About these ads

Spearheader on Josh Powell: “What I don’t understand is why he didn’t take out a few judges instead of his innocent children.”

The murdered boys

Last September, WF Price of The Spearhead wrote a post about a Seattle area man named Josh Powell, widely suspected of murdering his missing wife. Price’s complaint? Powell’s two boys had been removed from his custody after his father (with whom he and the boys were living) was charged with voyeurism and possessing child porn. Price excoriated the authorities for what he saw as an abuse of their powers, and concluded his piece by saying that “[t]yranny has arrived in the guise of protecting women and children.”

In the comments, there was a lot more talk about tyranny. Natalia, meanwhile, worried about the children:

The kids are already dealing with the pain of missing their mom, and now they are taken away from their dad. How can anyone believe that’s better for the children?

On Sunday, as you are probably well aware, Powell killed these children, and himself. During a supervised visit, authorities say, Powell locked himself and his kids in his house, incapacitated them by chopping their heads and necks with a hatchet, then set the house (primed with gasoline as an accelerant)  ablaze.

The regulars on the Spearhead don’t seem much interested in talking about Powell any more. But of the few comments that have been made, several have been rather telling. Responding to a feminist commenting on his original post, Price wrote:

Typical for a feminist to see this as a triumph. Josh Powell was hounded for years up to this point. If he didn’t kill his wife, and there’s still no evidence he did, does the court bear some responsibility for the outcome here?

That’s right. The court is to blame for trying to protect the children from the man who later murdered them.

And not a word of sympathy from him for the murdered children.

Meanwhile, another Spearheader seemed to suggest that the main problem was that Powell had picked the wrong people to kill:

Notice the upvotes.  And the lack of a response; the regulars were too busy making jokes about domestic violence and the evils of the upcoming Valentines — sorry, Vagina — Day.

EDITED TO ADD: Thanks to Kendra, Cloudiah, and Crumbelievable for pointing me to Price’s post and these comments. I should also note that there were a couple of comments from others at The Spearhead  expressing sorrow for the murdered children. And to my knowledge no one in the MRM has hailed him as a hero, so that’s something, I guess.

EDITED TO ADD AGAIN:

Price digs his hole deeper. Responding to a critical comment by none other than Men’s Rights Activist Lieutenant, he writes, among other things:

If the cops knew he was capable of real violence, and they must have if they suspected him for murder, they bear some responsibility for provoking this.

So if the cops knew he was capable of real violence (which they clearly did) … they should have let him keep the kids? That he ultimately killed?

I’ve heard this argument before from MRAs. Essentially, if a man in a custody dispute threatens violence, or is thought to be violent, the courts should simply hand the kids over to him. So he won’t get mad. That’s the logic of an abuser, or at the very least of an enabler.

About these ads

Posted on February 7, 2012, in antifeminism, hypocrisy, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, the spearhead, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 216 Comments.

  1. So “Why did you make me hit you” becomes “Why did you make me/him kill you/them.”

    Well, it’s a step up from “Why are you hitting yourself” so that’s…. nothing

  2. Price digs his hole deeper. Responding to a critical comment by none other than Men’s Rights Activist Lieutenant, he writes, among other things:

    If the cops knew he was capable of real violence, and they must have if they suspected him for murder, they bear some responsibility for provoking this.

    So if the cops knew he was capable of real violence (which they clearly did) … they should have let him keep the kids? That he ultimately killed?

    I’ve heard this argument before from MRAs. Essentially, if a man in a custody dispute threatens violence, or is thought to be violent, the courts should simply hand the kids over to him. So he won’t get mad. That’s the logic of an abuser, or at the very least of an enabler.

    That logic would indeed be insanity: the whole paradigm of family court law is deciding what arrangement is going to be in the child’s or children’s best interests. Granting custody to a parent suspected of violence would be rewarding aggression, which is not a good principle in any equitable negotiation: “give me access to my children, or else…”

  3. Xanthe: A huge part of the MRA agenda is making it possible for men to say, “or else” and profit from it.

    Look at Meller, and is, “women know what they are doing, and they choose to provoke men. If a man hits a woman it’s bad, but it’s understandable. You have to think about what horrible things she had to have done to make a nice peaceful man (the sort he claims to be) hit someone he loves.”

  4. Kendra, the bionic mommy

    Granting custody to a parent suspected of violence would be rewarding aggression, which is not a good principle in any equitable negotiation: “give me access to my children, or else…”

    This. AnnArchist described going against the wishes of violent abusers as “poking the bear”. By that logic, they only way to avoid “poking the bear” is to just give the violent parent whatever zie wants. That’s what the most radical fathers’ rights and men’s rights activitists want, for courts to hand children over to whichever parent is the most likely to go on a rampage. It’s no wonder they belittle the phrase “the best interests of the children”. It’s very hard to argue that it is in the best interest of the children to live with a violent criminal.

    Mens Rights Reddit discussion of Dekraai

  5. “AnnArchist described going against the wishes of violent abusers as “poking the bear”.”

    By that logic, men are dangerous feral animals without any moral or capacity of reasoning. But feminists hates men.

  6. I’m going to be sick. I can’t even. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,560 other followers

%d bloggers like this: