A man in California shot and killed his ex-wife and seven other people last week. The two were involved in a bitter custody dispute over their son. The story is incredibly sad, but men’s rights activists (“MRAs,” going forward) have again taken it as a lesson in the evils of both women and a legal system that promotes the ideal that both parents should have rights. American laws have evolved to reflect the fact that mothers are more than mere incubators to produce children for men, and MRAs are not so much on board with that. Divorce laws that give both parents custody of the children but that may limit custody when one parent is abusive or violent apparently “drive” men to shoot their ex-wives and seven bystanders. So, limiting custody when a parent is abusive or violent is “misandrist” (a word that is right up there with “reverse racism” in terms of usefulness or accuracy) because men aren’t really violent, bitches just lie to steal a man’s kids from him; but when men whose custody is limited because of accusations of violence proceed to act violently by killing their exes, their kids, themselves or innocent bystanders, well, bitches made him do it.
It’s worth noting that the shooter in the California case was in fact given an equal custody split with his ex; that didn’t seem fair, apparently.
Like David, I don’t know any details of the shooter’s ideology or politics, but the MRA reaction has been predictable (though nonetheless startling). MRAs are, quite simply, men who hate women. They especially hate feminists, or women with opinions beyond “Whatever you think, dear.” Because they believe men are superior, they also believe that men should have pretty much free reign to behave however they want towards their women and their children. They believe that violence is often necessary to maintain control, and that judges who declare that children should be placed in non-violent households are anti-male. They believe that violence is provoked by women who don’t know their place. Case(s) in point:
Essentially men need to tell feminism to shut the fuck up, give it a vigorous slap across the face thus reminding it who is the biological superior, then order it back into the kitchen/bedroom.
Gandi [sic] and MLK got what they were after via non-violent means, but they were dealing with people of conscience, people who would think about the issues they espoused and not just kill them. Non-violence only works when your opponent has moral character. …
I submit that women … are much more likely to pay attention when they’re being threatened. If it becomes obvious that claiming child abuse during divorce, withholding visitation and other such actions could result in their death, then they might think twice about such behavior.
You can read more at Man Boobz.