Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame antifeminism men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA reddit

Men’s Rightsers discover the true villain behind the police killing of Walter Scott: His ex-wife

A makeshift memorial at the spot where Walter Scott was killed
A makeshift memorial at the spot where Walter Scott was killed

Over on men’s rights hate site A Voice for Men, Attila Vinczer has found the true villain in the case of Walter Scott, the black man shot in the back after he ran from a white cop: Don’t blame the cop for shooting and killing a man who was no danger to him whatsoever; blame the ex-wife who simply wanted Scott to pay the child support he owed:

Attila_L_Vinczer Mod • 10 hours ago This is another chilling example of the systemic severe abuse of fathers, by mothers. I say mothers, because the system only engages in the otherwise illegal act of debtor's prison, against fathers, result from the mother seeking it to do so.  I wondered why this man ran from the police. He did not appear to be a criminal. His crime, was of being a poor father, who was murdered in cold blood in fear of being sent back to debtor's prison, again. That is why he ended up shot, in the back, after the mother of his child(ren) stabbed him in the back.  Another father dead. Now, there is zero chance of collecting child support. I hold the mother responsible for robbing her child(ren) of their father and causing this father's death.

Another AVFM commenter seconded Vinczer’s, er, interpretation of events.

Jeff • 21 minutes ago The woman who set the child support order on him is just as responsible for his death as the police officer is. She sent out agents of the state to threaten him with violence, to kidnap him multiple times, and he ended up getting murdered as a result. His blood is on her hands just as much as it's on the cop's hands.

As did someone called TLC:

TLC • 8 hours ago Child support criminalizes fathers.  Walter Scott owed child support, therefore he was a criminal.  If he had been a mother, the government would have helped him support his children.  But because he was a father, he was a criminal.  And criminals deserve to die.  The cop who shot Walter Scott may have been a racist.  But Scott didn't die just because he was black.  He died because he was a father.

Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, the regulars, to their credit, were a bit more reluctant to see this as a Men’s Rights issue rather than a “white cop shooting black man despite being in no danger at all” issue. Well, some of them were, in any case. The others posted comments like this:

Ransom_Stoddard 2 points 23 hours ago*  This is a men's rights issue, because men should have 50% equal access and physical and legal custody of their children without child support wealth redistribution that is rationalized by unequal custody orders - by default of law unless one parent is proven to be a clear and present danger to their children- without needing to pay tens-to-hundreds of thousands of dollars just for the privilege of seeing their children that men must pay if the mother refuses to let their Fathers see their children. If there was actual equality, this man would not have ran, because there would have been no existing warrant for failure to appear in Court nor failure to pay child support. This man was murdered because of a lack of reproductive and parental equality.

Dungone decided to spread the blame to evil feminists eager to cash in on sweet, sweet child support payments.

dungone 1 point 6 hours ago*  Feminists: "We didn't make that cop shoot him, we just want our baby momma mana."

InBaggingArea offered the most succinct explanation:

InBaggingArea 9 points 1 day ago  Violence against men because of matriarchy.

It’s true that Scott owed child support. He had four children with two ex-wives and apparently owed thousands of dollars in child support for his two younger children; his family says this is the likely reason he ran, though we can’t be sure. Despite being behind on his payments, he was reportedly on good terms with his children, and saw them regularly.

Scott’s funeral was held today.

H/T — r/againstmensrights

195 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Price
9 years ago

Two+ years later, I’m hoping my background check comes back clean, since “Child Neglect” is. ah, not a good look for future employers. Makes it sound like I didn’t feed them for a week or abandoned them in Vegas or something awful. sheesh

-ceebarks

Don’t worry. Unless you live in a total asshole state it should be sealed for all but state social workers, and you can get it cleared in a few years. I’ve never been found negligent or abusive, but my former mother in law accused me during divorce to spite me, so I’m familiar with the process.

Last fall? Then why did you post this two days ago

Because I think feminism is part of the problem too. But to be fair so is MRA. Holistic considerations are much better than individualistic where families are concerned. This means advocating just for men or just for women is counterproductive. We need to take the complementary, communal nature of human beings into account. We are not merely men or women, but brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters etc. I’m a man with a sister, mother, daughter and wife. Should their well-being somehow be in competition with or detrimental to mine? Should mine to theirs? It’s preposterous when you see things in terms of the family and community.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

I’m in complete agreement with you here.

erm…

Delegislating the outcome is the key. And yes, Norway and Sweden are paragons of family function and good childrearing compared to the US despite high illegitimacy and lots of single parents.

No, apparently you aren’t. My emphasis was on the “outcome,” not on “legislation.” We need a different model and approach across a broad variety of elements of our legal system, not simply fewer laws. You appear to be insisting that the solution is for parents to agree to do more joint custody arrangements; I’m saying that you can’t just expect that to happen by fiat, or even design laws around the idea that that is the ideal situation for everyone.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

Price, neither feminism nor the MRM have been in power long enough (or at all) to have constructed child custody/support laws. Feminism is not interested in a gender war, and the specific issues of women’s rights are even somewhat orthogonal to the general issue of child support and divorce (which is currently written in law as gender neutral).

This means advocating just for men or just for women is counterproductive.

You’ve been posting on a feminist comment section for a couple days consecutively by now. Who here is couching the discussion in terms of men vs women, or in terms of gender at all?

sparky
sparky
9 years ago

Because I think feminism is part of the problem too. But to be fair so is MRA. Holistic considerations are much better than individualistic where families are concerned. This means advocating just for men or just for women is counterproductive. We need to take the complementary, communal nature of human beings into account. We are not merely men or women, but brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters etc. I’m a man with a sister, mother, daughter and wife. Should their well-being somehow be in competition with or detrimental to mine? Should mine to theirs? It’s preposterous when you see things in terms of the family and community.

What an odd definition you have of feminism there, Mr. Price.

emilygoddess
9 years ago

So what happens when your car breaks down and you need to get to work? Do you pay the mechanic and skip a CS payment so you can keep your job? Usually, yes, so you end up in arrears. Then, maybe, you get sick. Do you pay the deductible and go see a doctor? It’s a tossup, perhaps, depending on the illness/injury. You either hope you’re OK or, again, go into arrears. Go into arrears far enough and they seize your license, then you drive anyway to keep your job hoping you won’t get caught. But you didn’t have enough to fix that broken taillight, so you get pulled over and sent to jail for driving suspended. Then you lose your job.

OK, but how is child support different from any other debt in this scenario? You could replace it with college loans or credit card debt or healthcare bills and it’d be exactly the same.

weirwoodtreehugger
9 years ago

Emilygoddess,
Exactly! The problem here is the increasing number of Americans who are near poor. That is, one lost paycheck or unanticipated expense away from poverty. This is in no way the fault of “politicized” feminism (what is non political feminism? That’s not even a possible thing). You won’t find many feminists who oppose higher wages, stronger unions, and a more robust social safety nets so that people aren’t having to pick and choose between financial obligations.

Price’s continued insistence that feminists are trying to impoverish men via the family court system is just bizarre. It’s like he came up with a theory and is determined to stick with it, no matter what the evidence suggests.

Suzy Q
Suzy Q
9 years ago

Seriously, this argument about family courts oppressing men has been disproven so many times I’ve lost count. But because it resonates with so many men MRAs continue to use it as their main talking point. It can happen to you too! No man is safe! Like conservatives scaring people with manufactured threats of terrorism.

Bill Price
9 years ago

OK, but how is child support different from any other debt in this scenario? You could replace it with college loans or credit card debt or healthcare bills and it’d be exactly the same.

There’s no comparison at all if you take enforcement into account. You think Walter Scott would run from the cops over student loans? This is about the most naïve statement about child support enforcement I’ve seen in a while.

Well, I hope I made a point for some people. Like I said in the first post, I wouldn’t have bothered if I didn’t feel strongly about this issue. But if you don’t want to hear it, that’s life. It’s going to be up to bureaucrats to deal with this, and I suspect that they are already fully aware that taking more than 20% of pretax income actually lowers collections. Maybe eventually the worst policies will be scaled back in a low-profile manner so the radicals can save face.

I hope so for the sake of the Walter Scotts of this country. And their children, too.

isidore13
9 years ago

You have made no points because you refuse to back up any of your claims with actual data. You don’t like backing up any of your claims with actual data, I remember this from when you’ve commented before. Are you allergic to data? Or is it because you can’t find any to back up your assertions?

Bill Price
9 years ago

You have made no points because you refuse to back up any of your claims with actual data. You don’t like backing up any of your claims with actual data, I remember this from when you’ve commented before. Are you allergic to data? Or is it because you can’t find any to back up your assertions?

-isidiore13

What I write is based on data. I’ve studied this issue for years, and I’m honest as far as I know the law and statistics. If you think I’m wrong, it’s your job to cite data that contradict what I write — not mine.

That’s my last word on these “citations” demands. You doubt me? Then you do the research, and, “citations please.” I’ll be happy to answer if the data are relevant (and if I have the time).

BTW, I think a lot of the women and men commenting here are decent people. I think Dave’s alright, too, but he’s doing what I was until recently — taking sides. If I can get something going again, and I think I can soon, I’m open to a conversation with people from both sides of the issue, because we need it. We need to rise above this juvenile mutual recrimination.

I’m not going to hand it down to my kids — that’s for sure.

isidore13
9 years ago

Right, so, you feel like you have no need to back up your claims because you’re too good to do that I guess? For some reason I’m supposed to take you at your word? Good to know.

weirwoodtreehugger
9 years ago

It’s not our job to research your claims. You make the claim, you back it up.

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
9 years ago

That’s why Kirby provided links. You can at least name the places where you get the statistics so we know you’re not just pulling crap out of the air.

Bill Price
9 years ago

Right, so, you feel like you have no need to back up your claims because you’re too good to do that I guess? For some reason I’m supposed to take you at your word? Good to know.

-Isidore13

Not too good for it at all. Research is real, honest-to-goodness work. I did it for years in another job, and my eyes have paid a price for it. You aren’t going to pay me for it, so it’s an unreasonable demand. It’s like saying “since you said you know plumbing, then come over and fix my kitchen sink to prove it.”

Like I said, if you want to put in the work (as I already have), feel free to do so and use citations to prove me wrong. I enjoy repartee, and I’m not bothered by being corrected, because I actually like the truth and learning new things. David does the work when he writes and makes links, and that’s why it’s totally reasonable when he asks for donations. But why on earth would he do it for Paul Elam unless it was on behalf of his readers?

It’s just unreasonable and a silly demand. If you don’t think I’m trustworthy, fine. I think I’m honest, and I can’t recall trying to deceive people about these matters ever. Maybe I’ve been wrong here and there. Wouldn’t surprise me — it’s statistically all but certain. But if I have to prove I’m right every time that’s too much to ask.

isidore13
9 years ago

It’s not that I think you are lying, it’s that I don’t know you and I have no idea what your experience is or where you’re getting your information. And no, it’s really not an unreasonable demand, it’s pretty standard, actually. It’s something that is asked of everyone here. Your unwillingness to do so signifies 1. You don’t really respect the people you’re having a discussion with; 2. You’re not sure the data will actually back up your claim; and 3. You don’t really want a discussion, you want to come in, lay down your beliefs, and have everyone agree with you without a lick of evidence.

Bill Price
9 years ago

@Isidore13

Yeah, I understand. But all I can say is that I’ve already put an enormous amount of time into studying this issue. And today I was pushing paper all morning and then taking care of a baby all afternoon. It doesn’t have anything to do with respect, but rather practicality. I need to deal with life just like everyone else.

So my response to your list:

1. Respect has nothing to do with it. I’m pretty objective about facts. If you’re right you’re right, no matter what your politics. Unless you’re clearly deranged I give your statements the same weight as anyone else’s.

2. I have a lot of faith in my knowledge of this subject. I’ve read an enormous amount of data about it, and am confident enough that I don’t feel the need to go back and look it up in order to make statements, just as you don’t need to use a dictionary to speak English or (presumably) a manual to do your job every day. Additionally, I’ve already made a whole lot of of citations. Hundreds if not thousands of them.

3. If I didn’t want a discussion, I wouldn’t waste my time. I’d just write a blog post condemning your views to people who would take my word for it. For the record, I now think that’s the wrong approach. As for not “a lick of evidence,” see #2. I’ve put in my time. I put A LOT of evidence out there. I don’t blame you if you didn’t pay attention (most regular readers probably didn’t, either), but claiming that I didn’t perform due diligence in that regard is just wrong.

So how about we just take each other’s statements in good faith, but also with a grain of salt? If I see something that’s obviously wrong, I’ll call it out, and you do the same. If I say something that seems incredible, feel free to say so. You might actually be surprised to learn something new, or I might learn that I’m mistaken. Either way we both win by learning more about the world. But starting from the position that I’m full of sh*t and must cite some peer-reviewed study every time I point something out about family law is just counterproductive and not at all in the spirit of mutually informative discussion.

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
9 years ago

You could have put all that effort into defending why you aren’t posting links into actually posting at least one link. Especially since you’ve read so much on it, you could at least name a book or website or paper or something or someone that backups your claims.

Again, Kirby has posted several links to websites that backup their* claim. You have posted none; and you cannot say you don’t want to because you do it all day as an excuse because it isn’t, especially since there appears to be numerous sources on the subject. It seems to me that you could easily backup your claims by googling one of those many sources and posting it.

And, no, that doesn’t mean we can just easily look it up as well, because that’s not how proof works; the burden of proof is on you as you’re the one who is bringing up all this uncited data. Besides it’s just common courtesy to reciprocate the links Kirby has provided for you by providing some links back.

*I don’t know your pronouns. D:

isidore13
9 years ago

I don’t recall ever saying you were full of shit; in fact I specifically said I didn’t think you were lying. I don’t understand why you are so offended at being asked to back up your arguments. Everyone else here does this, you’re not special and you’re not being singled out. You do understand that I don’t know you, I don’t know your motives, and frankly, your word is really not good enough. People in general, and people who come to this blog to voice disagreement especially, have a tendency to use anecdotal evidence, to use single instances rather than looking at the big picture, to manipulate, to employ unreasonable tactics, to twist and deny their own words. You yourself have done that last in this very thread. Trust is earned, it’s not granted blindly. Your refusal to do this very basic thing, as I have said, makes it seem like you don’t really want to engage in discussion.

Are you so very arrogant that you won’t allow the possibility that your interpretation is biased, or even that you misunderstood something you’ve studied in the past? Are you so sure of yourself? One of the things that linking to your information allows is for others to look at it, and maybe point out how it could be interpreted differently than you are interpreting it.

emilygoddess
9 years ago

It’s going to be up to bureaucrats to deal with this, and I suspect that they are already fully aware that taking more than 20% of pretax income actually lowers collections.

Yeah, god forbid someone should have to fork over 20% of their income to raise their own goddamn child.

What percent to you think custodial parents are spending on the kids?

I hope so for the sake of the Walter Scotts of this country. And their children, too.

Fuck you. Like you actually give a fuck about Scott or his kids.

That’s my last word on these “citations” demands. You doubt me? Then you do the research, and, “citations please.”

Is that how you plan to convince government officials and win people to your cause? By talking about the years you’ve studied and then telling them to do the same just to see if you’re right or not? I’m sure that’ll be very effective.

Not too good for it at all. Research is real, honest-to-goodness work. I did it for years in another job, and my eyes have paid a price for it. You aren’t going to pay me for it, so it’s an unreasonable demand. It’s like saying “since you said you know plumbing, then come over and fix my kitchen sink to prove it.”

If you’re going to demand that public policy be based on your knowledge of plumbing, then yeah, you might have to demonstrate it a bit.

If you don’t think I’m trustworthy, fine. I think I’m honest, and I can’t recall trying to deceive people about these matters ever. Maybe I’ve been wrong here and there. Wouldn’t surprise me — it’s statistically all but certain. But if I have to prove I’m right every time that’s too much to ask.

I just did that thing where you laugh so suddenly and loudly that it startles the cat awake. This is too much!

If I didn’t want a discussion, I wouldn’t waste my time.

Since the terms of your “discussion” require people to take your every claim on faith and assume you are always correct, it wouldn’t be so much a “discussion” as a general nod-along.

If I say something that seems incredible, feel free to say so.

Pretty sure that’s how the conversation ended up where it is in the first place. Why should people bother to speak up if you’re not going to say anything but “I know it’s true because of my learnings”?

weirwoodtreehugger
9 years ago

Price,
We didn’t come to you. You came to us. You made claims that are contrary to what everyone else knows about this subject. No, you don’t have to post links that back you up. But if you want us to believe you, you do.

I find it incredibly suspicious that you claim to have done so much research and you seem to care about this issue so much but you don’t have links saved in your bookmarks you can quickly pull up. Or, if you Google something a few times it will start filling in the search terms itself and give you the links you’ve clicked on before in the first page. At the very least, you should have some names of studies, books or news articles memorized.

Your stubborn insistence on not backing your claims suggests that either you’re a liar or you’re arrogant and entitled. You aren’t a special snowflake. The rules of debate don’t cave under the weight of your mighty manlogic. Why would any of us trust you?

And as Emilygoddess said, why is paying 20% of your income excessive? Kids are expensive. Especially in a right wing country like the US in which wages are low and state services are paltry. Maybe you should lobby for affordable healthcare, college tuition and childcare instead of blaming feminist strawmen for problems we didn’t create.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

@Jackie:

“He” is fine. 🙂

@Price:

Yeah, I understand. But all I can say is that I’ve already put an enormous amount of time into studying this issue.

So you say.

I’ve read an enormous amount of data about it, and am confident enough that I don’t feel the need to go back and look it up in order to make statements, just as you don’t need to use a dictionary to speak English or (presumably) a manual to do your job every day.

So you say.

I have a lot of faith in my knowledge of this subject.

We don’t have that same faith in your knowlege. We currently don’t share your beliefs. Do you want to try to convince us? Or do you just want to speak at us?

Additionally, I’ve already made a whole lot of of citations. Hundreds if not thousands of them.

Even if every character you’ve written here in the last few days were a different citation link, you probably wouldn’t have reached hundreds of thousands. Do you not understand what we mean by citations, or are you willfully misinterpreting us?

I put A LOT of evidence out there.

Not in front of us, you haven’t. Not in the past couple days. How about sharing?

I don’t blame you if you didn’t pay attention (most regular readers probably didn’t, either), but claiming that I didn’t perform due diligence in that regard is just wrong.

We aren’t talking about the process that went into forming your views. We’re talking about evidence that would convince us of your position. Sorry, we just can’t take your word for it when you’ve said so many clearly unlikely/untrue things.

If I see something that’s obviously wrong, I’ll call it out, and you do the same. If I say something that seems incredible, feel free to say so.

I have. In fact, those things are the exact things that I’ve been asking for citations about. So far your response has been to double-down, not actually provide any evidence. I’m not going to believe some incredible (to me) statement if you just repeat it.

But starting from the position that I’m full of sh*t and must cite some peer-reviewed study every time I point something out about family law is just counterproductive and not at all in the spirit of mutually informative discussion.

If it seems like I’m doubting everything you’re saying, it’s simply because you’re making so many bizarre claims. Don’t blame me for your own argument style. How about giving me a little credit as well and don’t assume I’m being unreasonable in my doubt, hmm?

So how about we just take each other’s statements in good faith, but also with a grain of salt?

I’ve been doing that this whole time. If I was taking your statements in bad faith, I wouldn’t even be asking for evidence; I’d just dismiss you entirely. Asking for evidence IS taking your statements with a grain of salt.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

I think this might be the first time I’ve ever talked to someone who found the idea of backing up their arguments and providing evidence personally offensive.

contrapangloss
9 years ago

So, haven’t caught up on the thread, because reading Price’s last response and one line made me just… what?

Dude, where are these hundred if not thousands of citations of which you speak?

You do know having a citation and making a statement are two completely different things. You are aware of that, right?

contrapangloss
9 years ago

Also, it befuddles me how often people make the mistake of thinking citations are just ‘proof’ of knowing things.

They aren’t. They’re jumping points for other people to read more about the subject and learn things beyond what you summarized for them. They’re signposts for “look at this cool rabbit hole!” They’re a sign of respect for the giants whose shoulder’s you’re standing on, letting the world know that what you’ve figured out came from these people’s dedication.

Likewise, newspaper articles are rarely “data”.

Data is the raw numbers that someone painstakingly collected, but those people who deserve to be cited.

Saying “I’m not going to acknowledge the people who did this hard work because I’m a self proclaimed expert” is…

… PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE WHY WE CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS.

**grumble grumble**

I HAVE FEELINGS ON THIS.

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
9 years ago

@Kirby

Okay! Just making sure. 😀

Also, I don’t think Bill know what “with a grain of salt” means. I don’t know how I missed that.

It means to be skeptical, Bill, which Kirby and many others have demonstrated. It’s the opposite of taking things in good faith. That contradiction is kinda appropriate considering you said you’ve made citations but I reread your posts and there were no citations, just you stating facts.

Citations are you showing where you got your facts. You just state a bunch of statistics without any citations at all.

You also state European standards are better even though there’s a bunch of different countries in Europe all with their own child support laws. Which of the dozens of European standards are better than USA’s? The UK one where the average pay is £200 a week (or 1,192 USD a month), the German system where the the custodial parent can stay home with the kid and have the noncustodial pay for the entire child support until school age, or maybe the Swedish system in which you incur interest if they are behind in payments which typically last until the child is 21?

Or are you stating that you want all these European standards at once, which actually would be a pretty sweet deal. I like your idea. You should try to push that into law. Weekly checks until the kid is 21 and the custodial parent doesn’t have to work until the child enters school. Great ideas, Bill, great ideas.