Fathers Rights Movement Must Condemn Darren Mack

My thoughts on this are similar, yet also quite different. While I agree
that what Mack is alleged to have done is heinous, to claim that the
Father's Rights Movement should condemn Mack for his alleged actions is akin
to saying "OK, we know you had nothing to do with the crime, but you should
admit to it and apologize anyway." Wha..?? Suck it up again??

To do so, IMO, would truly sound the end to men getting any sense of justice
from the courts. Say he did wrong, sure. Start to apologize for it, never.
As a matter of fact, now would be a great time to take the offensive and
attack (in a legal and political sense, not literally) the Divorce Industry
and radfems, and push for review of the whole "family court" system. And
push HARD.

Show to the world that, yes, this is why all these laws are on the books.
But use it to highlight that this is an extreme, isolated case and that the
other 99.9% of fathers do NOT take this sort of action and that those laws
should never be applied to them in the first place.

The radfems took General Patton's standing order to heart and ran with it.
And look at what we have to deal with now..

The Men's Movement should do the same to level the field - and they should
do it now.
------------------------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...201251,00.html
Fathers Rights Movement Must Condemn Darren Mack

Tuesday , June 27, 2006

By Wendy McElroy


When a bullet ripped through Nevada Judge Chuck Weller on June 12th, the
public debate surrounding the family court system shifted.

Reno businessman Darren Mack is suspected of shooting the judge whom he
blames for the 'unjust' conditions of his divorce. He is also charged with
slashing his estranged wife Charla to death.

Through years of effort, father's rights activists had pried open the lid of
debate on whether family courts are biased against men. Mack may well have
slammed it shut again.

If he is guilty of either crime, then Mack is the walking stereotype of an
abusive man from whom society and children need to be protected.

The public debate is already reacting to the stereotype. On June 16, the
U.S. Senate approved the long-delayed Court Security Improvement Act of 2005
which expands security for judges, prosecutors, witnesses and their
families. The bill was championed by Nevada representative Harry Reid in
specific response to the Weller shooting. Meanwhile, media headlines such as
"Police Find Bomb Materials and Ammo in Mack's House" stir further concern
about estranged husbands and dads.

Mack no more represents alienated fathers than Andrea Yates who murdered her
five children represents American motherhood. But, judging from his past
behavior, Mack will present himself as a rallying point for fathers who have
been estranged by family court judges.

Shortly after the Weller shooting, Mack left a message on his cousin's
answering machine, "If anything happens to me, please make sure that the
true story about the injustices that are going on in that courtroom get out
to the media and the public."

If Mack and his supporters convince the public that he represents oppressed
dads, then the father's rights movement may be damaged beyond repair.

Consider the facts:

Mack allegedly slashed the mother of his child to death in the garage of the
family home while their 8-year-old daughter was upstairs.

Mack does not seem to have experienced the most common complaint voiced by
divorced fathers: the denial of access to children.

According to the Reno Gazette Journal, the order issued by Weller in May
2005 included temporary joint physical custody by both parents on a week-on,
week-off basis. Mack was also ordered to pay $849 in monthly child support
from a reported monthly income of $44,000.

Other terms of the separation seem harsh. For example, Mack was to give
Charla $10,000 a month as well as pay the mortgage of a family home to which
she received possession. Nevertheless, on the defining issues of father's
rights -- access to children and child support -- the court ordered
arrangements were not unreasonable.

Moreover, Mack clearly sees himself as a wonderful father and may well argue
this position despite his actions. Legal expert Dahlia Lithwick stated in
the Washington Post, "I billed hundreds of hours on the Mack case many years
ago, when.he was fighting his first wife for custody of their
children.Darren was somehow always at the other side of my desk, or on the
other end of the phone line, urging me to think about why his kids needed
him, and why he alone was their ally."

Mack received custody of the two children. Charla, his second wife, helped
to raise them.

On a heartbreaking note, in 1998 Charla and the three children put the
following message on a Reno billboard: "The Mack Family Presents: Darren
Mack. 1998 Father/Husband of the Year. A unanimous decision."

Whatever Mack thinks of himself, his image as Father of the Year must not be
allowed to stand.

To retain any credibility, father's rights advocates must distance
themselves from Mack at breakneck speed and they must do so definitively.

The veteran advocate Glenn Sacks has stated, "I condemn without
qualification the crimes allegedly committed by Darren Mack."

Sacks acknowledges that "some on the not insubstantial lunatic fringe of the
fathers' rights movement see Mack as some sort of freedom fighter."; he
utterly rejects that interpretation.

He writes, "Mack is not a good man trapped in a bad system. He is a bad guy.
Because of men like him the system had to create protections for women, and
unscrupulous women have misused those protections to victimize countless
innocent men. Men like Mack aren't the byproducts of the system's
problems--they are the problem."

I hope the father's rights movement en masse adopt Sacks' hard line -- not
the soft line of "I don't condone his actions BUT I understand them."

There is no BUT about Charla's murder. A strategically-placed BUT only
insulates the speaker from blame while he proceeds to excuse the
inexcusable. It lets the listener know that the speaker is condoning the
action on some level.

Nothing condones the murder of Charla Mack.

------------------------------------------------
And from the comments section....

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/06/28/...y-47/#comments

Through years of effort, father's rights activists had pried open the lid
of
debate on whether family courts are biased against men. Mack may well have
slammed it shut again.

Why is everyone in such a hurry to bury this case, so they can get back to
business as usual with no voice from the men's side?

I agree with Dusty, keep the heat up and keep family kourts in the spot
light where they belong.
Any abusive system needs to be outed before more people's lives are
ruined!!!!!

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

My thoughts on this are similar, yet also quite different. While I agree
that what Mack is alleged to have done is heinous, to claim that the
Father's Rights Movement should condemn Mack for his alleged actions is
akin to saying "OK, we know you had nothing to do with the crime, but you
should admit to it and apologize anyway." Wha..?? Suck it up again??


No - I don't think we have to. I think that we can disapprove of the
murder without "condemning" a man we don't know and facts we don't know.

Dusty wrote:

According to the Reno Gazette Journal, the order issued by Weller in May
2005 included temporary joint physical custody by both parents on a week-on,
week-off basis. Mack was also ordered to pay $849 in monthly child support
from a reported monthly income of $44,000.

Other terms of the separation seem harsh. For example, Mack was to give
Charla $10,000 a month as well as pay the mortgage of a family home to which
she received possession. Nevertheless, on the defining issues of father's
rights -- access to children and child support -- the court ordered
arrangements were not unreasonable.

Um... I agree with most of what Wendy says here, but... $849 per month
from a $44,000 salary, when he has the kids 50% of the time?

Reasonable?

I respectfully disagree.

- Ron ^*^

krp wrote:

"Dusty" wrote in message
...


My thoughts on this are similar, yet also quite different. While I agree
that what Mack is alleged to have done is heinous, to claim that the
Father's Rights Movement should condemn Mack for his alleged actions is
akin to saying "OK, we know you had nothing to do with the crime, but you
should admit to it and apologize anyway." Wha..?? Suck it up again??



No - I don't think we have to. I think that we can disapprove of the
murder without "condemning" a man we don't know and facts we don't know.

True. Murdering his wife was unacceptable. Nat Turner murdering White
people was unacceptable. Men should be thinking of this man the way
Blacks think of Nat Turner.

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:4LQog.43825$fG3.8431@dukeread09...

My thoughts on this are similar, yet also quite different. While I agree
that what Mack is alleged to have done is heinous, to claim that the
Father's Rights Movement should condemn Mack for his alleged actions is
akin to saying "OK, we know you had nothing to do with the crime, but you
should admit to it and apologize anyway." Wha..?? Suck it up again??

No - I don't think we have to. I think that we can disapprove of the
murder without "condemning" a man we don't know and facts we don't know.

True. Murdering his wife was unacceptable. Nat Turner murdering White
people was unacceptable. Men should be thinking of this man the way
Blacks think of Nat Turner.

I can't put myself in the man's place and have no right to judge him, at
least until after a trial. However the murder of his wife was wrong and
shooting the judge was wrong. Calling him a hero is equally misplaced IMHO.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
My thoughts on this are similar, yet also quite different. While I agree
that what Mack is alleged to have done is heinous, to claim that the
Father's Rights Movement should condemn Mack for his alleged actions is
akin
to saying "OK, we know you had nothing to do with the crime, but you
should
admit to it and apologize anyway." Wha..?? Suck it up again??

To do so, IMO, would truly sound the end to men getting any sense of
justice
from the courts. Say he did wrong, sure. Start to apologize for it,
never.
As a matter of fact, now would be a great time to take the offensive and
attack (in a legal and political sense, not literally) the Divorce
Industry
and radfems, and push for review of the whole "family court" system. And
push HARD.

I look at this situation as a classic stimulus/response incident.

The stimulus is gross injustices in the family court system that many
fathers face everyday.

The response varies based on the individual's reaction to the injustices.
Mack had an extreme response. Most men fight back in other ways.

I see no reason to stop talking about family court abuse of men just because
one father had an extreme response. And the father's movement should never
apologize for an individual's inappropriate response. This case is a golden
opportunity for the father's rights movement to point out how the court's
treatment of men push men to the breaking point.

krp wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:4LQog.43825$fG3.8431@dukeread09...


My thoughts on this are similar, yet also quite different. While I agree
that what Mack is alleged to have done is heinous, to claim that the
Father's Rights Movement should condemn Mack for his alleged actions is
akin to saying "OK, we know you had nothing to do with the crime, but you
should admit to it and apologize anyway." Wha..?? Suck it up again??


No - I don't think we have to. I think that we can disapprove of the
murder without "condemning" a man we don't know and facts we don't know.

True. Murdering his wife was unacceptable. Nat Turner murdering White
people was unacceptable. Men should be thinking of this man the way
Blacks think of Nat Turner.


I can't put myself in the man's place and have no right to judge him, at
least until after a trial. However the murder of his wife was wrong and
shooting the judge was wrong. Calling him a hero is equally misplaced IMHO.

That's more or less what I'm saying.

- Ron ^*^

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
My thoughts on this are similar, yet also quite different. While I agree
that what Mack is alleged to have done is heinous, to claim that the
Father's Rights Movement should condemn Mack for his alleged actions is
akin
to saying "OK, we know you had nothing to do with the crime, but you
should
admit to it and apologize anyway." Wha..?? Suck it up again??

To do so, IMO, would truly sound the end to men getting any sense of
justice
from the courts. Say he did wrong, sure. Start to apologize for it,
never.
As a matter of fact, now would be a great time to take the offensive and
attack (in a legal and political sense, not literally) the Divorce
Industry
and radfems, and push for review of the whole "family court" system. And
push HARD.

I look at this situation as a classic stimulus/response incident.

Not when your own "TEAM" sells you out, it's not classic.

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:KcXog.43851$fG3.26443@dukeread09...

My thoughts on this are similar, yet also quite different. While I
agree that what Mack is alleged to have done is heinous, to claim that
the Father's Rights Movement should condemn Mack for his alleged
actions is akin to saying "OK, we know you had nothing to do with the
crime, but you should admit to it and apologize anyway." Wha..?? Suck
it up again??


No - I don't think we have to. I think that we can disapprove of the
murder without "condemning" a man we don't know and facts we don't
know.

True. Murdering his wife was unacceptable. Nat Turner murdering White
people was unacceptable. Men should be thinking of this man the way
Blacks think of Nat Turner.


I can't put myself in the man's place and have no right to judge him,
at least until after a trial. However the murder of his wife was wrong
and shooting the judge was wrong. Calling him a hero is equally misplaced
IMHO.

That's more or less what I'm saying.


No Ron I wasn't being critical of you. I was agreeing.