Monday, December 6, 2010

Remembering the Montreal Massacre

The victims.
21 years ago today, a misogynistic asshole named Marc Lépine shot and killed 14 female engineering students at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, then himself, after penning a manifesto-cum-suicide-note that is chillingly similar to a lot of the rhetoric I see every day on the various antifeminist blogs and message boards I watch. Lépine's message to the world reads, in part:

Please note that if I am committing suicide today ... it is not for economic reasons ... but for political reasons. For I have decided to send Ad Patres [Latin: "to the fathers"] the feminists who have ruined my life. ... The feminists always have a talent for enraging me. They want to retain the advantages of being women ... while trying to grab those of men. ... They are so opportunistic that they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men throughout the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can.

I don't have much to say other than: rot in hell, asshole.

Here are some reflections on the anniversary of the massacre, from Clarissa's Blog, the Geek Feminism Blog, and Womanist Musings.

50 comments:

  1. David, I am not fond of the MRA movement but I am definitely not fond of the feminism movement either.

    There are a ton of idiots in any such movement. Any such movement causes massive bigotry.

    However, I believe MRA sites focus on that women can be evil as much as men by pointing out certain situations that may get sugar coated or pulled under the rug.

    There may be lots of bigotry within the MRA sites but on the other hand, it really tells what the powers that be don't want to tell.

    In other words, PC is way too sensitive towards women these days while anyone can make up any crap about how evil men are.

    There truly needs to be a balance in mainstream and social terms.

    ReplyDelete
  2. YEAH I agree with Nick...How come you never post about the feminazi mass murderers with manifestos?

    ReplyDelete
  3. What about an article about females committing mass murder, for example:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lainz_Angels_of_Death


    Lainz Angels of Death

    Maria Gruber, Irene Leidolf, Stephanija Meyer, and Waltraud Wagner (Born 1960) made up one of the most unusual crime teams in 20th Century Europe. The four Austrian women were nurses working at Lainz General Hospital in Vienna, and together murdered scores of patients.
    .....
    They were caught after they were overheard bragging about their latest murder at a local tavern. In total, they confessed to 49 murders over six years, but may have been responsible for as many as 200.

    Wagner was convicted of 15 murders, 17 attempts, and two counts of assault. She was sentenced to life in prison. Leidolf got life as well, on conviction of five murders, while the other two drew fifteen years for manslaughter and attempted murder charges.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I didn't say FEMALES, that's ridiculous. What is it so NOVEL when females kill that you think you can post this here as a red herring LOL Irony gone MAD, dude this is hilarious. Hey, you found an article about females killing. MOST UNUSUAL CRIME TEAMS in a whole freaking century WOW. What feminist propaganda! You're making it seem like it's RARE. I'll bet I can find an article where men killed people to match the one you posted (duh). Like I said, where are the "militant" feminist killings? JUST ONE, I need to know. I'm sure there's ONE.
    (My name is Theresa btw my boyfriend is Mark.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Theresa, I wouldn't bother trying to have a rational discussion of anything with Yohan. He will respond to anything you say with random examples of evil women and/or feminists, and then he'll bring up six unrelated topics.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @David - you don't bother having a discussion with anyone. This is the problem with feminism - no open dialogue. Just parroting off the latest study from Dr. Estrogen about how women are angels and men are the root of all evil. *Yawn* seen it, heard it.
    Oh, and what was the homicide ratio of male to female victims again? I forgot, help me out here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There will be more Marc Lepines. Just keeping your anti male agenda ladies. Keep smugly poking men with sticks and then when men explode, act like little victims who don't know why men are angry and ask for more unfair laws that cause the cycle to continue.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  8. @bishopsinister,

    How is threatening more gender based murder going to help your cause? It alarms people but not in the way you think it does. Many laws you despise are passed in response to such barbarian acts. The MRM is not helped by MRA's hailing people like Mark Lepine, George Sodini, Darren Mack, Raoul Moat, OJ Simpson, and others who kill women. Instead, it aligns you with them and it justifies entities who work against gender based violence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ Christine WE

    I am not threatening. I am predicting. Let me put it in a way that feminists might understand. If tomorrow, due to prison overcrowding, the government passes a law releasing all rapists who are within five years of completion of their sentences and I were to say, "you know more rapes are going to happen because of this decision" am I threating? No I am looking at the facts and trying to predict what will happen.

    If I were to go into bikers bars and spit on the bikers and call them punks, you might predict that I'd have a fight on my hands.

    I am saying that the environment that many men find themselves in is not conducive to good citizenship. It is not conducive to concern for the opposite sex. What it is conducive for is someone angrily lashing out at those who he perceives as having wronged him.

    If you don't believe me then look at all the blogs David posts with the angry men on them.

    Any suggestion by men that the laws are bad for them is shot down with shaming language and claims of priviledge. Combine that with a country that is broke, and going downhill. Police departments who due to budget cuts are having to scale back operations and the general disdain for government and others and you have serious problems.

    I'm telling you that the environment is ripe for racist, sexist, and homophobic backlash. Sadly, any warning a man gives to a feminist about anything dangerous is now victim blaming.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  10. @bishopsinister,

    I have no doubt that some friggin' lunatics from the MRM are, and will be, murdering women. After spending the last year reading MRM websites, there is no doubt in my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Christine WE

    The MRA does have a "problem" in that it attracts it share of crazies, bigots and the like, but as I tried to explain to David, where else are these guys going to go? Almost all discension from feminist beliefs by men is labeled misogyny.

    I've said before if you screw a man out of his money, his livelyhood and he is living in a van down by the river and feminists start lecturing him about his priviledge, well he ain't gonna be a feminists supporter that's for sure.

    Worse economic times + more laws that unfairly (IMHO) favor women over men (in jobs, schooling, divorce court, etc) + less tax money to actually control angry men = trouble.

    One of the worst things about this blog is that David lists Glenn Sacks as an enemy. I don't know how familiar you are with Glenn Sacks, but he is about as middle of the road and fair as an MRA can be. If that guy is too out there for feminists then I don't see any agreement in the near future.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  12. Marc Lepine did not murder all those women because he was screwed out of his money, his livelihood, and living in a van down by the river and neither do most men who kill women. Those I listed - Mark Lepine, George Sodini, Darren Mack, Raoul Moat, OJ Simpson - none of them killed for the reasons you stated, yet the MRM still hails them. Lepine hated women which he learned from his father. He was known for his supremacist attitudes that women belonged in the home and were inferior to men. He would have fit right in with the MRM as many MRA's think just like him. Lepine brought the majority of his problems on himself by his own choices but took responsibility for nothing, blaming women for his problems. What a bunch of crap.

    ReplyDelete
  13. David Futrelle said...
    Theresa, I wouldn't bother trying to have a rational discussion of anything with Yohan. He will respond to anything you say with random examples of evil women and/or feminists ...


    Well, US-feminists (like you) are insulting all MRAs by wrongly suggesting that MRAs are 'supportive' to killings of women, to rape and assault women and other criminal activity against females - and I show you in return, that women are not always victims, but are also criminals who are into harming other people.

    What kind of answer do you expect from me? To agree with you that all MRAs are criminals hating women or what?

    MRAs do not support criminal men like this Marc Lepine.

    About Marc Lepine, he is just one out of many men and women, who are killers running amok. You find such crazy people who cannot control themselves anymore, everywhere, worldwide... in USA, Germany, Japan... they will always exist.

    Marc Lepine is a case for a psychiatrist and such dangerous people must be kept for life in a closed secured mental ward, but anyway, after running amok he killed himself, so what is your problem?

    Men who are killing women are in no way helpful for MRAs.

    There are much better ways, totally legal, to fight successfully feminism of course.

    -----

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7938486.stm

    This is another example of a male killer - killing 8 girls and 1 boy - but in Germany. What is the difference between these 2 crimes?

    The difference is in the behavior of people outside of the USA.

    I never heard about any feminist, journalist or any other person living in Continental Europe trying to connect the Men's Rights movement with this crime in Germany, link above.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ Christine WE

    As usual a feminist wants to believe what she wants to believe facts be damned.


    Darren Mack killed his wife in the middle of a bitter divorce. He also sniper shot the male judge. Perhaps if divorces weren't a free for all raping men of their money this wouldn't happen. Mr. Mack wasn't some guy sitting around saying "Hey, I'm a patriarch, why don't I kill some woman." He was a man getting screwed by the laws that you feminuts love.

    From wikipedia: "According to a close friend, Mack was angry over a divorce settlement issued by Judge Weller. In addition to child support capped by state law at $849 per month, Darren Mack was ordered to pay $10,000 per month for spousal support plus household expenses."

    Raoul Moat killed 2 MEN and one woman. So he was not some mere misogynist who hated women solely, he was a jealous prick. He was also a steroid abuser, but don't let that sway your feminist mind.

    O.J. Simpson was forced to FINANCIALLY support his ex wife and her LOVER, and was kicked out of his own home. How is that not screwed by the court system? If she had been in her own home with her boyfriend THAT would have been a different story.

    Sodini was a beta who coudn't get any, went nuts and lashed out.

    Marc Lepine is the only one out of YOUR EXAMPLES that you MAY be able to put strictly on misogyny, that is if you don't look at his pysch profile.

    So to simplify out of the 5 examples you give the violence that occured is likely a result of the abusive anti male court system in 2 of the cases.

    2 MIGHT be simply misogyny.

    1 was jealousy over a new man in the woman's life.


    But it's easier to claim that it's all men hating women for no reason at all so that you can continue to support fucked up misandrist laws, now isn't it?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  15. bishopsinister said...
    @ Christine WE
    The MRA does have a "problem" in that it attracts it share of crazies, bigots and the like, but as I tried to explain to David, where else are these guys going to go? Almost all dissension from feminist beliefs by men is labeled misogyny...


    There is a clear difference between a man, who is psychopatic (like Lepine) and a man, who is angry and disappointed.

    MRAs cannot help people like Lepine, who need medical care and have to be kept in a closed mental ward as they are dangerous.

    -----

    MRAs try to help men, who were badly treated by women and got shafted by the Western feminist-style legal system.

    What can we do? Well, first of all we listen to such broken men and do not ridicule them. We do not presume automatically that all is only the fault of men (which is the usual way to go with men in feminist countries).

    If we can find a reasonable dialog (many times we cannot, as some men just do not want to listen - hopeless case!), we often suggest to such a man to keep contact with us, to move away, to forget about his past - and to start a new life in a new city with entirely new people, away from relatives, ex-wives etc.

    This helps a lot to cool down.

    We suggest to study more about existing laws and to learn more about foreign countries and to communicate with other men, living abroad.

    We teach men to ignore feminist-minded women, and under no circumstances to give them money for their shoppings in return of sexual favors.

    Yes, we are telling men to speak out openly about their problems with females.

    Of course feminists do not like our internet-communication and want it to be censored.

    What's wrong with that? Are men not allowed to talk anymore to each other about their problems because feminists might consider such a conversation as 'misogynistic'?

    It's amazing to see how many we are ...

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ Yohan

    You are certainly correct. I shouldn't lump men who need medical help with men who are legitimately angry at an unfair system.

    Good point.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  17. OJ Simpson and Darren Mack did not kill for the reasons you state either. They both had a history of violence against those women prior to the court's involvement. Both were millionaires who were not even close to being screwed out of their abilities to make a living or of living in a van by the river. It's so sad that they both had to revamp their lives and pay support because they treated their wives like shit and got left. But they are NOT justified in what they did and they are certainly NOT "victims".

    ReplyDelete
  18. @ Christine WE

    1. It wasn't their wives money, Christine, can you not get that? They didn't earn it, so they don't deserve it. Are you so much of a parasite that you believe that any man that a woman latches onto they deserve to be paid from that union forever? What are you Christine some welfare queen?

    Nicole Simpson did not run on bad knees, play in brutal weather and get mauled by linebackers. She deserves nothing.

    Same with the other woman.

    Here's a novel idea, if your man's an asshole, leave him AND MAKE YOUR OWN MONEY!



    I know lazy feminists can't get that idea into their estrogen poisoned skulls, but that's what people should do. No one should owe an ex a damn thing. Just as Halle Berry shouldn't be paying Eric Benet shit, so too with alimony. You know what it says to me when a woman gets alimony? It says she is weak, lazy, trash who would be dead in the street in days without a man.

    Fricking parasites.


    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  19. bishopsinister said...
    @ Christine WE
    I am not threatening. I am predicting


    Predicting = Threatening = Misogynist

    Predicting: It's not the first word, which meaning is distorted by US-feminist rhetoric.

    Every man, who is sceptical about feminism/justice is considered to be a misogynist, an all-out women-hater in the feminist mindset.

    Christine WE said...
    OJ Simpson and Darren Mack did not kill for the reasons you state either


    OJ Simpson was convicted for what? As far as I can read, he was convicted for kidnapping, robbery and various other crimes and not for killing somebody.

    But anyway, as you said correctly, both men had LONG criminal records and were violent against those women, why are those women still living with them?

    Because these were rich or famous and had an 'exciting life-style'?

    If you are a woman living with thugs, how can you be surprised to become a victim of violence?

    ReplyDelete
  20. @bishopsinister,

    Actually, no where did I say that I believe that a woman deserves to be paid from a union forever and I don't know a single woman who expects it either.

    Calling me names like parasite and welfare queen doesn't win your argument, especially considering I have never received alimony or welfare. I have also, thankfully, never had to receive support for children nor have I been in the position of having to deal with some loser who doesn't want to support his own children and would rather kill you than contribute to school clothes. And I work full-time besides. Now will you whine that I have taken a job that a man is entitled to over me?

    And you won't change my mind that those men were justified in what they did. Those men were assholes, and the women WERE leaving, and both more than likely would have worked and become self-sufficient as nearly all women do when a marriage ends. Many more already have a job and their own money. Contrary to popular MRA belief, MOST women do not get spousal support, or even ask for it, when they leave a marriage.

    @yohan,

    As for O.J. Simpson, he killed his ex-wife but you are right, he is in prison for robbery. His defense attorneys were good. He even wrote a book called "If I did It" describing how he would have done it 'if' he did it.

    As for why those women were living with those violent men, they were NOT living with them. They married them, THEN found out what thugs they really were, then LEFT them, then were murdered by them because they were pissed that they left them.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bishop, clarify a few things for me.

    If a man is unhappy with his divorce, do you think he's he's justified in killing her and the judge?

    If a man can't get laid, he's justified in killing random women?

    If a man has to pay alimony to a woman who wasn't a sports star like him, he's justified in killing her and her boyfriend?

    Do you really think these things? I'd like to think you don't, but it sounds an awful lot like you do.

    Also, on the whole "predicting" vs "threatening" thing. It's one thing to predict bad things happening to women because of the anger in the MRM. It's another to make the prediction while puffed up with self-righteousness against women and/or feminists.

    In the first case, that's predicting. In the second case, well, it's not an actual specific threat, but there's definitely a threatening edge to it. These sorts of comments seem intended to intimidate/scare feminists into shutting up.

    Threatening and/or justifying violence against women -- much less murder --isn't acceptable on this blog.

    But you've been posting here a long time, and I'd like to think you're better than this kind of shit, and so I'm going to give you the chance to explain yourself.

    But if you continue to post these kinds of comments they will be deleted. You're coming dangerously close to being banned outright.

    ReplyDelete
  22. (Note: Threatening and/or justifying violence towards men is unacceptable here as well, but so far that issue has not come up with anyone's comments.)

    ReplyDelete
  23. See, there's a big difference between the murder posted about men and the one posted about women.

    The male murderer killed women simply because he hated women.

    The female murderers killed "patients" for an unknown reason.

    I'm not saying one murder is worse than the other. I'm saying that you can't look at them the same way because they are completely different, albeit equally disturbing circumstances.

    -Lexie Di.

    ReplyDelete
  24. LOL, I see David still hasn't figured out the differences between prediction and prescription and between explanation and justification. Or maybe he knows perfectly well but wants an excuse to swing the banhammer.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @yohan,

    "MRAs do not support criminal men like this Marc Lepine."

    Yes, some MRA's do. There are examples of it that have been pointed out throughout this blog and it's comments.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @ Christine WE

    CHRISTINE WE SAID: "@bishopsinister,

    Actually, no where did I say that I believe that a woman deserves to be paid from a union forever and I don't know a single woman who expects it either."

    Okay, fine not forever, just until they pass from this earth or they choose to remarry. Also, just FYI, me saying pass from this earth is not meant to be a threat to all of those who are so terrified of such things.

    If women were truly against alimony, there'd be no alimony.

    CHRISTINE WE SAID: "Calling me names like parasite and welfare queen doesn't win your argument,"

    But calling my argument crap helps you win yours?

    CHRISTINE WE SAID: "especially considering I have never received alimony or welfare. I have also, thankfully, never had to receive support for children nor have I been in the position of having to deal with some loser who doesn't want to support his own children and would rather kill you than contribute to school clothes."

    Wait, aren't all you feminist women all strong, proud and independent? Why do you need anything for a "loser" male. Is the only way a man becomes a winner is to hand over his wallet to some woman? Also you're shifting the argument, we're talking mainly about alimony, not child support, they're not the same thing.

    CHRISTINE WE SAID: "And I work full-time besides. Now will you whine that I have taken a job that a man is entitled to over me?"

    Were you the best person for the job? Did the govenment ensure that your job was protected and men's jobs were not?

    If the answer to these questions are yes and no, then I have no problem with you on this issue.

    CHRISTINE WE SAID: "And you won't change my mind that those men were justified in what they did."

    So you acknowledge that you're closed minded about this issue. Nice. Because there is no way that you could be wrong, you're logic is perfect.

    CHRISTINE WE SAID: "Those men were assholes, and the women WERE leaving, and both more than likely would have worked and become self-sufficient as nearly all women do when a marriage ends. Many more already have a job and their own money. Contrary to popular MRA belief, MOST women do not get spousal support, or even ask for it, when they leave a marriage."

    The why did those women ask for alimony if they weren't going to use it? Also, there is alimony, child support and alimony disguised as child support. If you had an ounce of care about men instead of only caring about other women then you'd look into men's stories in divorce court and come to a true understanding of what happnes to men. Who am I kidding? Your kind doesn't give a shit and never will.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  27. @bishopsinister,

    I acknowledge that I am absolutely close-minded on the issue of whether these men were justified in killing these women, yes. I think you basically answered one of David's question as well. This discussion with you is just disturbing. Sinister.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @ David

    DAVID SAID: "Bishop, clarify a few things for me.

    If a man is unhappy with his divorce, do you think he's he's justified in killing her and the judge?

    If a man can't get laid, he's justified in killing random women?

    If a man has to pay alimony to a woman who wasn't a sports star like him, he's justified in killing her and her boyfriend?"


    No, no and no.

    They have no right to murder anyone. What I attempt to point out over and over again is that if you pass bad laws, you get bad behavior. Much of the violence in these cases is a direct result of bad laws. Laws that take money from earners and give it to non earners under penalty of prison. That is unfair.

    I don't know how much you are into military history David, but I remember one of the thigs that the smarter armies, who were in situation where they would temporarily occupy a town, would tell there men so as to be less disruptive. They would tell the men not to mess with the natives food, money, or women because they knew from experinece that was the quickest way to have people rise up against them.

    Feminists constantly pass laws that have the government interfere in two of the three and for some unknown reason they expect it to end well. Again this is not a threat of violence to those who are terrified of such things.

    DAVID SAID: "Do you really think these things? I'd like to think you don't, but it sounds an awful lot like you do."

    Understand something, if I were some violent anti female revolutionary the last place I'd be is on this blog telling you about it.

    DAVID SAID: "Also, on the whole "predicting" vs "threatening" thing. It's one thing to predict bad things happening to women because of the anger in the MRM. It's another to make the prediction while puffed up with self-righteousness against women and/or feminists.

    In the first case, that's predicting. In the second case, well, it's not an actual specific threat, but there's definitely a threatening edge to it. These sorts of comments seem intended to intimidate/scare feminists into shutting up."

    Really? You think that's my plan? Firslty, which one of these loud mouths who I've argued with will ever STFU? Feminists seem habitually incapable of shutting up. Secondly, what terrifying threat could come from me, someone who doesn't know them, know who they are, where they are, what they look like, what valid threat could actually come in this format? The only thing I said was that if unfair laws keep getting passed bad things will happen. That's not a threat, that's a historical truth. Who the hells afraid of that? Did someone come sniveling to you saying they were scared? Please. You know I told you a while ago that you'd have to ban the men here. First you trumped up some bs on Eoghan. I guess it's my turn, eh? Damn David, couldn't I have been number one?

    CONT

    ReplyDelete
  29. CONT

    DAVID SAID: "Threatening and/or justifying violence against women -- much less murder --isn't acceptable on this blog."

    Didn't do any of this, but trump it up good and proper anyway. By the way David, if I threaten someone there be no doubt it's a threat. For example, if I were to threaten someone I'd say something like "I'm going to come over to your house and skull fuck your bitch ass with my fucking tire iron." That would be me threatening someone. And again. . .I am not actually threatening anyone for those who are terrified of such things.

    DAVID SAID: "But you've been posting here a long time, and I'd like to think you're better than this kind of shit, and so I'm going to give you the chance to explain yourself."

    Well thank you your highness, I shalt remember to grovel properly and kiss thine ring upon entry to your realm.

    DAVID SAID: "But if you continue to post these kinds of comments they will be deleted. You're coming dangerously close to being banned outright."

    When you ban me David, do it with some sort of flourish, okay. Make sure you go all righteous white knight on the evil MRA dragon. And make sure you cash in and get some feminist tail out of your "noble" deed. I'd hate for you to be a feminist sycophant for nothing.

    Random Brother
    Wearing flowers behind my ears as not to appear threatening.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Christine WE said...
    @yohan,
    "MRAs do not support criminal men like this Marc Lepine."
    Yes, some MRA's do. There are examples of it that have been pointed out throughout this blog and it's comments.


    Courts are ruling in favor to females. I wonder what will happen to a man doing the same...

    http://www.nationalturk.com/en/susan-falls-found-not-guilty-of-murdering-husband-on-a-current-affair-73042345

    ReplyDelete
  31. @ CHRISTINE WE

    CHRISTINE SAID "@bishopsinister,

    I acknowledge that I am absolutely close-minded on the issue of whether these men were justified in killing these women, yes. I think you basically answered one of David's question as well. This discussion with you is just disturbing. Sinister."

    That's not what I said and you know it.

    Hey that trumped up "fear?" nice! Go with that.

    CHRISTINE WE DIDN'T SAY, BUT SHOULD HAVE SAID: "Oh no someone said something on the internet that may or may not mean something, I'm scared, David save me from the eviiiiilllll
    MRA text! If you do, and weren't a male, I'd be so hawt for you! David save me!!!!!!"

    Random Brother

    Terrifying feminists through the power of magical Satanic text.

    Ominous footsteps. . .

    ReplyDelete
  32. @bishopsinister,

    You said exactly this:

    "CHRISTINE WE SAID: "And you won't change my mind that those men were justified in what they did." So you ackowledge that you're close minded on this issue. Nice. Because there is no way that you could be wrong, you're logic is perfect."

    I simply confirmed that, yes, I acknowledge that I am close minded on the issue of whether these men were justified in what they did - which is murder these women. I know exactly what you said. Whether you meant exactly that, I don't know, but it IS what you said.

    P.S. I'm not scared of you.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @bishopsinister,

    What the hell kind of job is protected by the government for anybody?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I were some violent anti female revolutionary the last place I'd be is on this blog telling you about it.

    I dunno, man. A lot of the time crazies go on about their plans on the Internet and nobody takes them seriously until they actually do it. Plenty of school shooters or mass murderers have posted their manifestos on Youtube, in blog posts, or whatever before going out in what they perceived to be a blaze of glory. How do we know you're not the same way?

    I'm not trying to troll or accuse you of anything, but it's a legitimate question. Given the amount of crazies who've never made any secret of their craziness (that school shooter in Finland, for instance, posted violent, misanthropic crap all over blogs and Youtube), it's not hard to believe a "crazy violent anti-feminist" really *would* spew all his plans on other people's blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @ CHRISTINE WE

    Why do I think you are far less close minded about women who shoot their allegedly abusive husbands in the back while sleeping. Or say, Lorena Bobbit's actions? Are those fair also?

    Further, during this recession men were the primary losers in the job market, meaning they lost more jobs. Your feminists allies went to Obama and demanded that most of the money be put towards helping create jobs usually done by women. That's what I mean by jobs protected by the government.

    Oh and David if you're reading this, see the non threat I allegedly made has had no effect as CHRISTINE WE is clearly not scared, so I guess I haven't shut down communication with, you know the truth and all.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ thevagrantsvoice

    The problem is I didn't threaten anyone. Further this thread deals with a massacre. It's next to impossible to talk about it without mentioning violence.

    I hope you are not one of those, well if he doesn't grovel to feminists he must be evil types.

    Random Brother.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @bishopsinister,

    "Why do I think you are far less close minded about women who shot their allegedly abusive husbands in the back while sleeping. Or say, Lorena Bobbit's actions? Are those fair also?"

    I don't know why you think that as I have never said or insinuated anything like it anywhere on this blog or anywhere else. I am against violence, period, and wish that no one had to deal with it at all.

    As far as jobs protected by the goverment...where and what are these jobs protected for women only? I watch and read lot of news on a daily basis and have not heard anything about this. It appeared to me that bail outs were going to some male dominated businesses, stimulus money was distributed equally to all tax-paying individuals, and that jobs are being created anywhere and everywhere that there is opportunity to create them and are available to those who qualify regardless of gender. The jobs created with government assistance where I live are definitely male dominated industries...aerospace, shipbuilding, etc, which we are thrilled to have. Even the BP oil spill which occurred along the gulf coast where I live employed mostly men. Where and what are jobs protected by government just for women? Please provide sources for this information.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Also, about the fairness of spousal support. If I had any say in it, which I don't, I would look at situations case by case. In most divorce cases I am aware of, spousal support was not necessary and was not awarded and most women I know of never even asked for it. I do not believe it's that common. Divorce among the wealthy is only a small amount of divorce cases. Those cases aren't comparable to the mainstream divorce cases, where many women work and contribute to the home. The only situation where I will stand firm that spousal support is fair is in any case in which a man has not allowed a woman to develop job skills or career due to supremacist beliefs. Supremacists are very likely to be left eventually, and if he ends up having to pay her spousal support while she develops job skills, then so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I should add to that last statement, that those women are the least likely to ask for spousal support as those men often have threatened them and they are scared - often for good reason considering how many men kill over money (which you and other MRA's say is understandable), in which case, others are available to help her in that endeavor using government funding. You fellows have no clue how much you justify funding like VAWA on your websites.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Yes, yes, I'm not accusing you of anything, Bishop. I'm just saying that in general, its not really a useful rule of thumb to say/assume that violent people don't talk about violence/fantasize about it online. Plenty of them do, and it's something to keep an eye on.

    ReplyDelete
  41. David Futrelle said...

    1 -
    If a man is unhappy with his divorce, do you think he's he's justified in killing her and the judge?

    2 -
    If a man can't get laid, he's justified in killing random women?

    3 -
    If a man has to pay alimony to a woman who wasn't a sports star like him, he's justified in killing her and her boyfriend?


    Yohan's answer

    1 - NO
    2 - NO
    3 - NO

    Now a question to DAVID, do you think that men who suffer because of bad women have the right to complain openly about such a society, which is protective and even supportive to bad women?

    or

    do you think, because of protecting feminism, all these men should remain silent, work, and give most of their properity and earnings to their ex-wives, former girlfriends, adult children etc. for the coming 40 years or so?

    I do not think, it is wrong to complain if you feel you are treated badly as man by women because of legal loopholes and biased court rulings.

    And I do not think, it is wrong as a man to socialize with other men who had similar bad experiences in the past and to demand as a group that such laws have to be changed.

    What do you think, David?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Christine WE said...
    .... in which case, others are available to help her in that endeavor using government funding. You fellows have no clue how much you justify funding like VAWA on your websites.


    It's not about to help HER, it's about the question if there is anything available out of government funding to help HIM.

    Men have also problems, but unlike women, where can they go?

    About VAWA, (violence against women...) shows how sexist this law really is. Even the name of the law is already sexist.

    To claim that VAWA could be understood 'gender-neutral' is about the same as to tell men that 'white' and 'black' or 'red' and 'green' are the same colors...

    An American speciality is this VAWA - 'add-on' called IMBRA.

    A law similar to IMBRA does nowhere exist in the entire world, except in USA.

    IMBRA's sole target are US-men with foreign women with the intention to make international dating/marriage difficult and time-consuming.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @yohan,

    "IMBRA's sole target are US-men with foreign women with the intention to make international dating/marriage difficult and time-consuming."

    IMBRA is a response to the murders of Susanna Blackwell, Anastasia King and others who were brought to the U.S. via government issued K-1 fiancee visa's. This isn't an uncommon problem. Just last week Scott Huss was found guilty of the murder of his Russian bride Yana Huss. I can see, though, why men who want to shop for underaged girls or those who want foreign brides but have something to hide in a background check would be unhappy with IMBRA.

    Who are the men you know in the U.S. who need help from the government because their wives will not allow them to develop job skills/build careers? Considering well over half of VAWA funds are filtered to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors and judicial offices and pay for investigators, equipment, prosecutors, etc. both genders do benefit from the funding. Cops have to deal with what's presented to them and if an investigator is faced with a man beaten with a pipe or shot to death in a domestic, they are going to serve him or his family with the investigator whose salary is paid partially with VAWA funds, the prosecutor's office is going to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Christine WE: Considering well over half of VAWA funds are filtered to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors and judicial offices and pay for investigators, equipment, prosecutors, etc. both genders do benefit from the funding.

    This statement above is utter mockery...

    ... if an investigator is faced with a man beaten with a pipe or shot to death in a domestic, they are going to serve him or his family with the investigator whose salary is paid partially with VAWA funds, the prosecutor's office is going to do the same.


    You are making fun out of me...as I said, even the name of this law (violence against women...) is purely sexist at its finest.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @Yohan, the women specific language of the bill is only in the title, the language in defining the crimes uses the terms "spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner" (the language 'dating partner' was added when the act was amended, the language in the original bill was "spouse or intimate partner") and applies legally to both sexes and to same sex abuse. A male abuse victim is legally protected under VAWA and a female perp legally criminal. The bill even says with respect to VAWA’s grant conditions, that “[n]othing in this subchapter shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this subchapter." The language within the bill is explicitly and intentionally gender neutral. There were a few subsections that did use the term woman in the '94 version, but all of those were changed to gender neutral language when the bill was amended in 2006. You could actually finding out what the bill says and does before you start sobbing about it.

    IMBRA's language is also gender neutral, it require background checks for any person who sponsors a K-1 visa, so women seeking to marry foreign men would also have to comply. Most of the penalties within the bill only apply to the 'matchmakers' (International Marriage Brokers, specifically defined in such a way that they must be paid to fall under the rules), the few that apply to private citizens are background checks for K-1 sponsors, mandatory disclosure of violent crimes to foreign client of the K-1, and a limit of 2 K-1s per person for life unless one files for an exemption. All of this is gender neutral and the terms used are 'person' and 'sponsor'. This law DOES NOT prohibit American men from marrying foreign citizens, and it DOES NOT put American women seeking to marry foreign men in a better legal position. The goal of the bill is to reduce human trafficking, which is a huge and real problem in the US. Anyone who has ever dealt with the US immigration process will tell you that IMBRA is not really a big problem and damned does the US immigration system have more than its fair share of problems. I can't imagine anyone other than a convicted violent felon (because they can categorically be denied ability to sponsor K-1s under IMBRA) thinking that this bill is amoungst the biggest hurdles in dealing with residency and citizenship of a foreign spouse.

    ReplyDelete
  46. You could actually finding out what the bill says and does before you start sobbing about it.
    So you are telling me that this should not be happening. So why did it happen if the law is enforced equally?

    ReplyDelete
  47. DarkSideCat said...
    @Yohan, the women specific language of the bill is only in the title ...


    OK, so it is now the time to change this sexist titel of this law and to execute it accordingly in a gender-neutral form.

    Do you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  48. TriplePlusGood article Citizen!! Remember, never mention when men die, only women!

    Your chocolate rations are increasing to 22 grams.

    May Big Sister smile upon you.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Remember, never mention when men die, only women!"

    Right on LBF!

    I mean that would be ridiculous, right? An article about one specific murderer and his specific victims having to mention every other murder that has been committed in history, lest someone should feel left out and think that no men are ever murdered? That's just PC gone mad. *rolleyes*

    re: Raoul Moat. He actually killed 2 men and only injured the woman. The point isn't that Christine is only taking his girlfriend's shooting seriously. The point is that there are MRAs declaring him as a hero because of the MOTIVATION of the murder - the fact he was angry with his ex-girlfriend apparently entitles him to murder men too - her boyfriend and a random policeman.

    So apparently it's not only random women who deserve to die because of the actions of a few. Men are justified in murdering other MEN as long as it's anger at women who motivated it. It can't be his fault if he was pissed off at the cheating whore, right?

    And this is just proof that MRA is not about men's rights so much as misogyny and will actually trivialise the murders of men as well as women to get this across. The same goes for Ronald Goldman as well as Moat's victims.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis