Nowhere in there do I say Darren Mack is right. The problem is, Glenn, that the system itself contributed mightily to the creation of Darren Mack, and countless others like him. They have removed hope from such men. I never turned into a Darren. But I had hope.
Andrea Yates? Open any phone book to the “W’s.” Women’s this, and Women’s that, and Women’s the other. Women have support. They have no excuse. Ever been to what passes for the government sponsored support system for displaced Dads? “How to get a job, shut up, pay your child support, and quit “intruding” into the lives of your ex and her children” is the soup of the day there.
I used to know a guy (Jeff, to have a name to use) who kept ol’ coon dogs for hunting. And all the time I knew him he complained how “mean” they were. It seems at least once a year he’d have to put one down for going after his kids. I never understood it until I went over there one afternoon and saw these kids tormenting the dogs. Throwing rocks, zapping them with stun guns, spraying them with water and all the time these dogs in the dog run, helpless against their abusers.
No longer did I wonder why these dogs went after the kids when they could.
Were the dogs mean? Yep. Were they unfit for company? Yep. Did they need to be put down? Absolutely. He’d have been foolish to do otherwise - dogs were going after all the kids, not just the ones tormenting them.
The $64,000 questions, though, are: Were these innately bad dogs? Did the kids have any responsibility for what they did? Did he have any responsibility for what he didn’t do - namely, STOP THEM?
It is possible to say - at the same time - that these dogs were vicious animals which needed to be put down, AND ALSO to say “You know, you need to stop your kids from torturing your dogs and maybe these things won’t happen on such a regular basis.”
It doesn’t require approval of the behavior to see that it is a logical consequence. It doesn’t require approval of a dog biting a kid to acknowledge the dog had a right to be mad at the kids.
And what you’re sounding like here is the guy’s wife, who never went out to the dogs, took care of them, or had anything to do with them, calling the rest of the dogs (Who never bit any of the kids, but just growled at them and didn’t want sod-all to do with them) “mean-ass dogs that Jeff should get rid of” without seeing that they are really good dogs who are just tired of being poked at with sticks,who are exercising commendable restraint, and who have a right to not like the kids.
Darren Mack is a mean dog who has to be put down - or locked away. ANd as true as that may be, I’m also sorry as hell we live in a society that lets the Darren Macks of the world get poked at with sticks, pelted with rocks, sprayed with the hose, chased with noisemakers, have firecrackers thrown at them, and zapped with stun-guns.
The two positions are not mutually exclusive. To suggest that they are is a false dilemma and just bad logic.
And by the same token, it is neither condoning nor applauding the actions of Darren Mack to observe that “Hey - maybe if you didn’t let your kids torment the dogs, you wouldn’t have to shoot so many of them.”
Or you can take Jeff’s attitude that they are only males dogs who will breed more, and bullets are cheap. Of course, to go along with that, last I heard of Jeff, his kids were hooligans who were mostly in and out of trouble with the law themselves, and didn’t know how to behave.
Huh. Wonder why that is?
Were Darren Mack an isolated aberration (Okay, statisticaslly, people like Darren Mack, since we live in a country of 300 million people) this would be one thing. Even with this, it’s possible Darren Mack was a mean sonofabitch from the get-go, even before this. I don’t know, there are conflicting reports. But you, yourself, acknowledge that there is also a considerable amount of men who inflict violence, driven to the brink by the family court system, by being drive out of the lives of their children.
The only difference between them and those like Darren Mack is that their violence is directed inward, not outward. It is violence nonetheless, and not the least of which the consequences of that being an increase in the chance of THEIR children having mental problems and committing suicide. This is quite arguably a cowardly and detestable act. I live with bouts of suicidal major depression (Though unrelated to my divorces - but they don’t help) so I do know - suicide is an act of violence. It affects not just you, but the people around you.
So what is it? Are these men driven to their violence by the abuses of their person at the hands of the system because it is socially more acceptable to kill yourself? But the Darren Macks are undeserving of any sympathy because their violence manifests in politically incorrect fashions?
Someone who commits suicide does have an impact on people around him - often especially their children. It is indirect, to be sure, but it is tangible. Killing yourself does not just affect you. It is as well an act of violence, with effects on others.
You seem to have sympathy for men who commit the violent act of suicide - and I’d hardly accuse you of advocating suicide, endorsing it, or calling for it as an act of protest or some such. You seem to be able to say “These men need help and hope so we don’t have more of them,” and I don’t notice anyone saying “There goes that darn Glenn Sacks, glorifying suicide and encouraging people to shoot themselves on the courthouse steps.”
And you know why you can have that type of sympathy for them? Because if you are like 90% or more of the people in the world, you have had that long dark night of the soul. You have had that “Maybe the world would be better off without me” moment. You’ve stood on the edge, stepped back, and now realize how easy it is to find yourself there even though it goes against the grain of everything you thought you knew about yourself. You’ve realized that such a thing lives even in you.
And that is where “you don’t get it.” You don’t stop at condemning the giving in - you condemn the temptation itself.
And make no mistake - whether you sit in a room with the barrel of the gun at your own head, or sit in a bell tower, the desperation and hopelessness is the same - as well as it being taking the easy way out. The difference between the two is only one of degree - not of principle.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Denis said,
June 26, 2007 at 7:39 am
anti armchair generals said,
Good article. When all hope is lost, self deliverance as described in “Final Exit” seem the only option. But it stigmatizes your children who did not ask to be born.
One thing bafles me, how can daughters who are nice, intelligent and caring, turn against their fathers “false memory syndrome” or against their husbands like TV show the “Lifestyle of Rich and Famous” and others illustrate.
Perhaps it’s constant propaganda, mentors, enablers and even peers. Leaders are in many cases lesbians or bisexual and they have their ax to grind too.
June 26, 2007 at 8:37 am
roger said,
And so was the last one.
I wonder, if more men wrote down how they are actually feeling about their own circumstances, the desperate bleekness of it….if they’d even allow it to be published on these pages….
June 26, 2007 at 8:48 am
CaptDMO said,
One of those annoying challanges where I just can’t clearly adopt one way or another.
IMHO-I can piss on some fisk worthy points, and wear the lapel ribbon of others.
I suspect theres more in common that simply got lost to mixed metaphore.
I seem to remember a thread at a viable forum where the importance of ALL types-minister, soldier, farmer, craftsman, viscount, stable mucker, to make ANY arrangement operate.
I see nothing but good evolving from the crossroads of Pete St. and Glen Ave.
Maybe I’ll just open up a thread somewhere for a smackdown, melee, all commers, cage match.
I’d say open invitation, as personally, I’m from the old school- where a sythe and flail are simply tools, with MAY potential uses.
June 26, 2007 at 9:47 am
Virtue said,
I forgot who said those words but that is whats at the heart of the issue here. Mr. Sacks its not about your not a victim so you cant understand…..Youre right thats a total feminist line…..What MANY guys here are trying to tell you is this.
Everyone has a breaking point….No one is an exception to that…..if you think you are go volunteer for torture testing in some old style soviet gulag.
What a lot of folks here want to know Mr. Sacks. Is have you been hit?…..Have you seen your breaking point?…..do you know where it is…..Most men don’t discover these things unless they are forced into a war zone type situation.
Until you have seen the scary place where you break down……You don’t have the right to criticize another man for breaking.
June 26, 2007 at 10:00 am
The Gonzman said,
I’d caution people too - if you wish for open rebellion; have a care lest that wish be granted.
June 26, 2007 at 10:18 am
John Dias said,
The issue being debated here is whether we can lament that an oppressed man FELT predisposed to killing, as a result of being raped in the family courts. Was he justified in feeling that way? Were his violent feelings explainable? Certainly! We can identify with such frustration. We can identify with such an emotional reaction.
But what we must do as a movement (if you can call our pathetic political organization a movement) is reject the notion that responsibility is not borne for one’s actions because he reached a “breaking point.” Nothing “broke” with Darren Mack; he made a deliberate and contemplated decision to kill two people (and succeeded with one). “Deliberate and contemplated” simply does not mesh with “reaching a breaking point.”
If you feel anything for Mack at all, it should be empathy for his feelings (or as Gonz put it, empathy for his “temptations” — since it’s plausible that many of us have felt similar temptations of our own).
June 26, 2007 at 11:31 am
anti armchair generals said,
When he saw me, he called me and I stood up.He gave me tongue lashing or browbeating about fathers protesting near his home. I knew nothing about the incident but he would not hear an explanation.
Anothor judge who was me para legal teacher and liked well, during a class scolded me about another protest that I did knot know (I have not been in any protests, except filing lawsuits and writing letters and talk radio.
So if you’re a small group, pick your battles carefully.
June 26, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Roger Knight said,
Thurgood Marshall, to his credit, did not allow concerns about antigonizing racist bigoted judges keep him from pleading what needed to be pled, and the black folk and their white allies similarly did not allow the anger of certain public officials and private citizens stop them from exercising their right to free speech.
The fact that the judges yelled at you in front of other people about 1st Amendment activities by fathers’ rights activists was no doubt EDUCATIONAL to the other persons in attendence!
Just like the television pictures of the firehosing of the black people trying to cross a bridge in Selma, Alabama, was educational to the audience. People who do not realize the depth of prejudice and bigotry are shocked when they witness it!
I say, antigonizing bigots is always a wise move. It can cause them to reveal themselves as something far uglier than too many naive people are willing to admit.
June 26, 2007 at 8:45 pm
anti armchair generals said,
Thanks. I had never thought about it that way, maybe the rest of courtroom crowd was not hostile to me.
It had stuck on my mind because another teacher , a lawyer told about his experience. The judge had said that the court will recess untill 2 PM (I’m not sure about time after all this years) When he went in the judge scolded him for not being in 1;30 PM and continued that the court does not wait for him but he should be in when the court goes back in sesion. The lawyer said he just said something like “Yes, your Honor”.
June 26, 2007 at 9:13 pm
DadWith2Girls said,
Like, coming to terms with the Demopublicans and Republicrats total contempt for men’s issues?
You know, pass VAWA 100% — NO DISSENTING COMMENTS let alone votes?
What part of this soap opera narrative am I missing?
The future Georgetown MRA’s drink the kool-aid episode?
Stupid is as stupid does.
June 26, 2007 at 10:18 pm
MMX said,
As I thought, MMX.
Next time you accuse someone of calling for judges to be murdered, have some proof.
!PLONK!
Buh-bye!
June 26, 2007 at 10:56 pm
MMX said,
As I thought, MMX.
Next time you accuse someone of calling for judges to be murdered, have some proof.
!PLONK!
Buh-bye!
June 26, 2007 at 11:03 pm
KushinLos said,
I’ve met at least one mother that has decided to throw her son out of the house and keep his wife in it.
June 27, 2007 at 3:57 am
The Gonzman said,
Nice strawman there - want to provide the link where I actually said that?
Didn’t think so.
Okay, Mister Clairvoyant - what did your Conversations with Darren Mack reveal?
Oh, yeah. You didn’t have any of those either. Which means you’re guessing too as to his state of mind. Imagine that.
Dear Pot, yes I am black….
So what’s your beef, sonny? Seems to be that since I don’t fall into the lockstep, head-nodding groupthink, and actually dare to disagree with the common wisdom, I’m unoriginal?
I see.
Since I plunge into an unpopular position to some, I’m afraid of disagreement?
Do tell.
Well, You accurately cited me once, so I’ll toss a bone there, “The problem is, Glenn, that the system itself contributed mightily to the creation of Darren Mack, and countless others like him.” Pity that in all your non-sequiteurs, strawmen, and ad hominems you failed to see that I was actually agreeing with Glenn on that one, at least in his thesis that the broken system we have can influence men to do terrible things.
No? Go read his article, on his site, which I linked to, which he wrote. http://www.glennsacks.com/distraught_fathers_courthouse.htm To be fair, this isn’t Glenn’s original idea, itself. He only quotes experts in the field who have traced the link between divorce, alienation from your children, and suicide.
So how’s this again? Treatment by the family courts can affect men’s behavior, and cause them only to do certain, APPROVED terrible things?
How very droll.
I’m sure not a man around - well, at least not one in possession of a working pair of testicles - would have a problem with a man who defended his children from being snatched or otherwise harmed by J. Random Stranger, even if exercising extreme prejudice in the doing. Yet give J. Random Stranger the imprimateur of the state, and it becomes different, no? Which makes me some kind of a statist anti-individualist?
Allrighty, then…
PLONK!
June 27, 2007 at 4:16 am
WLS said,
There was practically nil grassroots opposition to VAWA in 2005 when it was up for renewal, and there was a campaign waged in the name of men’s rights `professionalism’ to actually discourage individuals from bringing the problems of VAWA to Congress’s attention.
In the form is which it passed it was a rider on the DOJ appropriation bill. It did get some opposition, but mainly from lawmakers who disdain all social programs, rather than for its uniquely pernicious features. However because police departments benefit from its grants, many law-and-order types like it mucho.
June 27, 2007 at 6:38 am
TheManOnTheStreet said,
TMOTS
June 27, 2007 at 6:39 am
DantheMan said,
Gonz has not once called for anything like the open season on judges you imply, and in reading this and the previous one I find him to be very civil to Glenn, and on several occasions make very clear he doesn’t support, condone, or in any way do anything but condemn Darren Mack.
He merely rejects what he sees as an overly simplistic reduction of this to a state of “This is all Darren’s fault, and the system is a perfectly innocent victim which contributed nothing at all to the events.”
I guess I know why you don’t address any of those points, and instead resort to making up lies and making personal attacks. Because you don’t have anything.
Gonzman makes some valid points, and he raises a couple of very relevant questions. Do we know for sure that Darren Mack Got a fair shake (Unsure, but likely not) and would Darren Mack have done what he did if he got a fair shake? (Who knows?)
The fact that these questions trouble you should speak volumes, and the thinking man might consider that perhaps overly simplistic and un-nuanced positions such as held by you and Glenn on this are not reasoned opinions, but calculated political stances.
June 27, 2007 at 7:23 am
MMX said,
As I thought, MMX.
Next time you accuse someone of calling for judges to be murdered, have some proof.
!PLONK!
Buh-bye!
June 27, 2007 at 10:36 am
The Gonzman said,
One of Gonzo’s laws states that any person has the unquestionable right to be both wrong and stupid.
If you want to “accuse” me of being willing to stand by and not even urinate on a burning feminist, I’ll say “What of it?” - BECAUSE I HAVE SAID IT.
Strawmen I can recognize. Ad hominem I can laugh at. Putting words in my mouth that I am soliciting murder is beyond the pale.
Are we all clear on this?
June 27, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Scott Strohm said,
I agree with your take on Glenn Sachs’ response to the Darren Mack story.
As I was reading MMX’s most recent (recently deleted) post (#19) I had the sensation of what it must have been like listening to the hundreds and thousands who surely lambasted the ways and means of all the heros who committed “crimes” (including “murder”) to right the wrong of slavery throughout 19th century U.S.A.
One thing I didn’t read MMX mentioning in his defense of Sacks (and condemnation of you) was that Sacks profits from the divorce industry. Don’t get me wrong; most of the time Sacks at least sounds off as a defender of fathers and families which is better than the alternative, but still he profits.
June 27, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Mike LaSalle said,
Scott Strohm: you are explicitly invited to begin your own non profit organization and volunteer your life to it.
On the other hand, spouting “profit motive” in this context makes you sound like a half baked Femi-Marxist with a bent for Patriarchal Corporations whose day job includes shit-disturbing the opposition between coffee breaks at her cubical.
June 27, 2007 at 1:34 pm
MMX said,
Which part of !PLONK! did you fail to understand, MMX?
Your mouth is no longer welcome here. You have made an ass of yourself and have been invited to leave.
Buh-bye!
June 27, 2007 at 1:44 pm
MMX said,
Which part of !PLONK! did you fail to understand, MMX?
Your mouth is no longer welcome here. You have made an ass of yourself and have been invited to leave.
Buh-bye!
June 27, 2007 at 1:51 pm
The Gonzman said,
Glenn makes the mistake of thinking that because I don’t come out and heap all “blame” on Darren that I endorse him and think he should walk.
Don’t make the mistake the other way of thinking that because I believe the system is bringing a lot of this on itself that I’m excusing Darren Mack.
It is NOT a zero sum game.
June 27, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Scott Strohm said,
“Scott Strohm: you are explicitly invited to begin your own non profit organization and volunteer your life to it.
On the other hand, spouting “profit motive” in this context makes you sound like a half baked Femi-Marxist with a bent for Patriarchal Corporations whose day job includes shit-disturbing the opposition between coffee breaks at her cubical.”
Above, Mike, you display your ignorance and your proclivity (like Mr. Sacks) to demean others (who are perhaps better than you) for some perceived or real personal gain.
Your false words don’t hurt me; they do, however, reveal to me, something about you, about which I was not previously aware.
If nothing else, for me, the truth is a comforting ally and the reality of my accomplishments provides significant satisfaction.
June 27, 2007 at 3:25 pm
MMX said,
June 27, 2007 at 3:39 pm
DaveK said,
x2
Two guys look at the same horrible event and come to two conclusions… imagine that. We’re on the wrong side if we always demand consensus.
My wife is a fan of Gonzo’s writings… his articulate and emotional writing style connects with those of us who have strong empathy, in this case empathy for the many men put into the same situation Mack was in. For both of us, his willingness to throw down with anyone he disagrees with is a trait that’s valued in my family (where debate is a favored pastime).
I on the other hand see Glenn as one of the driving forces in the Men’s Movement… and it’s primarily his balance and political skill that impress me. Many who live a bit further out on the bell curve see this as unwillingness to take a stand… I see it as ability to avoid giving the opposition the sound bite they so desperately need to discredit him (and us). To be taken seriously we need folks who can act at a national level without giving ammunition to the other side. The higher your visibility, the more damaging your mistakes. Glen has navigated the political minefield with skill.
Mack represented a big explosive mine. Regardless of his personal motivations for what he did. If Glen had said ANYTHING that could have been twisted to sound like a support of what Mack did, it would’ve been snapped up in an instant. We’d be hearing about it anytime Glen tried to debate ANYTHING, it would be a 2 by 4 used to bash down the value of anything he said.
We have room for and IMO a NEED for both positions, but they are going to be in tension to a certain extent. Personally I don’t have a problem with this, or with the entire debate (well… the less extreme contributions anyway) spawned by the conflict.
Personally, I think that Gonzo’s position is no less valid for its emotional underpinnings, and Glenn’s bright line position provides the necessarily undistortable separation between the Men’s Movement and the violent acts of Mack. I as a human being have the freedom to feel empathy for men pushed to the edge, but the ‘Men’s Movement’, the besieged creature that it is… cannot afford it.
June 27, 2007 at 3:46 pm
MMX said,
June 27, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Mike LaSalle said,
Glenn Sacks is an author on MND. He has devoted much of his life to “men’s issues”. He has been published in newspapers around the country. He has appeared on countless TV and radio programs - has even flown across the country to be interviewed - all to speak and lend his not inconsiderable talents of writing and locution on behalf of the average Joe.
Scott: I know Glenn Sacks. Glenn Sacks is a friend of mine. And Scott, you are no Glenn Sacks.
June 27, 2007 at 4:10 pm
John Dias said,
What do I get in return for paying Glenn? Eyeballs. People reading my opinions. Glenn has even made the focus of his newsletter about my Web site on a couple occasions. It’s worth it to me to pay this. I thus “profit” in my own way, and consider the money paid to Glenn worth less than that benefit I derive from the ads.
Besides, what the hell is wrong with profit? Do you honestly think the men’s movement will achieve anything if we try to paint ourselves as a bunch of rag-tag renegades who are all broke? Ridiculous! And yes, Marxism is a fair characterization of your position deriding profit. It is profit that enables Glenn to do this full time. Women’s groups have their own full-time staffs, paid lobbyists, political action committees, fundraisers, elected officials… You can’t be treating the need to make money and get paid for the cause as some kind of sell-out.
So Senator Quayle, er… I mean Scott Strohm, let me just affirm what Mike said. I too know Glenn Sacks. We do business together. And Scott, you are no Glenn Sacks.
June 27, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Denis said,
As far as Darren Mack, it is obvious that the girly-man wants to fabricate an issue where there is none. People who watched this case closely are aware of the antics of Judge Weller. His treatment of Darren Mack is the reason he got what he got. He was asking for it. When a girly-man spits at someone bigger and badder than he, it should come as no surprise that an ass-whippin’ is coming. Ass-whippin’ is against the law too but it happens. I’m not gonna condone it. But I understand it. Judge Weller was going to destroy Darren Mack’s life. Like Chris Rock once said in a comedy bit about O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown (who was popularly known for extramarital activity): “I’m not sayin’ he should’ve killed her….but I understand!” (as the crowd laughed wildly). The points made by Gonzman speak for themself.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for Weller or his family. It would not have mattered to me if he was killed by a better placed bullet. My hatred for people like Judge Weller is not rare, and THAT should cause Family Court judges everywhere to think about what they do.
June 27, 2007 at 8:16 pm
scottkirk said,
June 27, 2007 at 9:35 pm
scottkirk said,
were gonna get em in here every once in a while..
June 27, 2007 at 9:41 pm
amfortas said,
But this: “I as a human being have the freedom to feel empathy for men pushed to the edge, but the ‘Men’s Movement’, the besieged creature that it is… cannot afford it.”
The men’s movement needs all the empathy it can get. And give. It cannot afford not to be empathetic.
Would the Jewish people in 1934-39 have been a net beneficiary of some Jews taking up arms against the Nazis?
I don’t know. What I do know is that not taking up arms did them no good at all.
June 28, 2007 at 1:41 am
The Gonzman said,
That said, I’m not getting a lot of outrage worked up over him because I am at the point of “What do you expect?”
Laws, policies, and procedures have been enacted against divorced or never married fathers that cut off relief, appeal, review, and more. Many of these, in many places, are becoming more and more blatently misandric. And it is as true as hell that once you make peaceful reform impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.
Even if you could guarantee that in a dozen years the reform would be enacted, that would do nothing for fathers whose kids were over the age of six. Those childhoods are just as gone as if they had been snatched off the street. There is no resetting. You can cry to them “Patience, brothers!” all you want, but…
No hope, no place to retreat, all by design. That creates desperate people, with nothing left to lose from their POV.
I don’t think I need to break out the crayolas after that.
June 28, 2007 at 4:21 am
The Gonzman said,
What we need is to behave like a voting bloc. We do not.
Feminists do. This is why they are successful.
Until we get men who will say to a politician “This is my issue. And while I have been a member of your party for all my life, and agree with you on everything else, you are wrong on my issue. Your opponent is right on my issue, even though I disagree with everything else they stand for. Therefore I am voting for them.” we will continue to have our issues put on the back burner - because we have chosen that as a priority.
June 28, 2007 at 4:29 am
WLS said,
June 28, 2007 at 5:05 am
The Biscuit Queen said,
I cannot believe that we have given non violence even a tenth of the effort we should before resorting to violence. Men are islands, and before violence we should be trying to change that. Otherwise we get 5-10 violent men making no difference. Look at what f4j did with just a handful of men working together, non-violently.
Gonz, you are absolutely right. If we start banding together politically as a voting bloc, then we have power.
June 28, 2007 at 6:44 am
The Biscuit Queen said,
We all know what would happen if Glenn extended one iota of sympathy to him.
But Glenn has another point in writing what he did. I think it is too easy to start down a slippery slope of justification of bad actions to become the BS we hear from feminists. I think Glenn’s POV is needed to keep us from sliding into hypocrisy. Fact is an arguement could be made justifying many actions, based on gender, race, etc, but we need to not go there. We need to take the higher road. Do the courts have a stake in the creating of Darren Mack? Probably. Do the courts have a stake in the responsibility of what Darren Mack did? No. We are not dogs, and we make choices based on free will and a moral ground. He made his choice, for better or for worse. He chose to go to a place he did not have to go. I may understand why he went there, but I cannot support it, at all.
We do not need Darren Mack to need to revamp the family courts.
June 28, 2007 at 6:59 am
WLS said,
I’ve seen the women’s lobbying groups: they aren’t all that formidable, but they do have us beat.
On many fora the `professionalists’ remove any postings about pending legislation and information offering advice on whom to contact and how to do it. I’ve also received private messages that attempt to sound threatening, although there’s not that much they can actually do.
June 28, 2007 at 7:11 am
The Gonzman said,
Too many people want it off the table. And I’m not there. We see all the time where all it does is prolong bad faith negotiation after bad faith negotiation, all in the name of “keep talking.” And anyone who sits down to negotiate, and is unwilling to give an inch, is doing so in bad faith.
And you have to have that point, where no matter how undesirable violence is, it is the only option left. If not - you’re a doormat.
June 28, 2007 at 7:24 am
Denis said,
HOW INDIVIDUAL WOMEN ARE GIVEN MORE POWER TO KILL THAN THE ENTIRE U.S. GOVERNMENT
Taken together, the twelve female-only defenses allow almost any woman to take it upon herself to “exercise the death penalty.” The government is not allowed to take it upon itself to kill someone first and declare him or her an abuser later - only a woman can do that to a man.
“Women Who Kill Too Much and the Courts That Free Them: The Twelve ‘Female-Only’ Defenses” Excerpted from “The Myth of Male Power” by Warren Farrell, Ph.D.
1) THE INNOCENT WOMAN DEFENSE
I am starting with the innocent woman defense because it underlies all twelve defenses. At first I had called this the “Female Credibility Principle” because of the tendency to see women as more credible than men because of being thought more innocent. However, even when women admitted making false allegations that they were raped or that their husbands abused them, for example, their admission that they lied was often NOT believed. Therefore the belief in the innocent woman ran even deeper than the tendency to believe women.
2.) THE PMS DEFENSE (”MY BODY, NO CHOICE”)
In 1970, when Dr. Edgar Berman said women’s hormones during menstruation and menopause could have a detrimental influence on women’s decision making, feminists were outraged. He was soon served up as the quintessential example of medical male chauvinism. But by the 1980s, some feminists were saying that PMS was the reason a woman who deliberately killed a man should go free. In England, the PMS defense freed Christine English after confessed to killing her boyfriend by deliberately ramming him into a utility pole with her car; and after killing a co-worker, Sandie Smith was put on probation - with one condition: she must report monthly for injections of progesterone to control symptoms of PMS. By the 1990s, the PMS defense paved the way for other hormonal defenses. Sheryl Lynn Massip could place her 6 month old son under a car, run over him repeatedly, and then, uncertain he was dead, do it again, then claim postpartum depression and be given outpatient medical help. No feminist protested.
3.) THE HUSBAND DEFENSE
The film “I Love You to Death” was based on a true story of a woman who tried to kill her husband when she discovered he had been unfaithful. She and her mom tried to poison him, then hired a mugger to beat him and shoot him through the head. A fluke led to their being caught and sent to jail. Miraculously, the husband survived. The husband’s first response? Soon after he recovered he informed authorities that he would not press charges. His second response? He defended his wife’s attempts to kill him. He felt so guilty being sexually unfaithful that he thanked his wife! He then re-proposed to her. She verbally abused him, then accepted.
4.) THE “BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME” DEFENSE, AKA LEARNED HELPLESSNESS
Until 1982, anyone who called premeditated murder self-defense would have been laughed out of court. But in 1982, Lenore Walker won the first legal victory for her women-only theory of learned helplessness, which suggests that a woman whose husband or boyfriend batters her becomes fearful for her life and helplessness to leave him so if she kills him, it is really self-defense - even if she has premeditated his murder. The woman is said to be a victim of the Battered Woman Syndrome. Is it possible a woman could kill, let’s say, for insurance money? Lenore Walker says no: she claims, “Women don’t kill men unless they’ve been pushed to a point of desperation.” Ironically feminists had often said, “There’s never an excuse for violence against a woman.” Now they were saying, “But there’s always an excuse for violence against a man… if a woman does it.” That sexism is now called the law in 15 states.
5.) “THE DEPRESSED MOTHER” DEFENSE: BABY BLUES AND TERRIBLE TWOS
Remember Sheryl Lynn Massip, a mother in her mid-twenties who murdered he 6-month old son by crushing its head under the wheel of the family car? Massip systematically covered up the murder until she was discovered. Then she testified that she suffered from post-partum depression - or “baby blues.” Her sentence?? Treatment. Mothers do, get the baby blues. As do dads. Were the husband to kill his baby, as Sheryl Lynn did, it is unlikely that we would just treat him for baby blues or Save the Marriage Syndrome. Why does her version of baby blues allow her to receive treatment for child murder, when he would receive life in prison for child murder, with or without baby blues? The Terrible Twos Josephine Mesa beat her 2-year-old son to death with the wooden handle of a toilet plunger. She buried the battered baby in a trash bin. When scavengers found the baby outside her Oceanside, California apartment, she denied she knew him. When the evidence became overwhelming, she confessed. The excuse? She was depressed. The child was going through terrible twos. The punishment? Counselling, probation and anti-depressants. She never spent a day behind bars.
6. THE “MOTHERS DON’T KILL” DEFENSE ITEM.
Illinois. Paula Sims reported that her first daughter, Loralei, was abducted by a masked gunman. In fact she murdered Loralei. But she got away with it. So when her next daughter, Heather Lee, disappointed her, she suffocated her, threw her in the trash barrel, and said another masked gunman had abducted her daughter. It wasn’t until the second “masked gunman” abduction that a serious search was conducted. Only the serious search led to evidence. Might Heather Lee be alive today if mothers did not have a special immunity from serious investigation?
7. THE “CHILDREN NEED THEIR MOTHER” DEFENSE ITEM.
Colorado. Lory Foster’s husband had returned from Vietnam and was going through mood-swings both from post traumatic stress syndrome and diabetes. They had gotten into a fight and he had abused her. So she killed him. Yet, even the prosecutor did not ask for a jail term. Why not? So Lory could care for the children… Lory was given counselling and vocational training at state expense.The most frequent justification for freeing mothers who kill their children is that their children need them. Moreover, if mothers were freed because “children are the first priority,” then fathers would be freed just as often. But they are not. Even when no mother is available.
8. THE “BLAME THE FATHER, UNDERSTAND THE MOTHER” DEFENSE ITEM.
Ramiro Rodriguez was driving back from the supermarket. His daughter was sitting on his wife’s lap. As Ramiro made a left turn, a van crashed into the car and his daughter was killed. Ramiro was charged with homicide. The reason? His daughter was not placed in a safety seat. Ramiro explained that his daughter was sick and wanted to be held so HIS WIFE DECIDED to hold her. Yet only Ramiro was charged. The mother was charged with nothing. Ramiro was eventually acquitted after protests over the racism. No one saw the sexism.
9.) THE “MY CHILD, MY RIGHT TO ABUSE IT” DEFENSE
A million crack-addicted children since 1987, but only sixty of the mothers have faced criminal charges. One was convicted. That conviction was reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court. 3 percent of infants in Washington D.C. die from cocaine addiction, but no mothers go to prison. The right to choose means the right to kill - not a fetus but a child. Should the mother who addicts her child to crack have any more rights than another child abuser or drug dealer? How can we give a normal drug dealer a life sentence but claim that a mother that deals drugs to her own child should not so much as stand trial? If we feel compassion for the circumstances that drove her to drugs, where is our compassion for the circumstances that drove the drug dealer to drugs, the child abuser to abuse, the murderer to murder?
10. THE PLEA BARGAIN DEFENSE
Once a woman is seen as more innocent, her testimony is more valued, which leads to prosecutors offering the woman a plea bargain in crimes committed jointly by a woman and a man. And if a District Attorney is up for reelection, the Chivalry Factor allows him to look like a hero when his office prosecutes a man or a bully if he should put a woman behind bars.
11.) THE SVENGALI DEFENSE
A beautiful woman dubbed “The Miss America Bandit” conducted an armed robbery of a bank. Federal Sentencing guidelines called for a minimum of four and a half to five years in federal prison. The federal judge gave her two years because she told the judge that she was in love with her hairdresser and he had wanted her to rob the bank. The judge concluded, “Men have always exercised malevolent influence over women, and women seem to be soft-touches for it, particularly if sex is involved…It seems to me the Svengali-Trilby relationship is the motivating force behind this lady….the main thing is sex.” [Svengali is a fictional character said to have hypnotic qualities of persuasion over the innocent Trilby.]
12.) THE CONTRACT KILLING DEFENSE…DEFEND SELF BY HIRING SOMEONE ELSE
When I did the first review of my files in preparation for this section on contract killing, I was struck by some fascinating patterns. First, all of these women hired boys or men. Second, their targets were usually husbands, ex-husbands, or fathers - men they had once loved. Third, the targeted man usually had an insurance policy significantly larger than the man’s next few years income. Fourth, the women often were never serious suspects until some coincidence exposed their plot. Fifth, the women usually chose one of three methods by which to kill: she (1) persuaded her boyfriend to do the killing (in reverse Svengali style); (2) hired some young boys from a disadvantaged background to do it for a small amount of money; or (3) hired a professional killer, thus usually using the money her husband earned to kill her husband. Dixie Dyson tucked in her husband for his last night’s sleep. She had arranged to have a lifelong friend and a boyfriend pretend to “break and enter,” then rape her, kill her husband, then “escape.” She would collect the insurance money. At the last moment, the lifelong friend backed out, but the boyfriend and Dixie managed to kill Dixie’s husband after 27 stabbings. They were caught. Dixie “cut a deal” to reduce her sentence by reporting the boyfriend and his friend who backed out got 25 years for conspiracy. Deborah Ann Werner was due one third of her dad’s estate. She asked her daughter to find some boys to murder him by plunging a knife through his neck. Diana Bogadanoff hired two young men to kill her husband on an isolated nudist beach, while she watched. After he was shot through the head, she reported the killers but produced no motive for the murder - no money was stolen and she was not sexually molested. Diana did not become a suspect until an anonymous caller contacted a nationwide crime hotline. The caller coincidentally heard about the murder on the radio and remembered a friend describing just such a murder he had refused to do… on an isolated nudist beach while a woman named Diana watched. Without this tip, Diana would never have become even a suspect.
June 28, 2007 at 7:24 am
The Gonzman said,
What do you expect people to do? Labor without recompense until they are out on the street and drop dead from malnutrition?
And what of it if someone uses a DBA name? I write under several different names - keeps my Commentary from being conflated with my Technical writing from my horror from my fantasy…
June 28, 2007 at 9:10 am
Scott Strohm said,
Thanks for your considerate response (and for letting my post stand).
While I do believe that profit through the divorce industry is a very important topic for MRAs, I’ll certainly accept your request to drop it for now (and certainly in this thread).
Where I looked on the Internet for meanings of acronyms, I found dozens for DBA. What does your use of it mean? I also think it does matter whether we post with our real name or with a pseudomym; I still don’t quite understand their use (but would like to). But I thank you for at least offering a reason why you use them (I have previously asked on MND threads why they were used and was never offered any reason).
June 28, 2007 at 9:57 am
John Dias said,
June 28, 2007 at 10:18 am
Scott Strohm said,
Obviously I was too quick to thank you for consideration.
June 28, 2007 at 10:21 am
The Gonzman said,
Because often people have to live in the real world, and can get retaliated against for their activist work. Many of the posters here can tell you such stories of holding unpopular opinions and being fired for them, losing contracts, etc. etc. etc.
What - you think feminists have not tried to set MRA’s up before?
June 28, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Mike LaSalle said,
For example - for reasons that appear founded in spite - you have made an issue over the use of pseudonyms on the Internet.
Really? Pseudonyms on the Internet? I think The Gonzman might call that “droll”. (Me? I call it “drool”)
Also, your repeated (and deleted) taunts about my use of a pseudonym borders on the paranoid.
To tell the truth, it also reminds me of an earlier encounter I had with some left wing fanactics who likewise made an issue of pseudonyms and “profits”.
I suspect that if you had had your name and home address made available to an audience of crackpots on the Internet, perhaps you might be more sympathetic to the use of pseudonyms.
Example:
PRwatch.org is a leftwing activist group funded by the Center for Media and Democracy. Their Godfather is none other than Bill Moyers and the Schumann Foundation: http://www.prwatch.org/finances.html
Owing to a feat of mindnumbing stupidty, a foolish man named Bob Burton has abused the protection of his employer’s 501c3 status in order to implicate me, my business and my family in a scheme involving Karl Rove, Jeff Gannon, Gay Resorts, the Bohemian Club and Texas Oil Money.
See if for yourself:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Endeavor_Media_Group%2C_LLC
link
For the record, I have posted some supplementary information about myself at omidyar.net:
http://www.omidyar.net/user/u698260773/
I may talk about this more later.
But for now, Scott, I shall simply observe that you appear - like them - to be notably obsessed with mounting personal attacks on leaders of the Father’s Rights movement.
Please stop it now.
June 28, 2007 at 12:18 pm
scottkirk said,
he/she’s grasping for any fight he/she can…
June 28, 2007 at 1:37 pm
The Biscuit Queen said,
I think the internet is in a way our worst enemy. We sit here feeling like we are doing something and meeting each other, yet how many of us know each other? How many have gotten together and met face to face? I am so discouraged with the infighting, and I am discouraged that even when I tried to get people to meet face to face they would not. When Dave and I went to the Men’s Equality Congress 2 years ago it was so POWERFUL to shake Glenn’s hand, to share an umbrella with Warren Farrell, to be able to give Beene, and Tom Ellis, and Thomas, and Dr E and others hugs and look in their eyes and discuss these issues which effect our lives. We NEED that. Yet here we are, on one of the few visable boards, shredding each other. Gonz, you have been cordial, and to the point, but others post things which simply tear us further apart.
I am waiting with bated breath for this years congress. I need to feel like there are faces to this movement. I need to be recharged in my enthusiasm for this cause.
This is not some cold, philosophical exercise in logic (TB?). This is not a groupthink or a race to see who is the most extreme, or the most active, or a judgemental scale on which we find some wanting in their passion. We are each flawed humans with stories to tell, and we need to meet each other. People can sit behind their anonymous screen and spew what they like, but if you met that person face to face, would you say the same thing, or would you take his hand as a fellow man?
Sorry, Gonz, I am using your post as a soap box. I am just feeling so absolutely dejected about where we are all *not* heading. Then to see you and Glenn, two of my heros, not only disagreeing but watching all the others pick sides, blow the disagreement out of proportion and spilling it onto many threads……
I really wish you were coming to the congress Gonz. I really do.
June 28, 2007 at 4:05 pm
scottkirk said,
I feel we need a little competitive spirit..
to see who’s going to be bold enough to call out the feminist levithan, and disarm her before she kills and maims even more than she allready has..
And biscuit queen.. this site is the most cutting edge think tank for mens rights in the world… Iv’e gotten many ideas for my book from these blogs!!!
June 28, 2007 at 4:34 pm
The Biscuit Queen said,
June 28, 2007 at 6:59 pm
WLS said,
Moreover, there seems to be confusion between what’s `leadership’ and `politics,’ and what’s fundamentally entertainment, showbiz, and media-personality cultism.
I’m disappointed, appalled, and alarmed by the credulousness I’m seeing.
June 28, 2007 at 7:36 pm
scottkirk said,
(but is being poisened as of recently)..but anyway..
We live in a free enterprise society, and glenn is earning his living, and getting great results…and should be paid according to his efforts..
The more positive results Glenn gets, the more I personally am willing to open my wallet…1+1=2 simple math…
If their are other men making a similar impact, I’lle throw a few bucks in their direction also…
our troops need well equiped supply lines or they don’t fight..
June 28, 2007 at 7:46 pm
WLS said,
He seems to be successfully duping you on the plane of fantasy and hype: is that where it really counts, what you really want?
June 28, 2007 at 8:14 pm
scottkirk said,
I’m quite simpleton in this respect…I wanna see what I’m paying for!!!
June 28, 2007 at 8:42 pm
amfortas said,
Jen, you are thoughtful and pacific, but you need to think that one through a bit more. Violence comes in many forms and direct violence is rarely easy. The direct, physical violence that is perhaps more associated with men - in the popular imagination though clearly not in fact - comes usually at great personal sacrifice and cost. Suicide by cop is hardly an easy way out. If you think it is, I won’t encourage you to try it.
There is great difficulty in combatting the violence inherent in the Courts. There is huge difficulty in combatting the violence that women display toward men at both the individual level and at a societal level. Our culture is immensly violent toward men, particularly fathers and women play the ‘Let’s you and him, Fight’ game all the time. Men are abjured to contain their movement toward violence - this whole conversation is an example ot that - particularly against women who can use violence against men - even the men in their own family - at whim without censure, indeed often with applause, but there are no public or societal abjuration of women’s violence or the violence of Court officers, beaurocrats, even feminazi professors.
All avenues for men to chose a different approach from a violent one are closed off. Even trying to argue a point with a woman today is termed ‘verbal abuse’, leading to arrest and the bloody judges again. Argue with a Judge and a man gets thrown in jail to be at the mercy of the really physically violent.
I do not advocate violence - but I do see it as inevitable. If an easier way out is to be found it will be through the wholesale change in public and private (gender) attitude and practice, and that is still heading in the wrong direction.
June 28, 2007 at 11:46 pm
MoreMoore said,
Note to all–WLS is obsessively jealous and envious of Sachs and anybody else in the movement who is successful. WLS’s analysis of men’s movement politics is always very simple–if the person is successful, he criticizes him. That’s the extent of WLS’s political thought.
WE HATE IT WHEN OUR FRIENDS BECOME SUCCESSFUL
We hate it when our friends become successful
We hate it when our friends become successful
Oh, look at those clothes
Now look at that face, it’s so old
And such a video !
Well, it’s really laughable
Ha, ha, ha …
We hate it when our friends become successful
And if they’re Northern, that makes it even worse
And if we can destroy them
You bet your life we will
Destroy them
If we can hurt them
Well, we may as well …
It’s really laughable
Ha, ha, ha …
You see, it should’ve been me
It could’ve been me
Everybody knows
Everybody says so
They say :
“Ah, you have loads of songs
So many songs
More songs than they’d stand
Verse
Chorus
Middle eight
Break, fade
Just listen …”
La, la-la, la-la
June 29, 2007 at 12:41 am
The Gonzman said,
And no, we’re not there yet; but at some point in this spectrum we have to have a breaking point.
June 29, 2007 at 7:25 am
WLS said,
Who’s gone into family court recently, or conferred with a IV-D agency, and found themselves in a better position than they were in last year? Until there’s a positive answer to that question, it doesn’t make sense to begin to talk about `results.’
June 29, 2007 at 7:56 am
Scott Strohm said,
June 29, 2007 at 9:12 am
John Dias said,
1. Glenn Sacks does urge us to communicate with legislators, and with government. For example, he urged his readership to write to the California Judicial Council’s Domestic Violence Practice, since public input was requested on the “Draft Guidelines and Recommended Practices for Improving the Administration of Justice in Domestic Violence Cases.” When VAWA was going through reauthorization, Glenn also urged his readership to contact legislators. It’s important that someone like Glenn, who is plugged in enough to recognize when a letter writing campaign would make the most impact, notifies his readership to speak up.
2. Glenn does this full time. So does lobbyist Michael Robinson of the California Alliance for Families and Children (CAFC). It is because of full-timers that attention can be brought to bear when something important is happening in government, and conferences be organized. For example, the Men’s Equality Conference this July, or the educational conference “From Ideology to Inclusion: Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence” in February ‘08, put on by the National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center and the CAFC. Supporting these efforts with financial donations does make a huge difference in influencing the landscape of attitudes and opinions among those in political, academic, and bureaucratic high positions.
3. Since when is it preferable to RESTRICT our activities to letter writing campaigns? You would have us stop donating to our comparatively few full time activists and writers, and instead engage in good-old-fashioned letter writing campaigns from common laypeople? Restricting our political activity to that form of activism would be a step backward!
4. I believe it is true that WLS (a.k.a. William Spence) is merely demonstrating sour grapes against those who are still in the game, making a difference, as he used to be involved back in the 1990s as a member of Coalition for Parents Support. Since he receives no adulation today, he is apparently bitter, as Michael Robinson recently illustrated in his comment post on July 23.
William, quit your yapping and hating, and instead let both the professionals and the lay people do their best to change this system. You are not the leader of anything, although you could be if your focus was on achieving real change, rather than diverting much-deserved focus from the standard-bearers and onto yourself.
June 29, 2007 at 11:23 am
The Biscuit Queen said,
We have such a small movement, and we do not have the backing of the average man or woman. I think that this cannot be fought as a war, bad guys against good, because there are a few extremists pulling strings and a whole lot of innocent men and ambivilant women doing the ground work for those few. We want to take out the few and leave the innocent unscathed. The goal, also, is not to ‘win’ against women but to afford men the same freedoms and support women now enjoy. We want to balance the scale, not tip them the other way.
I think we need to make more of an effort to sway the average man’s thinking than it is to do anything else. If the average man woke up this abuse would not last a day. It exists because the average man buys into the feminist propaganda. The politicians and judges follow their voters, and the voters follow what they believe. We need to change what they believe to change the law and policy.
June 29, 2007 at 2:01 pm