her man would never have allowed such a situation to have arisen in the first place.
Jason and Medea - I'm afraid, despite her terrible crime in killing the children, that I'm on her side in this one. There is never any justification in the other partner taking up with someone else unless there was real, sustained and gratuitous abuse, with no extenuating circumstances.
* Just an endnote - isn't it interesting that this newspaper usually offers a "comments section" where I would most certainly have left the above text but on this issue there is the journo's opinion and only her opinion, with no right of reply whatsoever. The only conclusion to be drawn from that is that the editorial staff simply do not wish to allow the man's point of view to be expressed.
Thank goodness for true blogs, as distinct from the MSM. Grrrrrr!