Michelle Fournier is dead after maliciously asking for a restraining order against her wonderful, loving, wouldn’t-hurt-a-fly ex-husband. Serves her right, too! Those women are always lying about this stuff, right? I mean, sure, he burst into a hair salon a couple of days ago and shot eight people to death and critically wounded a ninth, but I’m sure he was really a nice, nice guy and it was all Fournier’s fault somehow. She must’ve provoked him somehow, because he just couldn’t possibly be an entitled ass who thought “things not going my way” = “good reason to blow the heads off a bunch of people I don’t even know.” Nah. She probably slept around or something, so what’s a poor man to do?
That tone, dear readers, is facetiousness. I hear so much of that kind of reasoning whenever a woman claims a man has been violent or abusive to her or her/their children, as if the only reason a woman would ever do that is because she’s been scorned, and hell hath no fury. Reality checks inform us otherwise: sometimes human beings are violent and unstable. Some violent, unstable human beings are men. And because of the ways we’re taught to think about power, when someone claims that someone else is violent or unstable, we judge their credibility not by the merits of evidence or their established character, but by their position in society. We assume people from less important social groups (women, people of color, etc.) are probably lying when they claim people from more important social groups (like white men) have done wrong, because we like to maintain the idea that people who aren’t white men are just jealous and bitter about not being white men, and therefore sometimes lash out against them with lies.
Because despite how dense most of us pretend to be when asked why we can’t see how privileged certain people are in this society, we sure do operate on the assumption that less privileged people have reasons to be bitter whenever it’s convenient. That’s the kind of doublethink that makes me cynical about humanity’s future.
Commenters on news article about this tragedy keep asking what this man was thinking. Thinking? He wasn’t cogitating. He was acting out of pure emotion. His entitlement had been challenged, and he wasn’t just going to show his wife her place – he was going to show lots of people that he was special, that the rules don’t apply to him. Like the guy who sicced police on his stolen kiddie porn stash last week, this man wasn’t considering that he’d just made the child he cared so very deeply for (yeah, right) effectively an orphan, because the child’s mother is now dead, and his father is who killed her. That didn’t matter to this guy, because here’s a newsflash: he didn’t really love his kid.
Men like this don’t want their kids because they love them. They aren’t even capable of love. They want their kids because they can use them against their mothers, or so have someone handy to molest or beat, or whatever – kids are tools to these men, and they’d better perform well, or the kids catch hell. (Sometimes they catch hell anyway. Like a coffee table, they aren’t supposed to object.)
And women who accuse men of violence lie rarely, not regularly.