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.
@Pecunium the MRAs seem to have a “they started it” children’s playground idea of these things : Like the McDonald’s beating incident… a slap warrants beating a person to near death with a weapon. Child custody battles “push” people to murder. THEY STARTED IT. IF THEY DIDN’T START IT NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!
In their minds, if they feel wronged, it opens the door to all sorts of options, if you didn’t want those things to happen, don’t open the door, don’t wrong them. :
Sorry, I think (I’m not sure, I’m an information junkie) I’m glad I missed whatever it was Nephrite said. Not because I don’t want to see it, but because I’d probably want to respond. As it is, I can’t think any less of him for it, as I’ve not seen it.
From the article about Valentine’s Day…
Keyster: “You either attend a Super Bowl Party with women or you stay home and watch it by yourself. They will endlessly chitter-chatter and gossip the entire game, except for the half-time show where their eyes will be silently affixed to the screen, and they yell at the men to shut up”
Haha, women be talkin, amirite? Keyster should consider stand-up.
Ami is always right.
I’m glad I missed whatever it is Nephrite posted, and I feel so sorry for those children. That’s really all I can say.
Does anyone know of any reputable charities to protect children from such horrible things? I feel like I need to donate to them.
@Ami, it feels to me very much like an abuser mentality. If you had only been good and (kept your trap shut/ cooked dinner the way I like it/ not temporarily removed my children from the home of someone who might potentially abuse them) I wouldn’t have been driven to this! It’s YOUR FAULT!
@Crumbelievae- Hey! I was also quiet for the David Beckham ad. ^_^
You either attend a Super Bowl Party with men or you stay home and watch it by yourself. They will endlessly chitter-chatter and gossip the entire halftime show and all the good commercials, except during the game where their eyes will be silently affixed to the screen, and they yell at the women to shut up.
Lauralot – I believe Childhelp.org is a pretty reputable charity working against child abuse.
But when men talk during sports, that’s not “chitter-chatter” that’s SMART and ANALYTICAL and IMPORTANT! xD
Besides, it’s a party. If you don’t want to listen to people talking, watch it on your own. It’s kinda like complaining that when you go out to a club there are ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE AND THEY TALK AND MOVE AROUND AND STUFF!
I don’t like American football (though soccer and Australian rules are entertaining) so I don’t watch the Super Bowl if I can help it. However the women I’ve watched the Super Bowl with in the past do talk during the game, to yell at the refs and berate the coaches not gossip. My grandmother is probably the biggest football fan I know, and 86 years or or not, you do not want to get in her way when she’s watching a game.
Childhaven (childhaven.org) is another child abuse charity, local to Washington State, and one I personally know does good work.
Keyster: “You either attend a Super Bowl Party with women or you stay home and watch it by yourself. They will endlessly chitter-chatter and gossip the entire game, except for the half-time show where their eyes will be silently affixed to the screen, and they yell at the men to shut up”
Despite not liking football, I’ve ended up at more than one Super Party with women in attendance. This has never happened.
No.
You don’t get to downplay, politicize, or rationalize the murder of children. Just… fucking no.
I didn’t think it was possible for me to be more disgusted by Spearheaders than I already was, and yet, here we are.
@shaenon: Don’t be such a misandrist! When Keyster made the comment about women, he was just telling the truth, see.
BTW, the voyeurism and child porn charges against Powell’s father stemmed from the hidden cameras he’d installed in the bathrooms of neighborhood women who he would watch showering and going to the toilet. Underage kids who lived in the homes were obviously also filmed as they used their own bathrooms.
So basically, fuck WF Price and his talk of “tyranny.” Anyone who installs spycams in people’s bathrooms loses his right to keep kids in his home. End of story.
I mean sure, they talked. About the game.
The abuser world view is reflected in the way the MRAs speak. They are never responsible for their actions. Some external force, the woman, the police, the courts, the child, the job, is responsible for their actions. Never themselves.
Correction, the cameras were in his own home. I misunderstood the first article I read. He was filming women and underage teens, including several neighbors and his daughter in law, using the bathroom in his own home. Still vile.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/09/23/1836027/powell-in-law-arrested-charges.html
>>>BTW, the voyeurism and child porn charges against Powell’s father stemmed from the hidden cameras he’d installed in the bathrooms of neighborhood women who he would watch showering and going to the toilet.
His father had issues with women autonomy (to the point he spied on them) but that’s probably completely unrelated to his own views on women or the wife’s disappearance. NOTHING TO SEE FOLKS! Do not watch behind the MRA Abuser Lobby curtain!
That, and the constant threats that if you don’t give them everything they want, yet another “event” they’re not responsible for might “occur.”
It really is an abuser mentality. It doesn’t work so well on the Internet because we have the luxury of distance and of text communication. But it makes me worry sometimes about the people who are close to them.
This, not spite, is why I hope nobody’s too close to them.
I also missed Nephrite’s comments. Based on the reactions of everyone else, I will assume I am better off not knowing.
Even if Powell really was innocent of his wife’s disappearance, there is no reason for him to murder his own children. None of it was their fault, and they shouldn’t have to suffer for their dad’s problems. I feel sick to think of what they went through.
I still got it wrong; which is why I finally just posted a link. He had thousands of images of women and children (as young as 7 years old) in various stages of undress, some of which he obtained using a high power lens through his window, so he must have been peeping into their homes?? At any rate, no reason for those boys to be living with such a person. The state was right to remove them.
Thanks Holly, I’ll check those out.
I find it really hard to process the quotes in this post. Just, the rationalization and downplaying of murder, especially of his own children in such a heinous way, it’s just too fucked up to fathom.
@Holly also if they DON’T do bad things, then we should be thankful for it. It’s chivalry that we should reciprocate, and if we don’t, we’re ungrateful bitches. This is esp true of the divorced husbands and “Nice Guy” segments of the MRM, where NOT CHEATING on your wife is something she should have fallen over and praised you for, or “being a friend” is something she owes you sex for.
http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~jenf/writing/rant04.html
It reminds me of that.
This is for the guys who escort their drunk, bewildered female friends back from parties and never take advantage once they’re at her door, for the guys who accompany girls to bars as buffers against the rest of the creepy male population,
Specifically that line. So, NOT RAPING HER should be rewarded with… sex (essentially rape if she doesn’t want to have sex with you). -_-