Edwin approached the girl and told her he would find her mother. Edwin's mother said she saw the two together, asked Edwin what was going on, and then said she would help.Apparently, the mother then insisted the police be called. When they arrived, Edwin was shopping for shoes with his mother and he was arrested and charged with, unlawful imprisonment - a felony. On the video there is no audio, but I do believe if it was really Edwin's intention to kidnap this child, he would not have returned to shopping with his mother. In fact, who attempts to kidnap someone with their mother present? Glen Sacks, the king of the MRA has of course turned this into a men's rights issue. On his blog he states:
Then Edwin made his big mistake. He thought the girl's mother might be among a group of women that he saw leaving the store. So off he went.
The video shows him leaving the store, with the girl following behind. Once outside, he took her by the hand.
Edwin's mother then appeared, following after him and the girl.
It turned out the girl's lost mother was in the store. She told investigators that she was returning an item to the shelf when she lost track of her daughter. She naturally became alarmed. Another shopper told her that the girl left the store with a man. Edwin is big enough to pass for a defensive lineman, which probably is part of the problem here.
The video shows the girl's mother rushing out the door.
By that time, Edwin had discovered the girl didn't belong to any of the women he had seen leaving the store. He said he was turning back to return to the store.
There was a convergence of Edwin, his mother, the little girl and her mother. The girl was returned to her mother.
It turns out that there are consequences to our creation over the past four decades of the horrific mythological beast, man. One of those consequences is the gradual loss of that most masculine of virtues, the protection of the young and weak. In times past, that was considered a fine thing and men were honored for doing it. Now, unless they have a clear relationship with the person they're helping, they likely wind up behind bars.Of course, he surrounds this with a supposed case of children dying because men were to scared to intervene, as well as a case where a man was apparently arrested for helping a girl, who was near a busy intersection. "He stopped his car, took her by the arm, lectured her about her carelessness and went to jail for his trouble. Gilding the lily, the State of Iowa deemed what he did to be not merely a crime, but a sex crime. Edwin, consider yourself lucky." He felt the need to blog about this, but apparently, though it is quite easy to link to a story on the internet, no proof was provided. He then goes on to state:
And here's another: the sick distortion of the masculine impulse to protect, into something evil. What the psychological ramifications of that are, I can't begin to guess. But I wish someone would ask Edwin his opinion. After all, right now, he's learning how to blunt his finer instincts, to understand them, not as virtues but as vices. He's learning that most precious of 21st-century lessons for men - let her die, let her be hurt, let her be kidnapped; I'm part of the problem, not part of the solutionOh dear the poor mehnz are being persecuted. Edwin may have good intentions, but today we cannot trust good intentions when it comes to children period. It was not a good decision to take the child out of the store, but he is 14 and may not have known that; however, the police have to investigate this. What if he were indeed guilty of having more nefarious intentions? Does society not have the right to think about the safety and well-being of the other children he might interact with? Contrary to what Glenn Sacks says, this is not about Edwin's masculinity, this is about the safety of a child and potentially Edwin's race.
Furthermore, the nonsense ahistorical idea that men have this so-called desire to protect and nurture is absolutely foreign to me. I am sick of people creating a mythological past to maintain ridiculous gender based stereotypes. Chivalry is not dead, it never existed. Today, some of the cloak of silence has been lifted. Even though the process is difficult, children of abusers now have the opportunity to speak up. Wives now have a place to turn when they leave abusive husbands. Women have a better chance to bring their rapist to justice. Men were not better in the past, the institution of patriarchy was simply better at covering their crimes-- and in fact -- today it still works hard to shield men. This is why victim blaming has become a standard tactic of defense when women charge some form of violence and or assault perpetrated by a man.
I am the first one to note that men of colour are often treated unfairly by the criminal justice system, a fact that in his zeal to defend men, MRA bigot Glenn Sack did not bother to acknowledge. The persecution of a Black man and or child, is something that White members of the MRA movement are quick to jump on. This amounts to nothing more than the exploitation of racism for the continued benefit of White male patriarchy. White men represent the most privileged class to ever walk the face of the planet, but to hear Glenn Sacks tell it, they are poor wittle victims. When it suits them, they will co-opt the experiences of Black masculinity, but to ensure that it benefits them, they will rarely ever mention the racism involved. MRA are no ally to Black men, but because Black men have become so desperate to wield the same undeserved privielge that White men have, far too many Black men buy into their misogynistic behavior. Make no mistake, the MRA movement is about nothing more than protecting the undeserved privilege of White men. What happened to Edwin may or may not have been a miscarriage of justice; however, any interest Sacks et al. have in the case is completely self serving.
Editors Note: To write this story, I was forced to link to Glenn Sacks. This thread will be heavily moderated and I will not tolerate any misogyny.