Quote:
Originally Posted by beyelzu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demimonde
I am not surprised at the support, given the MRA crowd's fondness for violent and dehumanizing discourse. I don't expect such cowardly bullies to take up organized violent protest though. Unless this is a new trend of suicide by court house as opposed to the numerous tragic cases of abusers killing their entire families before themselves. But that new expression might just indicate that the system is working. 
I am actually proud that in this case the courts protected the ex-wife and daughter from a violent, angry, unstable man. He was offered counseling, which could have prevented this tragedy, and given incentive to use it. Courthouses and police stations are designed to be protected. Their purpose is to take the blow instead of the women they protect. |
I agree that the guy was obviously unstable and had issues. I think the mra guys are retarded for championing it. I also think the feministe article is being likewise pretty unfair.
Quote:
|
So unfair that a man who beats his wife shouldn’t be allowed to return to “his” home immediately.
|
accused would be accurate and for this guy yeah he hit his child. |
Read the quote she's responding to closely.
This is what he said:
Quote:
|
But if they are living together, then this fellow has a real problem. Bail conditions and then a possible protective or restraining order prevent him from being with her. So he needs to find a new place to live, at least until the charges are resolved. The King of his Castle is no longer allowed into his castle.
|
See that part about bail conditions and a possible protective or restraining order? That means it takes more than a simple accusation to prevent an accused abuser from returning home. First, they have to be charged, not just accused. Some states also seem to have a default no contact order in domestic violence cases, but he's not talking about that.
And the 'accused' distinction is important legally, and should always be included if you're reporting news on a specific case. However, the fact is that if 'accused' abusers are allowed to return home to their 'alleged' victims, this means that actual abusers are being allowed to return home to their actual victims in a significant number of cases. Or, if you were to put it another way, "a man who beats his wife" would "be allowed to return to “his” home immediately."
And he is speaking in general terms there about domestic violence, rather than his case, as is she.
In this case, he did hit his child hard enough to cut her lip, and he doesn't dispute that. And the police told him he couldn't return to the home that night, then arrested him the next day.
Quote:
|
I just don't think we should applaud a man setting himself on fire. he was obviously a very troubled individual who felt powerless in dealing with the system.
|
Any perceived 'applause' is I reckon for him turning his extreme violent tendencies on himself, rather than on others. And if you read his insane stupid manifesto, it's pretty obvious that the guy was not very smart or self aware, and that he had a lot of pent-up rage and severe cognitive biases that affected his ability to reason. If you just look at his 'math,' it's hard to even determine forensically what sort of bizarre maneuvering he was doing to get the results he was looking for. He was very far gone on the rage thing, and it was unlikely that his situation was going to resolve peacefully. Someone was bound to go down, and the best plausible scenario in his case was that he'd go down alone.