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.
So once again we’re back to the idea that the person responsible for murder isn’t the actual murderer, as long as it’s a man and there was an “evil” woman involved.*
Pretzel logic at its finest.
*All women who get divorced or separated from men are of course evil in MRA-land. Even the ones who were murdered.
@ Rachel Maud
That’s it exactly. Even if you buy the evil courts conspiring against men version of events, why is “kill the kids” the logical outcome? How do you get from A to murder?
I’m afraid that this is one conversation I’m going to have to bow out of. Its just too much to contemplate right now.
I have a letter to write for my local MPs’ on why the abortion debate should not be reopened. Part of that letter will include my story of giving up my son for adoption.
May these two boys rest in peace.
@Kendra:
What a surprise. MRAs are always incredibly passive-aggressive about violence. It reveals how bloodthirsty they are.
We don’t endorse Powell, but that’s what you get for taking away his kids.
We don’t endorse Breivik, but that’s what you get for pushing feminism down our throats.
We don’t endorse rape threats against Sandy Doyle, but that’s what she gets for being a feminist.
And feminists are the hatemongers, right. Keep telling yourselves that, guys.
@ Cassandra: I can’t even begin to contemplate why that would be a conclusion that anyone would leap to. I’m just thankful that the vast majority do not think this way.
A good friend of mine is currently in a situation where he only sees his kids a few times a year, because their mother was granted primary custody. What does he do? He makes his child support payments and does his damndest to be a loving, supportive father to those children. That’s how it should be done. It breaks my heart that the children of these narcissistic tools didn’t get that.
Seriously, this is turning into “Thank Your Dad For Not Being a Self Centered Asshole” day.
And, you know, for not being a murderer. In all of the bullshit about the evil courts and state misandry and blah blah, let’s not let them shift the focus away from the fact that two children were brutally murdered.
the level of rationalization these abuse-sympathizers will go to is astounding. Oh it’s a devastating effect to take children away from a father! even if it is, if a father truly loved his children HE WOULD NOT MURDER THEM! Fathers who love their kids would not harm them no matter how devastated or upset they are.
That itty bitty fact right there proves they could care less about children. All it has to do with MRAs is ego- children are property. You insult their pride, their honor. Thus they either excuse or find ways to rationalize this type of sick behavior.
WF Price has children. Think about that for a moment. Actually don’t. Because it will make you sick knowing that someone with kids can make an argument that is pretty much summed up as “I don’t endorse murder, but this is what you get for taking a way a man’s property..oh sorry, his kids”
And, you know, for not being a murderer. In all of the bullshit about the evil courts and state misandry and blah blah, let’s not let them shift the focus away from the fact that two children were brutally murdered.
Careful Cassandra. To do that would be hatred towards men.
Y’know, I’ve been thinking about it, and actually do think the state bears some responsibility for this, in the sense that they failed to keep these children out of the hands of a murderer. Powell clearly should not have been allowed any access to those kids.
What a monstrous person Price is. Josh Powell was a person of interest in a MURDER CASE. And then his father was found to be not only violating the privacy of his neighbors but also that of children as young as 7! What exactly is the appropriate level of criminality that gives the state cause to remove children from a home? Because that’s a pretty high fucking threshold if you’re going to argue that the state went overboard in removing the kids. His response WAS TO KILL THEM. He could have chosen to cooperate with the investigation and prove his innocence. He could have tried to flee the state with them. He chose to kill them. What other proof do you need that he was a violent, controlling MURDERER?!
Yes-which is also a concern when someone is quashing an order of protection-are they doing it because of coercion?
Another for the good father file: a colleague of mine divorced after only five years of marriage. He is a right wing ideologue who makes Rush look moderate. However, since the day his ex moved to another city with in the same state, every single weekend he would drive four hundred miles to pick up his daughter for his weekends. He would file the paperwork to increase his child support payments as his career led to better and better paying jobs. He is doing his best to pay for her college (I told him to file suit when he was kvetching at the cost of the instate tuition since it is supposed to be nearly free and it is not) and takes her and her friends on vacations whenever he can. He does a great job and it is funny how much of an asshole he is about politics while being a father I always wanted.
There was another choice in Powell’s case and he refused to take it.
seconded. still avoiding most of this it’s just too disgusting.
Look at the words Price uses in today’s post–pressure, snap, pushed to the brink. Even when he condemns Powell’s actions, he still uses words that move some of the blame from the murderer to the government. The commenters on the post do a lot of the same thing.
Keyster said
JeremiahMRA said
TomSmith said
Sorry these quotes are so depressing.
The ‘angry man snaps’ narrative for abusers is endemic. But if abusers are about poor impulse control, why is it that the majority of them are able to keep their cool when there are third parties around, and the ‘snapping’ only happens behind closed doors?
It all started with four simple words, “I want a divorce.”
Who are we to judge a man for how he might react to that, and the injustice that follows?
I dunno, decent human beings? People possessed of actual morality and compassion? People who refuse to condone murder under any circumstances?
So, ladies,don’t ask your husband for a divorce or you’ll go missing and then he’ll murder your children with a hatchet. Well said, Keyster.
“Women are not different”….er…sounds like TomSmith ALMOST got one right there. As for the rest of it…”Instead of feeling sorry for the children, blahblahblah”–fuck you, buddy. INSTEAD OF FEELING SORRY FOR THE CHILDREN??? This guy needs admitted to a psych unit or incarcerated NOW before HE hurts someone. Yes, de poor MENZ be sooooo oppressed….burn in the third layer of Hell with Josh Powell, mutherfucker. “Men snap”–I bet if a WOMAN was in the same situation and “snapped”–these fucktards would be calling for the heads of her FAMILY. And then they grap their dicks and run and whine about why DECENT people get angry with them…..>:(
BlackBloc: The ‘angry man snaps’ narrative for abusers is endemic. But if abusers are about poor impulse control, why is it that the majority of them are able to keep their cool when there are third parties around, and the ‘snapping’ only happens behind closed doors?
Because the women know how far they can push without making him, “snap”, and they do it on purpose. The Great DK Meller has explained this before.
blitzgal says:
Even more monstrous than that – because in the text of his article he concedes that Powell likely did murder his wife.
So, if Price concedes that the police had a rational reason for strongly suspecting the man of murder the appropriate societal response should be to leave the kids with the psychopath????
And you’d think he might have the moral courage to acknowledge that Powell ultimately killing his children confirms the worst suspicions that the police and courts were entertaining. Not to mention the missing wife…
Now I can’t get that Biblical parable about King Solomon out of my head. Even thousands of years ago the authors understood that a truly loving parent would be willing to lose his/her child rather than see any harm come to him/her. How can it be any starker than that? Only an evil, violent murderer would rather see his kids dead than being taken care of by someone else.
I occasionally read thespreadhead for a laugh (thanks explore nature) but this article is just too depressing…
Some of those men are actual fathers?
But having said that, it is a slow moving thread so far. Perhaps those readers who don’t agree are too scared of the almighty spearhead down vote to Disagree in public and lose their MRA credibility?
@Dracula,
I’m inclined to agree that the state failed as well, or that we at least need to revise the laws.
Given his father’s crimes, his wife’s disappearance, and his refusal to cooperate in the investigation, it amazes me that he had any visitation rights at all, let alone supervised visits in his home. It’d make sense to me to limit visitations to a neutral, safer place. But, according to a local attorney, Washington allows the parties and lawyers to set the place and conditions. It seems that needs to change.
Another story suggests that he did see his kids as his property, at least according to their grandparents. I simply can’t understand that. My boys are 5 and 8 and have such distinct personalities. For me, seeing them develop their own, unique, autonomous identities is one of the best parts of parenting.
I’m trying to avoid the news coverage of it now. It’s too awful. I’m in his neighborhood on a regular basis, and can’t look at the stories without thinking of my boys. We’ve made a point to not talk about it around them or let them see coverage. It’s just too much for now.
I’m honestly surprised the feminists here seem care so much.
The boy on the left sort of looks like my little brother. That made me very sad.