>
 |
| The victims. |
21 years ago today, a misogynistic asshole named Marc Lépine shot and killed 14 female engineering students at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, then himself, after penning a manifesto-cum-suicide-note that is chillingly similar to a lot of the rhetoric I see every day on the various antifeminist blogs and message boards I watch. Lépine’s message to the world reads, in part:
Please note that if I am committing suicide today … it is not for economic reasons … but for political reasons. For I have decided to send Ad Patres [Latin: “to the fathers”] the feminists who have ruined my life. … The feminists always have a talent for enraging me. They want to retain the advantages of being women … while trying to grab those of men. … They are so opportunistic that they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men throughout the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can.
I don’t have much to say other than: rot in hell, asshole.
Here are some reflections on the anniversary of the massacre, from Clarissa’s Blog, the Geek Feminism Blog, and Womanist Musings.
>@ Christine WECHRISTINE WE SAID: "@bishopsinister,Actually, no where did I say that I believe that a woman deserves to be paid from a union forever and I don't know a single woman who expects it either."Okay, fine not forever, just until they pass from this earth or they choose to remarry. Also, just FYI, me saying pass from this earth is not meant to be a threat to all of those who are so terrified of such things. If women were truly against alimony, there'd be no alimony. CHRISTINE WE SAID: "Calling me names like parasite and welfare queen doesn't win your argument,"But calling my argument crap helps you win yours?CHRISTINE WE SAID: "especially considering I have never received alimony or welfare. I have also, thankfully, never had to receive support for children nor have I been in the position of having to deal with some loser who doesn't want to support his own children and would rather kill you than contribute to school clothes."Wait, aren't all you feminist women all strong, proud and independent? Why do you need anything for a "loser" male. Is the only way a man becomes a winner is to hand over his wallet to some woman? Also you're shifting the argument, we're talking mainly about alimony, not child support, they're not the same thing.CHRISTINE WE SAID: "And I work full-time besides. Now will you whine that I have taken a job that a man is entitled to over me?"Were you the best person for the job? Did the govenment ensure that your job was protected and men's jobs were not? If the answer to these questions are yes and no, then I have no problem with you on this issue.CHRISTINE WE SAID: "And you won't change my mind that those men were justified in what they did."So you acknowledge that you're closed minded about this issue. Nice. Because there is no way that you could be wrong, you're logic is perfect. CHRISTINE WE SAID: "Those men were assholes, and the women WERE leaving, and both more than likely would have worked and become self-sufficient as nearly all women do when a marriage ends. Many more already have a job and their own money. Contrary to popular MRA belief, MOST women do not get spousal support, or even ask for it, when they leave a marriage."The why did those women ask for alimony if they weren't going to use it? Also, there is alimony, child support and alimony disguised as child support. If you had an ounce of care about men instead of only caring about other women then you'd look into men's stories in divorce court and come to a true understanding of what happnes to men. Who am I kidding? Your kind doesn't give a shit and never will. Random Brother
>@bishopsinister,I acknowledge that I am absolutely close-minded on the issue of whether these men were justified in killing these women, yes. I think you basically answered one of David's question as well. This discussion with you is just disturbing. Sinister.
>@ DavidDAVID SAID: "Bishop, clarify a few things for me. If a man is unhappy with his divorce, do you think he's he's justified in killing her and the judge?If a man can't get laid, he's justified in killing random women?If a man has to pay alimony to a woman who wasn't a sports star like him, he's justified in killing her and her boyfriend?"No, no and no. They have no right to murder anyone. What I attempt to point out over and over again is that if you pass bad laws, you get bad behavior. Much of the violence in these cases is a direct result of bad laws. Laws that take money from earners and give it to non earners under penalty of prison. That is unfair. I don't know how much you are into military history David, but I remember one of the thigs that the smarter armies, who were in situation where they would temporarily occupy a town, would tell there men so as to be less disruptive. They would tell the men not to mess with the natives food, money, or women because they knew from experinece that was the quickest way to have people rise up against them. Feminists constantly pass laws that have the government interfere in two of the three and for some unknown reason they expect it to end well. Again this is not a threat of violence to those who are terrified of such things. DAVID SAID: "Do you really think these things? I'd like to think you don't, but it sounds an awful lot like you do."Understand something, if I were some violent anti female revolutionary the last place I'd be is on this blog telling you about it. DAVID SAID: "Also, on the whole "predicting" vs "threatening" thing. It's one thing to predict bad things happening to women because of the anger in the MRM. It's another to make the prediction while puffed up with self-righteousness against women and/or feminists. In the first case, that's predicting. In the second case, well, it's not an actual specific threat, but there's definitely a threatening edge to it. These sorts of comments seem intended to intimidate/scare feminists into shutting up."Really? You think that's my plan? Firslty, which one of these loud mouths who I've argued with will ever STFU? Feminists seem habitually incapable of shutting up. Secondly, what terrifying threat could come from me, someone who doesn't know them, know who they are, where they are, what they look like, what valid threat could actually come in this format? The only thing I said was that if unfair laws keep getting passed bad things will happen. That's not a threat, that's a historical truth. Who the hells afraid of that? Did someone come sniveling to you saying they were scared? Please. You know I told you a while ago that you'd have to ban the men here. First you trumped up some bs on Eoghan. I guess it's my turn, eh? Damn David, couldn't I have been number one? CONT
>CONTDAVID SAID: "Threatening and/or justifying violence against women — much less murder –isn't acceptable on this blog."Didn't do any of this, but trump it up good and proper anyway. By the way David, if I threaten someone there be no doubt it's a threat. For example, if I were to threaten someone I'd say something like "I'm going to come over to your house and skull fuck your bitch ass with my fucking tire iron." That would be me threatening someone. And again. . .I am not actually threatening anyone for those who are terrified of such things. DAVID SAID: "But you've been posting here a long time, and I'd like to think you're better than this kind of shit, and so I'm going to give you the chance to explain yourself."Well thank you your highness, I shalt remember to grovel properly and kiss thine ring upon entry to your realm. DAVID SAID: "But if you continue to post these kinds of comments they will be deleted. You're coming dangerously close to being banned outright."When you ban me David, do it with some sort of flourish, okay. Make sure you go all righteous white knight on the evil MRA dragon. And make sure you cash in and get some feminist tail out of your "noble" deed. I'd hate for you to be a feminist sycophant for nothing.Random BrotherWearing flowers behind my ears as not to appear threatening.
>Christine WE said… @yohan,"MRAs do not support criminal men like this Marc Lepine."Yes, some MRA's do. There are examples of it that have been pointed out throughout this blog and it's comments. Courts are ruling in favor to females. I wonder what will happen to a man doing the same…http://www.nationalturk.com/en/susan-falls-found-not-guilty-of-murdering-husband-on-a-current-affair-73042345
>@ CHRISTINE WECHRISTINE SAID "@bishopsinister,I acknowledge that I am absolutely close-minded on the issue of whether these men were justified in killing these women, yes. I think you basically answered one of David's question as well. This discussion with you is just disturbing. Sinister."That's not what I said and you know it. Hey that trumped up "fear?" nice! Go with that. CHRISTINE WE DIDN'T SAY, BUT SHOULD HAVE SAID: "Oh no someone said something on the internet that may or may not mean something, I'm scared, David save me from the eviiiiilllllMRA text! If you do, and weren't a male, I'd be so hawt for you! David save me!!!!!!"Random BrotherTerrifying feminists through the power of magical Satanic text.Ominous footsteps. . .
>@bishopsinister,You said exactly this:"CHRISTINE WE SAID: "And you won't change my mind that those men were justified in what they did." So you ackowledge that you're close minded on this issue. Nice. Because there is no way that you could be wrong, you're logic is perfect." I simply confirmed that, yes, I acknowledge that I am close minded on the issue of whether these men were justified in what they did – which is murder these women. I know exactly what you said. Whether you meant exactly that, I don't know, but it IS what you said.P.S. I'm not scared of you.
>@bishopsinister,What the hell kind of job is protected by the government for anybody?
>I were some violent anti female revolutionary the last place I'd be is on this blog telling you about it. I dunno, man. A lot of the time crazies go on about their plans on the Internet and nobody takes them seriously until they actually do it. Plenty of school shooters or mass murderers have posted their manifestos on Youtube, in blog posts, or whatever before going out in what they perceived to be a blaze of glory. How do we know you're not the same way?I'm not trying to troll or accuse you of anything, but it's a legitimate question. Given the amount of crazies who've never made any secret of their craziness (that school shooter in Finland, for instance, posted violent, misanthropic crap all over blogs and Youtube), it's not hard to believe a "crazy violent anti-feminist" really *would* spew all his plans on other people's blogs.
>@ CHRISTINE WEWhy do I think you are far less close minded about women who shoot their allegedly abusive husbands in the back while sleeping. Or say, Lorena Bobbit's actions? Are those fair also?Further, during this recession men were the primary losers in the job market, meaning they lost more jobs. Your feminists allies went to Obama and demanded that most of the money be put towards helping create jobs usually done by women. That's what I mean by jobs protected by the government.Oh and David if you're reading this, see the non threat I allegedly made has had no effect as CHRISTINE WE is clearly not scared, so I guess I haven't shut down communication with, you know the truth and all.Random Brother
>@ thevagrantsvoiceThe problem is I didn't threaten anyone. Further this thread deals with a massacre. It's next to impossible to talk about it without mentioning violence. I hope you are not one of those, well if he doesn't grovel to feminists he must be evil types. Random Brother.
>@bishopsinister,"Why do I think you are far less close minded about women who shot their allegedly abusive husbands in the back while sleeping. Or say, Lorena Bobbit's actions? Are those fair also?"I don't know why you think that as I have never said or insinuated anything like it anywhere on this blog or anywhere else. I am against violence, period, and wish that no one had to deal with it at all.As far as jobs protected by the goverment…where and what are these jobs protected for women only? I watch and read lot of news on a daily basis and have not heard anything about this. It appeared to me that bail outs were going to some male dominated businesses, stimulus money was distributed equally to all tax-paying individuals, and that jobs are being created anywhere and everywhere that there is opportunity to create them and are available to those who qualify regardless of gender. The jobs created with government assistance where I live are definitely male dominated industries…aerospace, shipbuilding, etc, which we are thrilled to have. Even the BP oil spill which occurred along the gulf coast where I live employed mostly men. Where and what are jobs protected by government just for women? Please provide sources for this information.
>Also, about the fairness of spousal support. If I had any say in it, which I don't, I would look at situations case by case. In most divorce cases I am aware of, spousal support was not necessary and was not awarded and most women I know of never even asked for it. I do not believe it's that common. Divorce among the wealthy is only a small amount of divorce cases. Those cases aren't comparable to the mainstream divorce cases, where many women work and contribute to the home. The only situation where I will stand firm that spousal support is fair is in any case in which a man has not allowed a woman to develop job skills or career due to supremacist beliefs. Supremacists are very likely to be left eventually, and if he ends up having to pay her spousal support while she develops job skills, then so be it.
>I should add to that last statement, that those women are the least likely to ask for spousal support as those men often have threatened them and they are scared – often for good reason considering how many men kill over money (which you and other MRA's say is understandable), in which case, others are available to help her in that endeavor using government funding. You fellows have no clue how much you justify funding like VAWA on your websites.
>Yes, yes, I'm not accusing you of anything, Bishop. I'm just saying that in general, its not really a useful rule of thumb to say/assume that violent people don't talk about violence/fantasize about it online. Plenty of them do, and it's something to keep an eye on.
>David Futrelle said… 1 -If a man is unhappy with his divorce, do you think he's he's justified in killing her and the judge?2 -If a man can't get laid, he's justified in killing random women?3 -If a man has to pay alimony to a woman who wasn't a sports star like him, he's justified in killing her and her boyfriend? Yohan's answer1 – NO2 – NO3 – NONow a question to DAVID, do you think that men who suffer because of bad women have the right to complain openly about such a society, which is protective and even supportive to bad women?ordo you think, because of protecting feminism, all these men should remain silent, work, and give most of their properity and earnings to their ex-wives, former girlfriends, adult children etc. for the coming 40 years or so?I do not think, it is wrong to complain if you feel you are treated badly as man by women because of legal loopholes and biased court rulings.And I do not think, it is wrong as a man to socialize with other men who had similar bad experiences in the past and to demand as a group that such laws have to be changed.What do you think, David?
>Christine WE said… …. in which case, others are available to help her in that endeavor using government funding. You fellows have no clue how much you justify funding like VAWA on your websites. It's not about to help HER, it's about the question if there is anything available out of government funding to help HIM.Men have also problems, but unlike women, where can they go? About VAWA, (violence against women…) shows how sexist this law really is. Even the name of the law is already sexist.To claim that VAWA could be understood 'gender-neutral' is about the same as to tell men that 'white' and 'black' or 'red' and 'green' are the same colors…An American speciality is this VAWA – 'add-on' called IMBRA.A law similar to IMBRA does nowhere exist in the entire world, except in USA. IMBRA's sole target are US-men with foreign women with the intention to make international dating/marriage difficult and time-consuming.
>@yohan,"IMBRA's sole target are US-men with foreign women with the intention to make international dating/marriage difficult and time-consuming."IMBRA is a response to the murders of Susanna Blackwell, Anastasia King and others who were brought to the U.S. via government issued K-1 fiancee visa's. This isn't an uncommon problem. Just last week Scott Huss was found guilty of the murder of his Russian bride Yana Huss. I can see, though, why men who want to shop for underaged girls or those who want foreign brides but have something to hide in a background check would be unhappy with IMBRA. Who are the men you know in the U.S. who need help from the government because their wives will not allow them to develop job skills/build careers? Considering well over half of VAWA funds are filtered to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors and judicial offices and pay for investigators, equipment, prosecutors, etc. both genders do benefit from the funding. Cops have to deal with what's presented to them and if an investigator is faced with a man beaten with a pipe or shot to death in a domestic, they are going to serve him or his family with the investigator whose salary is paid partially with VAWA funds, the prosecutor's office is going to do the same.
>Christine WE: Considering well over half of VAWA funds are filtered to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors and judicial offices and pay for investigators, equipment, prosecutors, etc. both genders do benefit from the funding. This statement above is utter mockery…… if an investigator is faced with a man beaten with a pipe or shot to death in a domestic, they are going to serve him or his family with the investigator whose salary is paid partially with VAWA funds, the prosecutor's office is going to do the same. You are making fun out of me…as I said, even the name of this law (violence against women…) is purely sexist at its finest.
>@Yohan, the women specific language of the bill is only in the title, the language in defining the crimes uses the terms "spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner" (the language 'dating partner' was added when the act was amended, the language in the original bill was "spouse or intimate partner") and applies legally to both sexes and to same sex abuse. A male abuse victim is legally protected under VAWA and a female perp legally criminal. The bill even says with respect to VAWA’s grant conditions, that “[n]othing in this subchapter shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this subchapter." The language within the bill is explicitly and intentionally gender neutral. There were a few subsections that did use the term woman in the '94 version, but all of those were changed to gender neutral language when the bill was amended in 2006. You could actually finding out what the bill says and does before you start sobbing about it.IMBRA's language is also gender neutral, it require background checks for any person who sponsors a K-1 visa, so women seeking to marry foreign men would also have to comply. Most of the penalties within the bill only apply to the 'matchmakers' (International Marriage Brokers, specifically defined in such a way that they must be paid to fall under the rules), the few that apply to private citizens are background checks for K-1 sponsors, mandatory disclosure of violent crimes to foreign client of the K-1, and a limit of 2 K-1s per person for life unless one files for an exemption. All of this is gender neutral and the terms used are 'person' and 'sponsor'. This law DOES NOT prohibit American men from marrying foreign citizens, and it DOES NOT put American women seeking to marry foreign men in a better legal position. The goal of the bill is to reduce human trafficking, which is a huge and real problem in the US. Anyone who has ever dealt with the US immigration process will tell you that IMBRA is not really a big problem and damned does the US immigration system have more than its fair share of problems. I can't imagine anyone other than a convicted violent felon (because they can categorically be denied ability to sponsor K-1s under IMBRA) thinking that this bill is amoungst the biggest hurdles in dealing with residency and citizenship of a foreign spouse.
>You could actually finding out what the bill says and does before you start sobbing about it.So you are telling me that this should not be happening. So why did it happen if the law is enforced equally?
>DarkSideCat said… @Yohan, the women specific language of the bill is only in the title … OK, so it is now the time to change this sexist titel of this law and to execute it accordingly in a gender-neutral form. Do you agree?
>TriplePlusGood article Citizen!! Remember, never mention when men die, only women!Your chocolate rations are increasing to 22 grams.May Big Sister smile upon you.
>"Remember, never mention when men die, only women!"Right on LBF! I mean that would be ridiculous, right? An article about one specific murderer and his specific victims having to mention every other murder that has been committed in history, lest someone should feel left out and think that no men are ever murdered? That's just PC gone mad. *rolleyes*re: Raoul Moat. He actually killed 2 men and only injured the woman. The point isn't that Christine is only taking his girlfriend's shooting seriously. The point is that there are MRAs declaring him as a hero because of the MOTIVATION of the murder – the fact he was angry with his ex-girlfriend apparently entitles him to murder men too – her boyfriend and a random policeman. So apparently it's not only random women who deserve to die because of the actions of a few. Men are justified in murdering other MEN as long as it's anger at women who motivated it. It can't be his fault if he was pissed off at the cheating whore, right?And this is just proof that MRA is not about men's rights so much as misogyny and will actually trivialise the murders of men as well as women to get this across. The same goes for Ronald Goldman as well as Moat's victims.