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.
🙂 Ami you deserve a cupcake for being awesome.
Ya know in the King Solomon story, they had eaten the other woman’s baby?
Ami’s point is still absolutely true, though. And she deserves cupcakes.
“Ya know in the King Solomon story, they had eaten the other woman’s baby?”
Wait, what?
oops, delete that. wrong story! stupid magpie!
sorry Cassandra – I’m very very stupid today 🙁
Sorry Ami 🙁
I was wondering how the version I read could have missed that part.
This story is just completely heartbreaking.
katz, your dinosaur post made me feel better. It was very cute!
This story is tragic, and the gloating opportunism of Price really rather horrible. How these guys like him have no empathy for people’s – children’s – lives being snuffed out, I don’t know it but it keeps surprising me. Well done Anthony Zarat, if he has actually said something sensible by comparison. 🙁
Is Katz Jackson Katz?
How’s about using “morally depraved” or ” ideologically repugnant” instead of batshit?
I found this on psychology today…
http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/crimes-violence/201202/josh-powell-dangerous-men-child-visitation-and-joint-custody-laws
It’s good news to see that other people understand what many fathers rights group are trying to do, and the risks to the children as a result.
This guy could be my ex. Those poor, poor babies. Poor Susan; once she were gone, most of the protection for the boys left with her. Props to her parents for trying to intercede for the boys. At least someone was concerned with the boys first.
I don’t have a strong a stomach as you, Ami. I can’t take reading comments on those sites. So signed on all the comments about how MRA dialogue sounds like abuser rationalization.
Sorry, this is way too close to home. I’m going to call everyone who helps maintain our safety against this happening with my family and give them a rousing (and likely barely coherent) thanks.
I’m not sure the Psychology Today article helps, being very poorly written (Psychology Today is after all the Daily Mail of psych publications).
Hope you’re doing OK, Amphitrite.
I think that Psychology Today article is a little problematic, because it seems as though her main conclusion is that the state should not take on a “gender blind” attitude when it comes to custody. While she is entirely correct that abusive and controlling husbands will use the court system as a way to continue the harassment of their wives, it is also true that children get abused by their mothers as well. I think the real solution is better funding of social services and true transparency and frankness when discussing child abuse. Culturally we are a little better in talking about it openly than we used to be, but we still have a long way to go. There has to be a way for the state to reasonably determine if a parent (father OR mother) is being abusive to his or her children, or abusing the court system to punish his or her ex.
You guys know that Psychology Today is the publication that promotes the evopsych bullshit of Satoshi Kanazawa, right?
http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/satoshi_kanazawa_is_a_scientific.html
I’d rather not have them arguing for my side of the feminism versus MRA debate on anything, thanks.
I used to have confrontations with family therapists who worked with some of my clients, and who often adopted the principle that one violence (from the man) had been identified, that all other “help” for the couple had to be put on hold till the violence was addressed.
That is just bullshit. The violence almost never happened in a vacuum. And by adopting the strategy of putting all other help on hold in that manner, what they were essentially doing was pointing to HIM as the one and only problem. Again, in most cases, that was bullshit. Often men become violent as a reaction to abuse, and we have no way of knowing for sure right now if that was the case in this tragedy.
Yes, friend, he could have been driven to it. It happens all the time.
Further evidence that Elam is an abuser-enabling douche. The reason why family therapy is contraindicated if there is ongoing domestic violence is really quite simple: we can’t ask people to be honest and forthcoming in therapy if there is a threat of reprisal when they get home. Couseling 101. Also, it doesn’t matter if the perpetrator is male or female; the principle is the same.
Judging from Elam’s comments, he obviously studied at the Sean Connery school of gender relations.
Blitzgal.
I agree with your assessment of the article. And what really needs to be done with it. I’m just glad that someone is speaking out about the problems associated with forced custody, regardless of whether or not an abuser has been making their partners life a living hell. I think a lot of people with shake their heads, call it a tragedy and never stop to wonder about how it all came to be. Many people I know of think that once a victim of abuse leaves, everything is hunky dory and there’s no need to worry about the childs welfare.
As for psych todays credentials in science reporting, and the fact that it uses some shitty, twisted evo psych, I agree. There are a few bloggers that take great pains to set things straight. It should be noted though, that this magazine is used by the lay folk to educate themselves in science related matters. For this article, I have hope that those who read it have enough curiosity to educate themselves better on domestic violence and child custody.
Susan Powell’s sister describes the kind of person Josh was here: http://video.foxnews.com/v/1439207514001/susan-powells-sister-boys-were-opening-up-about-mom/?playlist_id=87937
@ captainbathrobe
I wonder why Elam is no longer a counselor? Maybe he got into trouble for asking what role a sexually abused woman had in her victimization.
He is a revolting, freakish lowlife.
I’m not trying to blame the victim but the best solution to these types of crimes is for women to stop going for men like Powell. I don’t believe for a second that this guy was completely normal and then just flipped. Women need to look at themselves and see why they go for violent men and thugs. There are millions of non-violent, caring men who are ignored by women.
@Captain:
I suppose it’s better that Elam spends his time running that pathetic website rather than continuing to be a counselor. I shudder to think what kind of awful advice he gave his patients.
I wonder if he wasn’t a full-blown MRA yet when he was going through licensing. I can’t imagine that even the most conservative licensing board would be cool with the kind of stuff he believes.
W.F. Price has written up another blog post about the case today. He said he has no sympathy for Josh Powell, and that his actions weren’t excusable. However he also said,
How the State is also Responsible for the Powell tragedy
What continually baffles me about MRA logic is the idea that completely normal men can somehow be “driven” to self-immolation/shooting up innocent people/killing his children. As if the courts came to their decision based on misandry and there was nothing else that could be done. If anything, the later actions of these so-called fathers (because no one who actually loved or cared about their children would do what these men have done) indicate that the courts were on the right track in not allowing them unfettered access to their kids.
May those little boys rest in peace. It makes me sick even thinking about what happened to them, and it makes me even sicker that ANYONE is talking about their deaths as if they were an inevitable outcome.