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.
Because we talk a lot about about assholes and misogynists and they are not nice persons? And because many misogynists, though not all, are men?
You’re a genius.
yeah, doj can still mount a solid investigation when they get off their asses, but the getting off their asses part seems to be tough for them
That makes sense and, as noted, wouldn’t be terribly feasible anyway. How depressing that it’s even an issue.
Price digs his hole deeper. Responding to a critical comment by, er, MRAL,he wrote, 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.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/09/29/police-put-pressure-josh-powell-by-removing-his-children/#comment-130190
So if the cops knew he was capable of real violence (which, uh, they did) … they should have let him keep the kids? That he ultimately killed?
Removing the children from a violent man…responsible for that man murdering the children.
Ah yes, it all makes sense EXCEPT FOR THE PART WHERE IT TOTALLY FUCKING DOESN’T.
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.
So “Why did you make me hit you” becomes “Why did you make me/him kill you/them.”
Brilliant. I need to go look at something happy so that I don’t lose all faith in humanity.
When it’s about hitting, I would call it the logic of an abuser. When it’s about murdering children, I’d it’s pur and simple terrorism.
I blame my phone, it will be its fault if I break it to piece because it can’t spell my adress right and put my comment into moderation.
I have to give credit where credit is due. MRAL was very brave to speak up and disagree with Price over at the Spearhead. I was especially impressed when he made this statement
Bravo, MRAL. I think part of the problem is that some of the MRA’s are obsessed with getting respect, and they believe that fear is the same thing as respect. They also want to feel powerful by making others afraid. When MRA’s start making passive aggressive threats, I tune out everything else they say. If they want people to listen to their concerns, they need to stop making excuses for violent criminals like Powell or Dekraai.
Well, it’s a step up from “Why are you hitting yourself” so that’s…. nothing
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…”
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.”
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
“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.
I’m going to be sick. I can’t even. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE