The link: http://ginmar.livejournal.com/781488.html?thread=24356528
Here is an article about Darren Mack (a guy who stabbed his ex wife to death in retaliation for her screwing him in family court and then tried to off the judge who facilitated said screwing) by a loud mouthed cunt. This cunt goes by the name of ginmar and links to cunt queen Trish Wilson. She isn't quite as dumb as Wilson but that is kinda damning with faint praise, isn't it? Here are selections of her drivel with my sufficiently testerone fueled replies in bold. Sorry that this is all so out of date but I was not an MRA when the Mack incident happened so I am playing catch up. I don't even remember hearing about Mack on the news... probably because I don't watch it.
To wit:One scumbag, Darren Mack, kills his wife in the midst of a divorce. He's a millionaire, by the way, and owns a pawn shop, so he has access to weapons, vehicles, and capital. He used one of those weapons to subsequently shoot the judge in the case as well as a female staffer in the case. Now, if it were not for the shooting of the judge, the case would not have gone national. The murder of one woman and the shooting of another is just not news.
I take it Ms. Ginmar views this as an example of patriarchal bias in the media, you know, since every time a man is murdered it is front page news for monthes on end.
Pandagon has a good round up, too. Then CNN got in on the act, putting on a ranting MRA who said, basically, that poor Darren got driven mad by the injustice system that men labor under when they can't control and beat their wives any longer.
Typical feminine baloney. They get mad when THEIR money gets transferred to their ex's. Women either deliberately pretend that it is all about "control" or are really just too stupid to understand that it is about money.
CNN didn't check the murder cheerleader out; he's part of the same group that Mack was, and he's got quite the history, which Trish and Red State Feminist have both been on top of. Why didn't CNN check this guy out and find out he was a loon? ...Tell me about that liberal media again, I dare you.
Got to give the chick this one, I have not seen any liberal bias in the media for a long, long time.
This guy was allowed to say that Mack was driven to murder and attempted murder, as well as criticize one of the victims. It's a wife beater's fantasy; the ability to go on the air and just say, "Well, look what she made me do." These guys never take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, which have an alarming tendency to take the lives of women and children.
Whereas women like Andrea Yates, the Winkler ho, and that bitch who ran over her husband in her car a few years back are models of taking responsibility. Feminist showed how much they cared about children when they uniformilly demanded Yates receive the death penalty.
The only reasons these guys occasionally let women live is either carelessness or malice: after killing the kids, they know the woman will have to live with that for the rest of her life.
Scratch my earlier comment about this gal being smarter than Wilson, Wilson would never say something this stupid. I'm not even sure what this ho is getting at.
Darren Mack is currenlty on the run, and the basic refrain from the FRAs is that if these poor guys weren't denied justice, they wouldn't have to shoot their wives, or other people. They were driven to it, they claim. They had no choice.
Exactly, you don't blame the victim. We can't have people running around shooting up ho's or judges because that would be anarchy, but the real blame needs to be placed on the Matriarchy which created such unjust conditions for Mack in the first place.
Wouldn't you just love these guys raising boys and teaching them this stuff, as well as teaching girls how loathsome and disgusting they are?
Agreed, when couples split the men should take the boys and the women take the girls.
One thing that really pisses me off about discussing wife-beating is how people still perpetuate the notion that battered women are stupid to get involved with these guys.
You're right, these women are certifiable geniuses for getting involved with guys who use them for sparring practice and then staying with them. Men just can't understand feminine genius.
In fact, these guys study women, and more often than not they tend to go for women who have more traditional values or lower self esteem. They're often charming and seem to have come straight out of a romantic novel.
Hah! Sounds like ginmar here is talking from some personal experience!
This is why a good wife-beating statute will include some prohibition against threats or language.
We can't make this stuff up folks. So when men are violent or even verbally violent against a woman, who is supposedly their equal, there needs to be special laws to deal with that. Just another case of a woman admitting she is inferior to men and needs Big Sister to protect her.
When someone has previously been violent, being loud and threatening is intimidating or may even predictive behavior. Once the guy gets the woman hooked on him, he then subtly reverses direction and begins to tear her down in small steps, offering her 'advice' which is often insulting and demeaning in ways she can't quite identify. Because he has previously been so nice and complimentary, she thinks it's her. After all, people don't change, right? They do, however, conceal. He will be supportive and critical by turns, but he often seems to take her side against other people, cutting her away from them by either playing on or creating tensions. Once she's isolated from her support network, and has travelled a fairly far way down the pathway of destroyed confidence, he'll move to physically isolate her as well. He will pose this as for her own good or as something she's always wanted. Once he has her where he wants her, often times with children, he will become physically and emotionally abusive.
Sounds like someone has been reading too much Stephen King. This could have been a synopsis of the relationship between the upitty cunt in Rose Madder had with her husband Norman and what Beverly from It had with her husband Tom. (There is an upshot though in It when Tom beats the living shit out of Beverly's feminist best friend)
In the case of my mugging, a supposed 'lover's quarrel' involved a six foot four inch man beating a five foot three inch woman's face into the pavement till she was bloody and unconscious, seizing her purse and then running off.
I don't get it, why weren't you able to defend yourself from your equal?
Certain individuals like to claim that men never hit a woman, that men are told this. This is what they want to believe, much like the belief that bad things only happen to bad people.
Only a woman would believe something so stupid.
the court system is stacked against women with presumptions that wife beating and child abuse are signs of her failure as a mother, not his lack of character.
Like in Darren Mack's case where his ho got custody and 10 G's a month plus child support? This chick writing is an idiot.
becaus the standards of parenting are so incredibly higher for women than they are for men.
Which is why women almost always get custody, right? I think our friend ginny was on something when she wrote this article.
To add to the problem, divorcing couples then go before a divorce court system dominated by conservative white guys who often disapprove of women with jobs---and women without jobs.
In Red States things might be more balanced, but in Blue States as well as all of Britain, Canada and Austrailia the courts are totally stacked in womens favor, something that everyone knows. I'm not sure if this cunt is being deliberately dishonest or really is as ignorant as she is coming off.
In fact, the children are especially in danger from guys like this because they're simply vehicles of control and if that doesn't work---of revenge.
Pretty sure that it has been established that Feminists don't care about kids. Hey, nothing wrong with that, I don't care about kids either, but if such dishonesty about their motivation is never going to help any of these poor women land a husband.
Note I don't mention children there because it goes without saying: if women are easy to kill for these guys, children are effortless.
Just ask Andrea Yates.
Unless a woman has her own wealth or some solid foundation which enables her to be free of men, she can be vulnerable to any man.
Hate to break it to you bitch but even if she has her own wealth she is still dependent on the Matriarchy's force of mangina slave soldiers to keep her precious cunt safe.
For sexist men, their sole identity is being not women, and being better than women.
I wouldn't say that's my sole identity but it is a fair point. I would definately rather not exist than exist as a woman. Almost every guy feels the same way.
You have to attack another man [to make the news].
You have to either kill somebody who matters or kill a whole bunch of people, prefferably in a public place. It has nothing to do with sex. If Mack's judge had been a woman it would probably be even bigger news. You really are an idiot.