Author: has written 5280 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

220 Responses

  1. Eneya
    Eneya June 27, 2011 at 1:04 pm |

    Sorry but this guys sounds like a complete psychopath.

  2. Bridget
    Bridget June 27, 2011 at 1:08 pm |

    I read his whole rant a few days ago for some reason…his “facts” really do not add up at all, it becomes less and less coherent and more out-there-conspiracy-theory as it goes on.

  3. Odysseus
    Odysseus June 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm |

    Why is June Gay Pride month?

  4. Kristi
    Kristi June 27, 2011 at 1:15 pm |

    This is nuts, but the fact that the misogynist right wing picked up his cause is hardly surprising. The sad part is, many of the supporters of the right-wing are brainless enough to do whatever they tell them to do, so they will be echoing this lunatic’s cause. Surely, we will see an increase of violence as a result from the attention it is getting. Is it me, or is it getting scarier to be a woman or child in this country?

  5. anna
    anna June 27, 2011 at 1:16 pm |

    Why is June LGBT Pride month?

    Not really relevant, but: Because it’s when the Stonewall Riots happened, which is considered the beginning of the LGBT rights movement. Look it up on wikipedia.

  6. Andie
    Andie June 27, 2011 at 1:24 pm |

    That was some scary ranting.

  7. Tom Foolery
    Tom Foolery June 27, 2011 at 1:29 pm |

    So, leaving aside that this guy is obviously in the wrong about basically everything, and has absolutely no grounds to complain about his treatment following beating his daughter.

    I’m not sure advocating attacks on law enforcement officers, especially in the U.S., is terrorism. Our LEOs are heavily armed with military hardware, utilize military-style tactics for many, many nonviolent crimes. They are more military than civilian. Attacking them is insurrection, not terrorism.

  8. gretel
    gretel June 27, 2011 at 1:45 pm |

    He mentions that he’s a U.S. Army vet who served during the Vietnam era (not clear whether he saw active duty). That makes his act of self-immolation all the more eerie to me. It seems like maybe the right-wing media could focus on mental health for veterans if they actually gave a damn.

    Also, this:
    “Twenty-five years ago, the federal government declared war on men.”

    Remember in 1986 when President Reagan and his administration declared a war on men? Seems like yesterday!

  9. Florence
    Florence June 27, 2011 at 1:47 pm |

    For a minute I thought this was my ex, except my ex hasn’t committed suicide, he’s been harassing me and my son all weekend long and blaming me and a biased court system for everything that’s ever gone wrong in his life. Some day I’ll have enough to write a book on the absolute madness of a custody battle gone wrong, one that’s still going strong after 10+ years of separation. Ask me sometime what it’s like to be the long-term object of an unstable man’s obsessive, possessive hostility.

    I can’t get up in arms about the so-called unfairness of paying child support. Children need support from their parents and it’s only right that both parents contribute financially for the well-being of the child. Truth is, except for extremely rare cases, child support is a pittance compared to the vast monies required to educate, clothe, feed, and nurture a healthy kid. And it’s been said a thousand times before, but if these folks really want to see change, the answer is greater gender equity for dads in the social arena and workplace — primary custody almost always goes to the primary caregiver. And you can’t have equality in the court system when the asshole who accepted or enforced men’s and women’s roles in the marriage suddenly wants gender equality outside of the marriage.

    Sorry, I’ve got a million opinions on this and I’m writing rushed. I feel for this man’s kids and his ex-wife. I feel for him, too, that he couldn’t find any peace in the disappointment of divorce. But this wasn’t his kids or his ex’s problem. It was his. It’s disturbing that he’s being held up as some social martyr despite the deep psychic wounds he’s inflicted on his family in the name of his movement.

  10. Anon21
    Anon21 June 27, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

    Seems like one of those days when it’s hard to tell whether people are in fact being serious.

    But yeah, that is some scary shit. I’m boycotting these MRA sites because I know that once I read one post, I’ll be sucked into the carnival of awfulness and fail to get anything done today. But it’s hard to believe that anyone could take a look at the things this guy wrote and say “We have found our standard bearer!”

  11. chava
    chava June 27, 2011 at 2:00 pm |

    Well, at least he won’t be around to slap his 4 year old anymore.

    I’ve known a lot of divorced dads who whine about the “I am just a piggy bank” angle. It’s usually a nice way of distancing yourself from any responsibility you had in the breakup and your relationship with your child.

  12. AK
    AK June 27, 2011 at 2:04 pm |

    Not to mention that many of us paying child support are women. Hello California gender equity divorce laws. I have 100% physical custody but 50% legal custody of my kids and pay my ex child support because my salary is larger.

    Ah well, at least he is a good guy and not an abusive psychopath.

  13. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable June 27, 2011 at 2:06 pm |

    [ignores mental health musing]

    How did you miss this math gold? “The last group of homeless from these arrests are children. The domestic violence feminists state that 70% of domestic violence couple have children. So 50% female times 70% children equals 35%. But children is plural. So we will double to 70%.” He cited that some unknown feminist has said 50% of DV victims end up homeless. So 35% is a rough estimate of how many DV lady-victims with children end up homeless, assuming both figures are accurate and you are not more or less likely to end up homeless, given kids (which is a stretch of logic – more mouths to feed, bodies to clothe, etc). K. However, since “children” is plural, apparently it’s really 70% of women that end up homeless? Or something.

    (Not making light of how many women end up homeless – just this guy’s horrendous mathematical reasoning). PS – does anyone know where I can find that stat? I found this study: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/domestic.pdf which says 50% of homeless women identified DV as a primary cause of homelessness. It’s not the same as what he said – but it still has quite the “FUCKING A” factor.

  14. auditorydamage
    auditorydamage June 27, 2011 at 2:07 pm |

    A person who thinks physical violence is a perfectly acceptable solution to a child being silly, and brushes off the result as “her lip got cut”, is about who I would expect to become an MRA martyr. The degree of entitlement and inability to take responsibility for one’s own actions is what I’ve come to expect from members of the set.

  15. Andie
    Andie June 27, 2011 at 2:07 pm |

    chava:
    Well, at least he won’t be around to slap his 4 year old anymore.

    I know right? Everyone knows the way to deal with a kid licking you is to wipe their slobber right back on them.

  16. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable June 27, 2011 at 2:15 pm |

    Andie: I know right? Everyone knows the way to deal with a kid licking you is to wipe their slobber right back on them.

    Yesterday, I thought my 3 year old niece was giving my forehead a kiss. A second later, it became obvious the little shit was licking my forehead. I just made a face and wiped my head. I guess Tom thought I should have headbutted her?

  17. Flora
    Flora June 27, 2011 at 2:31 pm |

    I’ve known a lot of divorced dads who whine about the “I am just a piggy bank” angle.

    Funny, I wonder if they’re the same ones who insist on being “nothing but a piggy bank” in the marriage too, leaving all the actual work of raising the kids to their wives. We do know that this guy put his daughter to bed at least once, although his skills left something to be desired.

  18. Melissa
    Melissa June 27, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

    So. Fucking. Scary.

  19. William
    William June 27, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

    Remember in 1986 when President Reagan and his administration declared a war on men? Seems like yesterday!

    You think I want to be on this internet cesspool of manhate? I got drafted in the War on Men, I’m just waiting until my two tours are up and thanking my male gods (who all look like Charlton Heston) that I got this instead of the War on Christmas.

  20. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable June 27, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

    Also, I’m sure it’s inappropriate to laugh at someone’s suicide note, but this is the best line by far:

    “No wonder the Speaker of the House is always crying.”

    hahahahahahahaha

  21. Nikita
    Nikita June 27, 2011 at 2:57 pm |

    Eneya:
    Sorry but this guys sounds like a complete psychopath.

    Um, yeah. That about sums it up.

  22. Nikita
    Nikita June 27, 2011 at 3:03 pm |

    Andie: I know right? Everyone knows the way to deal with a kid licking you is to wipe their slobber right back on them.

    Also…. why didn’t he just move his freaking hand????

  23. A (Male) Student
    A (Male) Student June 27, 2011 at 3:07 pm |

    What’s scary is that he pretty much admits to the facts in his rant (at least what was posted here, I didn’t read the whole thing). He hit his daughter hard enough to split her lip. He was arrested and not allowed to see his wife or kids without going to counseling. His wife divorced him and was judged the better parent. Yet somehow he believes he is the injured party. It really is psychopathic, in that his wife and daughter exist only for his gratification.

    I’m suprised he actually killed himself, because frankly he seems too damns selfish to go through with it.

  24. William
    William June 27, 2011 at 3:36 pm |

    It really is psychopathic, in that his wife and daughter exist only for his gratification.

    Thats narcissism, not psychopathy. They’re related, but I think its worth keeping in mind that this guy wasn’t crazy, he was just deeply entitled and self-centered.

  25. Samantha Vimes
    Samantha Vimes June 27, 2011 at 3:44 pm |

    I disagree.
    There is nothing sad about his suicide. Except that maybe his daughter will be sad about it. Apparently she loved him enough to lick his hand like a puppy, when she was a little girl, and maybe mom got her away from him soon enough that she didn’t learn to hate and fear that abusive scumbag instead.
    Better he died now, though, than that he started a new relationship and started abusing his next family.

  26. Florence
    Florence June 27, 2011 at 4:13 pm |

    William: Thats narcissism, not psychopathy. They’re related, but I think its worth keeping in mind that this guy wasn’t crazy, he was just deeply entitled and self-centered.

    It screams narcissism.

  27. Cactus Wren
    Cactus Wren June 27, 2011 at 4:19 pm |

    Nikita: Also…. why didn’t he just move his freaking hand????

    Honestly that reminded me of the bit in the 19th-century children’s novel Elsie Dinsmore, where Elsie’s father instructs her not to go into the meadow, where’s she’s been used to playing regularly. Of course she “disobeys” — she forgets and runs briefly into the meadow to retrieve an arrow for a disabled friend — and then instantly runs to her father, distraught with guilt and contrition. He forgives her, of course, and only punishes her by sending her to bed in midafternoon and denying her dinner — but the next day, he shows her the huge rattlesnake that was killed in the meadow only a few hours earlier.

    He knew about the snake. He says, explicitly, “Do you see now why I forbade you to go there?” And it’s made perfectly clear that if she’d gone into the meadow, been bitten and died, the fault would have been entirely hers — not her father’s for not giving her adequate warning, but her own for being “naughty” and “disobedient”:

    “O papa!” she murmured, in a low tone of deep feeling, laying her cheek affectionately against his hand, “I might have lost my life by my disobedience. How good God was to take care of me! Oh! I hope I shall never be so naughty again.”

    “I hope not,” said he gravely, but not unkindly; “and I hope that you will always, after this, believe that your father has some good reason for his commands, even although he may not choose to explain it to you.”

    The strong implication is that it would have been wrong for Elsie’s father to give her any explanation beyond “Because I say so”. In fact, it’s wrong for him to have to give even the explanation “Because I say so”, because that means she has questioned her father’s edict. She shouldn’t need to be told “Because I say so”; she should only accept that he said so. Like Ball’s daughter, she had her “verbal warning”, and if she persisted in “disobedience”, whatever happened would have been her own fault.

    archaic patriarchal authoritarian horror

  28. Flora
    Flora June 27, 2011 at 4:40 pm |

    Like Ball’s daughter, she had her “verbal warning”, and if she persisted in “disobedience”, whatever happened would have been her own fault.

    archaic patriarchal authoritarian horror

    God, those old novels were creepy. The word “obedient” is creepy too.

  29. Tawny
    Tawny June 27, 2011 at 4:43 pm |

    This was my favorite part of his completely-detached-from-reality rant: “A society without men is freakier than a world without blacks or Jews. That is not to say blacks or Jews are any less worthy. It just that there are more men in the world than blacks or Jews even if you combined them. If these feminist had to deal with men on a regular basis, then maybe the country would not be in the pickle we are in now.”

    Because no men are black or Jewish, and no feminist has ever met a man. hahaha

  30. jillian
    jillian June 27, 2011 at 4:53 pm |

    “I hope not,” said he gravely, but not unkindly; “and I hope that you will always, after this, believe that your father has some good reason for his commands, even although he may not choose to explain it to you.”

    to be perfectly honestm, i have two boys and ive said similar things to them multiple times. i dont have time, nor the patience, to say “put your shoes on because the sidewalk is hot and there might be glass and we have a gravel driveway and your feet will get hurt on the way to the car because we need to get in the car to go grocery shopping because we need food for dinner for the next few days.” it’s just “for the last danged time, put your shoes on.” and when they do end up on the hot sidewalk or stepping on a rock because they dont want to put on their shoes, i just have to say “holy jeez. it’s almost like i know what im talking about!”

  31. becky
    becky June 27, 2011 at 5:02 pm |

    ah, and as always: big mistake to read the sentinel article’s comment section, where some claim that they know of “at least three people” who are now “homeless because of domestic violence.” so, if this is actually true (which I doubt): how about not fucking beating your wife and kids, then? argh, infuriating. and i don’t feel even the least bit sorry for this guy – what a narcassistic, cruel asshole.

  32. tinfoil hattie
    tinfoil hattie June 27, 2011 at 5:02 pm |

    Do you all know that narcissism was removed as a disorder from the latest DSM? I find that very scary.

    Gee, I wonder who decided it should be removed?

  33. Lance
    Lance June 27, 2011 at 5:58 pm |

    His directions on how to make a molotov cocktail are woefully inadequate. Among other things, he probably should have reminded his readers that it’s the fume that causes the detonation, so it’s very easy to blow yourself up when you light the wick. On second thought, perhaps his directions are fine just as they are…

  34. AtheistChick
    AtheistChick June 27, 2011 at 5:59 pm |

    @ tinfoil hattie: Do you mean the DSM-IV or the DSM-V? I had thought that the DSM-V was not finalized yet. And I was pretty sure that narcissistic personality disorder was in the DSM-IV version. Just curious!

    That being said, psychopathy was also removed from the DSM a long time ago. It’s now considered “antisocial personality disorder.”

    And now on to something relevant–I also can’t feel that sorry for the suicide of such a cruel person. Yes, it’s sad, I suppose. But he sounds like a genuinely bad, if unbalanced, individual. And his sense of entitlement was apparently quite large.

  35. Jadey
    Jadey June 27, 2011 at 6:07 pm |

    tinfoil hattie:
    Do you all know that narcissism was removed as a disorder from the latest DSM?I find that very scary.

    Gee, I wonder who decided it should be removed?

    The current DSM-5 draft available online still retains Narcissistic Personality Disorder as a diagnosis, although some revisions have been proposed. I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point that someone suggested removing it altogether (personality disorders can be contentious with lots of disagreeing factions, and also there have been *lots* of suggested revisions overall), but it looks like it’s hanging in there.

  36. xenu01
    xenu01 June 27, 2011 at 7:38 pm |

    I am actually rather upset that this was printed in the Sentinel. It seems to me that there are plenty of violent individuals who could see this as a call to arms and then do as he advocates.

  37. Geo
    Geo June 27, 2011 at 7:39 pm |

    On a positive note, unlike far, far too many others, he didn’t kill his ex-partner and then commit suicide.

    On a negative note, how is that so many of us men are Silent so that the voices of the MRA’s sound like our voices. Where is the anger and frustration amongst us to bring us to organize against the violence that men like us commit against women, children and other men and boys. See: http://www.AMensProject.com – for over 1350 affirming resources to help us! Thanks!

  38. Jenae
    Jenae June 27, 2011 at 8:20 pm |

    Lol, I’m a woman who’s paid over $30K in child support and will be paying for quite a few years more and you don’t see me crying about it. IT’S CALLED BEING A PARENT, you privileged douchenozzle. It’s your responsibility to take care of your kids. I CANNOT stand men (and women) who shirk their responsibility or complain about it like they are ~victims~ because the court demands they do what the fucking should be willing to do without a mandate. Jesus Christ!

  39. David
    David June 27, 2011 at 8:29 pm |

    Geo:
    Where is the anger and frustration amongst us to bring us to organize against the violence that men like us commit against women, children and other men and boys. See: http://www.AMensProject.com – for over 1350 affirming resources to help us!Thanks!

    I think organizing against violence is fine, but I don’t think your post really makes much sense. It isn’t “men like us” who commit violence against women and children: It’s evil, arrogant douchebags who commit violence against women and children. Would have been a perfect post without that.

  40. 4catlady
    4catlady June 27, 2011 at 8:37 pm |

    Geo is right. The MO here is often to kill the ex-wife and children, then commit suicide. It happened to a co-worker of mine.

  41. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig June 27, 2011 at 8:45 pm |

    Geo: I think the reason that the Men’s Whine Associations are considered the ‘voice’ of men is that they live down to the worst stereotypes of men, and they act like they’re the majority. Much like the way that a lot of people now automatically equate Christian with ‘fundamentalist.’

  42. 10G
    10G June 27, 2011 at 9:15 pm |

    This whining, egomaniacle, worthless piece of shit did us ALL a favor. The world is a better place without him. I’m sorry, but…..that’s all I got for now. Shit like this infuriates me.

  43. Rachel
    Rachel June 27, 2011 at 9:17 pm |

    When I read about this man and his unbelievably selfish actions, I can’t help but be reminded of a line from the play “Inherit the Wind”…

    “Why should we weep for him? He cried enough for himself!”

  44. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig June 27, 2011 at 9:48 pm |

    I should also add that for every 20 brute chest-thumping ‘I am male hear me roar” MRAs there’s at least 2 women who lack the head cheese neccessary for whatever position they are in, and rely on sex appeal, giggling and womb credentials instead. (See Bachmann, Michelle, and Palin, Sarah for two good examples.) So the walking stereotype thing applies to both sexes.

  45. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig June 27, 2011 at 9:49 pm |

    Forgot to add: and the backstabbing techniques they learned in high school.

  46. zuzu
    zuzu June 27, 2011 at 10:38 pm |

    David: It isn’t “men like us” who commit violence against women and children: It’s evil, arrogant douchebags who commit violence against women and children.

    Considering how prevalent domestic violence and sexual violence is, there’s a damn good chance someone you know — someone like you — is committing it. And the silence about it helps perpetuate it, as does filing it away in the “evil” category, as if violence against women somehow exists outside of society.

    Count me as someone else who really isn’t sad this douchebag offed himself. Especially over $3000 and a child-support obligation that was probably going to end fairly shortly, given that a 4-year-old in 2001 would be in high school now.

  47. bhuesca
    bhuesca June 27, 2011 at 11:04 pm |

    @zuzu-

    When talking about violence being committed by “someone like you (or me)” & how violence shouldn’t be swept under the rug…I’m reminded that DV is perpetrated by more than just men against more than just women (cough, cough, heteronormativity pushing people’s experiences under the rug…)…and I’m glad this thread has also pointed out that many female-identified persons also pay child support and do stereotypically-male-assigned things.

  48. Tricia
    Tricia June 28, 2011 at 12:50 am |

    Ughh. Something in this man’s brain was clearly broken.

    I also like the passive voice here — “she got a cut lip.”

    Something may also be broken in my brain, though, because even in the face of this post’s deadly serious subject matter, I can’t refrain from pointing out that this isn’t passive voice. Sorry.

  49. Shaun
    Shaun June 28, 2011 at 1:37 am |

    I was wondering when you’d get around to this. I was actually… not able to finish his letter, tl;dr, so I’m glad you posted the relevant bits.

    Randomly, in Thelemic circles the Whore of Babylon/Babalon is actually a goddess of a sort, definitely a heroic figure so GG MRAs.

  50. Raja
    Raja June 28, 2011 at 4:06 am |

    This man is sick. I’m glad he did the world a favor and ended his life its a better place without him, however it is disturbing that people are taking up his cause. If they want to try to commit acts like those of Al Qaeda to spread their violent and hateful views I look forward to watching their asses get handed to them.

  51. Tom
    Tom June 28, 2011 at 4:30 am |

    This guy had a violence problem, like too many other mothers and fathers, and chose to blame his problems on the undeniably unfair family court system.

    Well, he was right about the system being anti-male.

    I think the men’s rights movement is legitimate enough, and established enough, to be able to take on a borderline case like this, and put up with the inevitable sniping like this site’s, in order to highlight the fact, that a man (domestically violent or otherwise) decided to set himself on fire, to make an important political point. The fact he was a flawed individual, should not detract absolutely, from the point he was trying to make, by paying the ultimate sacrifice.

    Feminists have to pull their fingers out when it comes to equality and custody/alimony/child support/equal parenting – and make a bit more noise about all the other inequalities men face too.

    Fundamentally, feminism is about women rejecting special treatment in favour of equality. In The Red Queen, the author mentions a study which shows the top feminist authors are more likely to marry up, hypergamously. So despite their egalitarian proscriptions, they are bigger gold-diggers than the average woman on the street. Does this flaw in top feminists’ behaviour render everything they say invalid? Not in my opinion.

    None of us are perfect. Let’s get rid of the hoary old sexist gender policies and practices from the equation though.

  52. kim
    kim June 28, 2011 at 8:29 am |

    Thanks for the outstanding post!

  53. FashionablyEvil
    FashionablyEvil June 28, 2011 at 9:19 am |

    I think the men’s rights movement is legitimate enough, and established enough, to be able to take on a borderline case like this, and put up with the inevitable sniping like this site’s, in order to highlight the fact, that a man (domestically violent or otherwise) decided to set himself on fire, to make an important political point. The fact he was a flawed individual, should not detract absolutely, from the point he was trying to make, by paying the ultimate sacrifice.

    Oooh, I nominate Tom for Feministe’s Next Top Troll!

  54. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable June 28, 2011 at 9:52 am |

    Shaun: I was actually… not able to finish his letter, tl;dr,

    THIS. omg, I tried to do it. I thought the letter was hilarious and sent it to a few friends before I had finished it. None of us could get through it. I skimmed a bit until I got to the call to arms so I could send my (dudely) friend the important bits. I mean, his Molotov cocktail would have been all wrong. I had to do him the favor, you know?

    David: It’s evil, arrogant douchebags who commit violence against women and children.

    Chiming in to say that sexual assault is a violent crime and that you cannot pick out of a crowd the men who rape women. I imagine the same is true of DV, but I’ve been lucky enough to not be directly affected by it.

  55. Li
    Li June 28, 2011 at 10:00 am |

    FashionablyEvil:

    Oooh, I nominate Tom for Feministe’s Next Top Troll!

    Seconded!

    And I totes hadn’t heard the feminists-as-gold-diggers line before. Impressive.

    Tom: None of us are perfect.

    Though Tom’s comment kinda demonstrates that some of us are more perfect than others.

  56. matlun
    matlun June 28, 2011 at 10:55 am |

    zuzu: Considering how prevalent domestic violence and sexual violence is, there’s a damn good chance someone you know — someone like you — is committing it.

    The original statement was just insulting. In fact, for any decent person the statement that it is “someone like me” is false.

    At the end of the day stereotyping whole groups (categorized by gender/race/religion or whatever) is the definition of bigotry.

    Of course you can not always tell the true nature of everyone else, so abusers/rapists/criminals can be seemingly normal people, but I am not sure why that would be relevant to the discussion.

  57. Rare Vos
    Rare Vos June 28, 2011 at 11:00 am |

    Men have to pull their fingers out when it comes to equality and rape/sexual violence/abuse/equal parenting/pulling their weight at home/pay inequity/etc ad nauseum – and make a bit more noise about all the other inequalities women face too.

    If you want our help, you need to give your help. Advocating terrorism, violence, murder, abuse, rape and jury invalidating, isn’t going to win women over to support your cause.

    Using stale, tired sexist stereotypes – and blaming women for them – isn’t going to win women over to support your cause.

    Grow up, stop blaming mommy for all your issues, and DO YOUR PART.

  58. matlun
    matlun June 28, 2011 at 12:12 pm |

    As to the OP itself, that was obviously a very disturbed person. I do think he is worthy of pity, but the kind of narcissistic self justification shown in that letter is actually typical of many DV perpetrators.

    And seriously: “She licked my hand, so I hit her in the face and split her lip” – how can anyone see this as a defensible response?

  59. zuzu
    zuzu June 28, 2011 at 12:26 pm |

    Tom: Fundamentally, feminism is about women rejecting special treatment in favour of equality.

    You mean “special treatment” like disparate pay practices, being shut out of jobs and education, not being able to vote, not being able to own property, being denied custody for being a divorced woman, not having any recourse when beaten or raped by one’s husband, not being able to serve in the military, and the like?

    How very… special.

  60. zuzu
    zuzu June 28, 2011 at 12:40 pm |

    FashionablyEvil: Oooh, I nominate Tom for Feministe’s Next Top Troll!

    The whole “pull my finger” thing really sells it.

  61. james
    james June 28, 2011 at 4:02 pm |

    I think it was very sad that he burnt himself to death because after 2 years of unemployment he was frightened of being sent to jail for not paying (at most) $3k of money he didn’t have. You’re right that he did hit his daughter 10 years earlier, but I still think it would be best for her if had remained alive to pay what he could – like he did before his economic misfortunes – rather than dying in fear of debtors prison. You’re also right that he did incite violence against the justice system, I don’t agree with this, but I imagine this may have been a reflection of a troubled mental state given his circumstances at the time – and that many of the people condemning him would have similar thoughts were they in that position.

    It’s been a tough couple of years and lots of people have suffered economically, and had worried about homelessness, and been at the mercy of unsympathetic courts making judgments about money they owe. I think you could do with showing a little more empathy, because this guy’s concerns do resonate with people, and I don’t think ignoring all that and writing him off as just an abusive asshole who happily was burnt alive does feminism many favours – either in the popularity stakes or in staying true to some of its original political intentions.

  62. anonymous coward
    anonymous coward June 28, 2011 at 4:14 pm |

    james, #61: Concern troll is concerned. Very very very concerned.

    One less narcissistic, violent, entitled, abusive asshole in the world is, IMHFO, something to celebrate. Most people who have suffered economically, including homeless people, never abuse anyone. How nice of you to hijack their problems to advance your argument.

  63. james
    james June 28, 2011 at 4:46 pm |

    “One less narcissistic, violent, entitled, abusive asshole in the world is, IMHFO, something to celebrate.”

    Says someone revelling in another’s painful death while in the supreme confidence of having read a newpaper article on the topic. Think you might want to look at the DSM-4 for your own benefit. The guy’s certainly not the only narcissistic, violent, entitled, abusive asshole in the world.

  64. zuzu
    zuzu June 28, 2011 at 4:51 pm |

    james: I think it was very sad that he burnt himself to death because after 2 years of unemployment he was frightened of being sent to jail for not paying (at most) $3k of money he didn’t have.

    Kids don’t stop costing money just because you’re out of a job.

  65. anonymous coward
    anonymous coward June 28, 2011 at 5:01 pm |

    Yes, james, being glad that such a person is dead makes me just like a man who beat his daughter bloody, believed that men had a right to beat their wives and children, and called for the torching of government buildings.

    I so love tone arguments by menz who feel so, so sowwweeee for violent abusers and are appalled when women don’t feel the same way.

  66. james
    james June 28, 2011 at 5:22 pm |

    “I so love tone arguments by menz who feel so, so sowwweeee for violent abusers and are appalled when women don’t feel the same way.”

    I’m really sorry for your experiences and don’t wish to add to your problems.

  67. Zoe
    Zoe June 28, 2011 at 7:22 pm |

    This is so creepy. Like, stomach churning creepy.

  68. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh June 28, 2011 at 8:27 pm |

    If I could say something to the young lady who has the misfortune to have to call this man “dad,” as a daughter of a man who also terrorized his household, I would say to her the same that was said to me moments after my paternal unit died, that is, “he can’t hurt you anymore.” Losing a parent always hurts in some way, regardless of the quality of parent you had, especially in the manner in which this asshole decided to end his life, but there is the relief too that the parent just can’t abuse you anymore.

    My heart really, really goes out to her and to her siblings.

  69. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh June 28, 2011 at 8:29 pm |

    And I agree with Kristi that it does indeed get scarrier to be a woman or child everyday…

  70. Men's rights advocates promote terrorism — Feministe | Appelate Advocates

    [...] th&#1077 original article here: Men's rights advocates promote terrorism — Feministe Related Post : ECJ advocate general calls for defining 'passenger compensation … [...]

  71. William
    William June 29, 2011 at 7:53 am |

    Says someone revelling in another’s painful death while in the supreme confidence of having read a newpaper article on the topic. Think you might want to look at the DSM-4 for your own benefit. The guy’s certainly not the only narcissistic, violent, entitled, abusive asshole in the world.

    As someone who knows the DSM-IV-TR quite well, I can state with confidence that schadenfreude doesn’t meet the criteria for any diagnosis. Also, we aren’t reveling after a newspaper article, we’re reveling after ~10,000 of the man’s own words. But hey, lets go to the data.

    Violent: In his suicide note he actively advocated violence in many places. He struck his daughter hard enough to cut her lip. Theres your justification for calling him violent.

    Entitled: Did you read the manifesto? Or even the clips offered here? How about we just focus here on the whole “uses passive voice to describe beating his daughter in the context of why he’s the victim.”

    Abusive: Again, just to be clear, striking a child so hard that they bleed is abusive. That he did it because the child licked his fucking hand strongly suggests that this was not the first incident.

    Asshole: Values judgement, but one I’d stand behing.

    Narcissistic: You’ve got us. We don’t have the data to argue that he has full blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The public, theatrical nature of his choice of suicide method might suggest Histrionic traits. I’d be comfortable putting a provisional Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (Cluster B) in the chart though.

    …wait, this isn’t a case conference?

  72. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 8:19 am |

    He seems to be calling for violence is response to violence.

    If the state are threatening a troubled, financially disadvantaged men with violence in the form of caging enforced by man in costumes with guns for the crime of not making enough money to pay child support, the state are initiating the violence.

    I don’t support his calls for violence, but I fully support the men that kill themselves because of family law leaving a note as to why.

  73. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 8:22 am |

    EDIT

    Also, his manifesto suggests that he wasn’t acting against his wife at all, that he was acting in response to the state. Amanda Marcotte’s subterfuge is just that. False allegations of abuse roll off the tongues of women like Amanda.

  74. chava
    chava June 29, 2011 at 8:35 am |

    What else would you expect from the Whore of Babylon?

    /sarcasm.

    Surfagirl:
    EDIT

    Also, his manifesto suggests that he wasn’t acting against his wife at all, that he was acting in response to the state. Amanda Marcotte’s subterfuge is just that. False allegations of abuse roll off the tongues of women like Amanda.

  75. anonymous coward
    anonymous coward June 29, 2011 at 8:53 am |

    Surfagirl, no matter how much you suck up to teh menz with your internalized and projected misogyny, they’ll still never accept you as an equal.

  76. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 9:14 am |

    chava:
    What else would you expect from the Whore of Babylon?

    /sarcasm.

    Well, what Marcotte is trying to do is willfully re-frame the stated political suicide as domestic abuse against a woman and her reframing is being willfully accepted here, despite its obvious dishonesty and the evidence to the contrary in the mans manifesto.

  77. Andie
    Andie June 29, 2011 at 9:19 am |

    Surfagirl: Well, what Marcotte is trying to do is willfully re-frame the stated political suicide as domestic abuse against a woman and her reframing is being willfully accepted here, despite its obvious dishonesty and the evidence to the contrary in the mans manifesto.

    So you’re saying he didn’t slap his kid around? ‘Cause that’s not what I read.

  78. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 9:24 am |

    anonymous coward:
    Surfagirl, no matter how much you suck up to teh menz with your internalized and projected misogyny, they’ll still never accept you as an equal.

    Telling the truth about the situation is not misogyny or sucking up, its just telling the truth.

  79. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 9:24 am |

    anonymous coward:
    Surfagirl, no matter how much you suck up to teh menz with your internalized and projected misogyny, they’ll still never accept you as an equal.

    Telling the truth about the situation is not misogyny or sucking up, its just telling the truth.

  80. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 9:27 am |

    Andie: So you’re saying he didn’t slap his kid around?‘Cause that’s not what I read.

    If you want to know why he killed himself, read the manifesto he left, not Amanda Marcotte. He was acting against state violence, not acting in violence against his wife or child as per the feminist spin.

  81. Andie
    Andie June 29, 2011 at 9:35 am |

    Jill: So…. the part in his OWN LETTER where he says he slapped his daughter across the face hard enough to split her lip? That’s feminist spin?

    This.

    I’m sorry, I don’t need Amanda Marcotte to tell me that slapping a kid across the face hard enough to split her lip for merely licking his hand is all kinds of fucked up.

  82. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 9:53 am |

    Jill: So…. the part in his OWN LETTER where he says he slapped his daughter across the face hard enough to split her lip? That’s feminist spin?

    No of course not, the feminist spin is the false allegation/deliberate implication that the suicide was domestic violence against his ex wife rather than what it actually was a political suicide against the state because it was going to inflict violence on him, for being unable to pay his child support arrears. Marcotte is disguising the truth about the suicide in a false allegation of abuse.

    Read the manifesto instead of Marcotte.

  83. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 9:56 am |

    Andie: This.

    I’m sorry, I don’t need Amanda Marcotte to tell me that slapping a kid across the face hard enough to split her lip for merely licking his hand is all kinds of fucked up.

    Oh that is wrong, without a doubt. Marcottes lies involve changing the reason for the suicide and keeping to focus on his slapping the child ten years ago and off the actual stated reason for the suicide.

  84. chava
    chava June 29, 2011 at 10:08 am |

    “I was annoyed by all this and suggested in the comments at Man Boobz that there might be a more personal reason for this guy’s suicide, and pointed out that suicide and threats of suicide are common tactics used by abusers to hurt their victims. ”
    (Marcotte)

    “I could have made a phone call or two and borrowed the money. But I am done being bullied for being a man. [...] My story starts with the infamous slapping incident of April 2001. [...] I told him no. I could not figure out why she had called the police. And bail condition prevented me from asking her. So I no longer trusted her judgment.”
    (Ball)

    So “being a man” involves smacking your daughter around and then being mystifed that your wife would call the cops.

    Amanda is not willing to take this man’s word that he his abuse began and ended with “the infamous slapping incident.” He doesn’t seem that hostile towards his wife in the manifesto, no. But why, exactly, are we believing him?

    Surfagirl: Oh that is wrong, without a doubt. Marcottes lies involve changing the reason for the suicide and keeping to focus on his slapping the child ten years ago and off the actual stated reason for the suicide.

  85. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 10:08 am |

    Also, given that there are no other stories about violence connected to this man and he was unable to verbally stop his daughter from licking his hand, a lip can be cut very easily and he was putting her in bed. There is no reason to think that this was anything more than a stressed parent that had made a big mistake.

    The manifesto indicates no ill will to the ex wife and goes to great lengths to outline exactly why he chose to do what he did.

    Read the manifesto, then read the feminist spin and measure the large difference between whats been said in the original document and what various feminists are now touting as the truth.

  86. Florence
    Florence June 29, 2011 at 10:11 am |

    Surfagirl: Also, given that there are no other stories about violence connected to this man and he was unable to verbally stop his daughter from licking his hand, a lip can be cut very easily and he was putting her in bed.

    This is a stretch, factually and rhetorically. What the fuck are you defending here?

  87. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 10:16 am |

    chava:
    “I was annoyed by all this and suggested in the comments at Man Boobz that there might be a more personal reason for this guy’s suicide, and pointed out that suicide and threats of suicide are common tactics used by abusers to hurt their victims. ”
    (Marcotte)

    “I could have made a phone call or two and borrowed the money. But I am done being bullied for being a man. [...] My story starts with the infamous slapping incident of April 2001. [...] I told him no. I could not figure out why she had called the police. And bail condition prevented me from asking her. So I no longer trusted her judgment.”
    (Ball)

    So “being a man” involves smacking your daughter around and then being mystifed that your wife would call the cops.

    Amanda is not willing to take this man’s word that he his abuse began and ended with “the infamous slapping incident.”He doesn’t seem that hostile towards his wife in the manifesto, no.But why, exactly, are we believing him?

    The question is why are you believing Amanda Marcottes, with her track record, fiction that she has built around the stated facts?

    If Amanda is to be believed, the man went through an elaborate con, even writing a long manifesto and chosing the court house to do it outside to make his suicide look like some thing that it wasn’t and Amanda Marcotte can decode the elaborate hoax and decipher its true meaning.

    So the question is, why are you believing Amanda Marcotts version given that its so unlikely, misandry?

  88. Florence
    Florence June 29, 2011 at 10:18 am |

    Surfagirl, even if the man was unemployed for two years, per the state and most reasonable human adults, he was still obligated to pay some sort of child support. Children cost money and deserve to be cared for by their parents (not beaten for being kids). My question is what legal channels he pursued to have his support reduced due to unemployment, since these were all available to the man regardless of his political creeds, and if he didn’t pursue these legal channels, why not?

    Based on his 10,000 word letter which details pretty clearly why his family was “taken away” (passive voice) and his public self-immolation (which is pretty fucking violent), it seems like the man was far more interested in being a martyr for a cause than handling his own shit.

  89. Florence
    Florence June 29, 2011 at 10:19 am |

    Let’s place bets: $10 that Surfagirl is neither a surfer, nor a girl.

  90. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 10:20 am |

    Florence: This is a stretch, factually and rhetorically.What the fuck are you defending here?

    No its not a stretch, that’s what the manifesto said, those are the facts on the ground. If here is some record that demonstrates him as habitually violent, I will change my position. I’m merely defending the truth against conjecture and a fiction that has been deliberately built up around the original story, not child abuse as you are implying.

  91. chava
    chava June 29, 2011 at 10:21 am |

    “If Amanda is to be believed, the man went through an elaborate con, even writing a long manifesto and chosing the court house to do it outside to make his suicide look like some thing that it wasn’t and Amanda Marcotte can decode the elaborate hoax and decipher its true meaning.”

    You know, you CAN do two douchey things at once. There’s no reason this guy couldn’t have been a real piece of work with designs on burning down police stations AND been an abusive fuckwad.

    Also? Immolating yourself because you don’t want to pay child support anymore? Seems pretty ^&%$ abusive and selfish to me. “Honey, daddy killed himself because he thought that the justice system compelling him to pay for your food and clothing when he wasn’t living in our house was UNJUST.” Yeah, there’s nothing fucked up about THAT.

  92. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 10:24 am |

    Florence:
    Surfagirl, even if the man was unemployed for two years, per the state and most reasonable human adults, he was still obligated to pay some sort of child support.Children cost money and deserve to be cared for by their parents (not beaten for being kids).My question is what legal channels he pursued to have his support reduced due to unemployment, since these were all available to the man regardless of his political creeds, and if he didn’t pursue these legal channels, why not?

    Based on his 10,000 word letter which details pretty clearly why his family was “taken away” (passive voice) and his public self-immolation (which is pretty fucking violent), it seems like the man was far more interested in being a martyr for a cause than handling his own shit.

    Yes he was obliged to pay, he said that he owed it and never disputed it. In the ten years, he fell behind 3k after he was made unemployed.

    He was disputing the fact that the state were poised to initiate violence against him being unable to pay because he had lost his job. Jail for being financially disadvantaged.

  93. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 10:29 am |

    chava:
    “If Amanda is to be believed, the man went through an elaborate con, even writing a long manifesto and chosing the court house to do it outside to make his suicide look like some thing that it wasn’t and Amanda Marcotte can decode the elaborate hoax and decipher its true meaning.”

    You know, you CAN do two douchey things at once.There’s no reason this guy couldn’t have been a real piece of work with designs on burning down police stations AND been an abusive fuckwad.

    Also?Immolating yourself because you don’t want to pay child support anymore?Seems pretty ^&%$ abusive and selfish to me.“Honey, daddy killed himself because he thought that the justice system compelling him to pay for your food and clothing when he wasn’t living in our house was UNJUST.”Yeah, there’s nothing fucked up about THAT.

    Ok, if you cant see how unlikely amanda marcotte story is – that it was all really about domestic violence against his wife and not about the state, there is nothing I can do for you.

    Also, if there is some evidence somewhere, anywhere that supports the idea that he was habitually abusive or violent, a restraining order or criminal record for example, please post it here instead of doing what you are doing which is building an elaborate fiction around the supporting evidence.

  94. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 10:34 am |

    Jill: We get it, that sucks. But… it also sucks for his ex, who has to pay for the survival of the children. Should the kids just starve?

    Fallacious argument. Nobody is suggesting that children should starve and we have no idea about the ex wifes financial situation. The state committing violence against poor men will not feed children, unless they are the children of those profiting from the prison industrial complex

  95. chava
    chava June 29, 2011 at 10:42 am |

    http://www.newhampshire.com/article/20110617/NEWS07/706179973

    Things that directly contradict Ball’s manifesto:

    1) “The girl, now 14, reported to Jaffrey police at the time that Ball pushed her on her back, hit her a lot and she was bleeding.”

    2) “Ball admitted striking his daughter three times with an open hand across her face, but maintained it was “appropriate discipline,” the court documents said.”

    3) “Karen Ball filed for divorced three days after the slapping took place.”

    4) Ball was set to appear in court on June 24 for not following a judge’s order that he pay half of his children’s medical expenses — $2,062 — that his ex-wife, Karen Ball of Jaffrey, had paid.

  96. Andie
    Andie June 29, 2011 at 10:44 am |

    Surfagirl: Ok, if you cant see how unlikely amanda marcotte story is – that it was all really about domestic violence against his wife and not about the state, there is nothing I can do for you.

    Um.. I got the impression that she was making a suggestion that maybe, just maybe, it wasn’t ALL about social justice for men as this guy made it out to be and that MAYBE there were some other issues at play here.

    You know, providing an alternate scenario.

    Call me deluded, but a lot of people who are really interested in making things better for men or women, DO things, try to get shit enacted.

    They don’t *usually* set themselves on fire to prove a point.

  97. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 11:15 am |

    Andie: Um.. I got the impression that she was making a suggestion that maybe, just maybe, it wasn’t ALL about social justice for men as this guy made it out to be and that MAYBE there were some other issues at play here.

    You know, providing an alternate scenario.

    Call me deluded, but a lot of people who are really interested in making things better for men or women, DO things, try to get shit enacted.

    They don’t *usually* set themselves on fire to prove a point.

    Andie: Um.. I got the impression that she was making a suggestion that maybe, just maybe, it wasn’t ALL about social justice for men as this guy made it out to be and that MAYBE there were some other issues at play here.

    You know, providing an alternate scenario.

    Call me deluded, but a lot of people who are really interested in making things better for men or women, DO things, try to get shit enacted.

    They don’t *usually* set themselves on fire to prove a point.

    Nah, she was misdirecting and she knew she was. The reason that so many others from her community were so easy to lead to believe her unlikely version despite all the evidence to the contrary is prejudice and bigotry called misandry. She knew what she was doing. Now the official feminist belief is more or less that it was an act of violence against his wife as opposed to a protest against the state. Just look at this thread for examples.

    You are correct in saying that people don’t usually lite themselves on fire to prove a point, they will only do it in extreme circumstances and to protest inhumane regimes, like state violence as a response for falling behind on child support through no fault of your own. Three self immolation leading to death in the last year connected to the family courts, one in the US, one in Australia and one in eastern Europe and many, many less violent suicides but its not deemed to be news worthy.

    Anyway, I think that we can all agree that Marcottes theory is baseless conjecture.

  98. Florence
    Florence June 29, 2011 at 11:22 am |

    Surfagirl: My question is what legal channels he pursued to have his support reduced due to unemployment, since these were all available to the man regardless of his political creeds, and if he didn’t pursue these legal channels, why not?

    THE MAN HAD ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO GET HIS CHILD SUPPORT REDUCED DUE TO UNEMPLOYMENT. What legal channels did he pursue to have his support reduced due to unemployment?

    Surfagirl, the majority of women that pick up and run with this argument are 2nd or later wives who resent their husband’s money going towards children of prior marriages. Where do you fall in this equation?

  99. Florence
    Florence June 29, 2011 at 11:22 am |

    Surfagirl: Anyway, I think that we can all agree that Marcottes theory is baseless conjecture.

    “We.”

  100. Surfagirl
    Surfagirl June 29, 2011 at 11:26 am |

    Florence: “We.”

    Well it is, its unsuprising, misandrist slander. The idea that the manifesto is really just a rouse to hide the real reason for setting himself alight outside the court house, is a nonsense. We can all see that.

    Were he self harming to hurt his wife, a “you did this” type message would have been left in place of the long manifesto against the state.

  101. Florence
    Florence June 29, 2011 at 11:36 am |

    Since you’re set on ignoring it: THE MAN HAD ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO GET HIS CHILD SUPPORT REDUCED DUE TO UNEMPLOYMENT. What legal channels did he pursue to have his support reduced due to unemployment?

    He didn’t. He decided he’d rather set himself on fire than present his economic hardship in court. Which is totally rational, and not at all abusive to the people he left behind, including his daughter, who we have quite a bit of evidence and an admission that he abused before that as well.

  102. L
    L June 29, 2011 at 11:42 am |

    Surfagirl: Also, if there is some evidence somewhere, anywhere that supports the idea that he was habitually abusive or violent, a restraining order or criminal record for example, please post it here instead of doing what you are doing which is building an elaborate fiction around the supporting evidence.

    So hitting his daughter and making her bleed isn’t enough to be considered abusive? How many times does it have to be? What’s the cut off?

    Would you defend your (hypothetical or not, whatever) partner if they did this to your child?

  103. William
    William June 29, 2011 at 11:43 am |

    No its not a stretch, that’s what the manifesto said, those are the facts on the ground. If here is some record that demonstrates him as habitually violent, I will change my position. I’m merely defending the truth against conjecture and a fiction that has been deliberately built up around the original story, not child abuse as you are implying.

    You simply cannot take a person at their word and ignore the context of their writings. The state violence and the PIC, things to which I am very sensitive, we occurring in the context of an ongoing domestic dispute. Time and again he refers to the state as “taking away” his family as if he owns them. He uses passive voice to describe the ways in which he hurt his daughter. He advocates violence not just against the state but against women and children as men get to “act like devils” and says that domestic abuse “is going to be fun.” He reacts to his perceived loss of status with the “king and his castle” sections. While the state is the express target of his rage it is pretty clear that much of his ire is directed at a state so uppity as to interfere with his dominance in the home. He also makes it clear that women and children will be collateral damage in his imagined war.

    These passages tell us about the values, assumptions, and fantasies this man had. They tell us about how he believes the world ought to work. They tell us about violent urges and desires that he has fostered. If we tant to talk about facts on the ground we know that he beat his daughter, we know that he advocated significant violence against not only the state but also sadistic violence (violence in the name of pleasure) against women and children, we know that he committed and aggressive, public suicide. He died in a manner designed to garner publicity, and it is virtually impossible to imagine that he did not consider the effects that his sensational death would have not only on the state but on his daughter and ex-wife.

    I would go so far as to argue that Ball’s suicide is more aimed at his ex-wife and child than the state, that the rhetoric about the state is set dressing for a coded act of domestic violence. We’re in America. Enough gas for a Molotov is cheap and finding a gun and some ammo isn’t really beyond anyone’s resources. If Ball intended to foment revolution one wonders why he didn’t lead by example. He could have died hurling Molotovs or exchanging fire with police. He could have loaded a rented truck with explosives and drove it to the courthouse. A would-be terrorist willing to die has many options and many targets. Yet he didn’t do any of these things. He sent a manifesto out which details the ways the state interfered with His Family™ and then set himself on fire. Now everyone knows his daughter’s father killed himself because life was so unfair, now the family gets to live with the image of Ball burning, he left wreckage specifically designed to hurt people who had once been close to him. No bureaucrat is crying for Ball, no Judge feels sorry for what they did, no divorce attorney is planning on dancing a gallows jig. No, the only people Ball really hurts by his stunt are the people he has already hurt. Its classic domestic violence.

    If you want to cry for someone broken by the state you’re spoiled for choice in this day and age. I wonder what it is about you that has chosen someone like Ball to be your rallying cry?

  104. L
    L June 29, 2011 at 11:47 am |

    Surfagirl: Well it is, its unsuprising, misandrist slander. The idea that the manifesto is really just a rouse to hide the real reason for setting himself alight outside the court house, is a nonsense. We can all see that.Were he self harming to hurt his wife, a “you did this” type message would have been left in place of the long manifesto against the state.

    Except that she never said that. She never claimed that she knew the “real reason”, she offered an alternate explanation that MIGHT (her word) help to explain why he did what he did.

  105. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub June 29, 2011 at 11:48 am |

    So hitting his daughter and making her bleed isn’t enough to be considered abusive?

    No, silly! By “violent” we mean “hitting other dudes he’s not related to” not “hitting his 4-year-old daughter hard enough to split her lip.”

  106. William
    William June 29, 2011 at 11:48 am |

    Well it is, its unsuprising, misandrist slander. The idea that the manifesto is really just a rouse to hide the real reason for setting himself alight outside the court house, is a nonsense. We can all see that.

    Were he self harming to hurt his wife, a “you did this” type message would have been left in place of the long manifesto against the state.

    That depends almost entirely on what he had to do to maintain his self-image. Ball’s delusion was that he was a man abused, a victim of an uncaring system. His family was just that, a thing which the uncaring state had taken from him. He wasn’t abusive, he was oppressed. Thats the story. Everyone has one, and its almost always bullshit. If Ball left a message of “you did this to me” he would have to admit that his wife, rather than some all-powerful malicious state, had some kind of sway over him. He would have to admit to himself that he was domestically violent. He wouldn’t be able to play the white knight or invoke the image of revolutionary. So, as us humans are very good at doing, he found a way to displace this and project that and deny another in order to have his bitter cake and eat it too.

    If he wanted to be a revolutionary he would have, you know, revolted.

  107. L
    L June 29, 2011 at 11:59 am |

    And seriously, abusive partners use suicide or threats of suicide to control their partners ALL THE TIME. It has happened to me and I’m certain it has happened to many others. This is not some kind of wild baseless conspiracy theory, so seriously fucking stop it please.

    And as far as I can see, his message WAS a long-winded “you did this” type message, beginning with “it all started with the slapping incident” as if to say “my daughter started all this”. That is in addition to his assertion that he couldn’t trust his wife’s judgement anymore, after she filed for divorce. Yeah, um, BELIEVE I’m not going to trust your judgement if you hit our kid in the face. His entire letter was a long-winded tirade in which he blamed absolutely EVERYONE but himself.

  108. Iris
    Iris June 29, 2011 at 1:46 pm |

    Florence:
    Let’s place bets:$10 that Surfagirl is neither a surfer, nor a girl.

    Florence: I can’t take that bet – do so hate to lose.

  109. Rare Vos
    Rare Vos June 29, 2011 at 1:52 pm |

    $10 that Surfagirl is neither a surfer, nor a girl.

    Since his position is that slapping a child till she bleeds ISN’T child abuse, um yeah, not taking that bet. And the flaccid whines of misandry towards Marcotte – but not on Marcotte’s blog. That’s a MRA, and probably one with more than one abusive skeleton in his closet.

  110. matlun
    matlun June 29, 2011 at 2:12 pm |

    L: And seriously, abusive partners use suicide or threats of suicide to control their partners ALL THE TIME. It has happened to me and I’m certain it has happened to many others.

    Perhaps a bit off topic, but in your experience was this really a strategy?

    In my limited personal experience (two cases) they are “honestly” narcissistic and self delusional. It is all about them and how life is hard for them and no true compassion for anyone else. Ie not so much a strategy as an honest expression of their warped view of reality.

    That letter really rings true to me as in I believe that he was being subjectively honest when writing it.

  111. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh June 29, 2011 at 3:26 pm |

    By all means Surfagirl, keep lying to yourself that a coward who slaps a small child till she bleeds and then kills himself to avoid his obligations to her as her pathetic excuse for a father is somehow a victim of misandry.

    You must be exhausted from all the effort of it.

  112. zuzu
    zuzu June 29, 2011 at 3:54 pm |

    Surfagirl: He was disputing the fact that the state were poised to initiate violence against him being unable to pay because he had lost his job. Jail for being financially disadvantaged.

    No, jail for willfully ignoring orders of the court by not paying his child support. Which he didn’t contest he owed.

    As Florence mentioned, he could have sought a reduction in his child support for being unemployed, yet he apparently didn’t. Instead he chose a very public, theatrical means of suicide and left a letter in which everyone was a fault except for him.

  113. Li
    Li June 29, 2011 at 4:53 pm |

    Rare Vos: And the flaccid whines of misandry towards Marcotte – but not on Marcotte’s blog. That’s a MRA, and probably one with more than one abusive skeleton in his closet.

    I’m voting Manarchist personally.

  114. Moises
    Moises June 30, 2011 at 1:13 am |

    Kristi: The sad part is, many of the supporters of the right-wing are brainless enough to do whatever they tell them to do, so they will be echoing this lunatic’s cause.

    If American-Canadian psychologist Bob Altemeyer’s study of the Right-Wing Authoritarian [Follower] personality type is to be accepted, they’re not so much brainless as they are enthusiastic to believe any train of logic (no matter how twisted) that leads to a conclusion that they like. All fish live in the sea; sharks live in the sea; therefore sharks are fish. My friends and I have fewer opportunities; you can see immigrants working; therefore immigrants stole our jobs. Or whatever the case may be.

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

  115. matlun
    matlun June 30, 2011 at 2:00 pm |

    Annaleigh: By all means Surfagirl, keep lying to yourself that a coward who slaps a small child till she bleeds and then kills himself to avoid his obligations to her as her pathetic excuse for a father is somehow a victim of misandry.

    Is there a contradiction here? Could he not both be a victim of misandry and a pathetic excuse for a father? Not only nice people are victims.

    Personally I have no good information to judge how he has been treated by the system, but I found the above argument annoying. You can not go through life seeing everything in Manichean black and white terms.

  116. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh June 30, 2011 at 4:10 pm |

    matlun: Is there a contradiction here? Could he not both be a victim of misandry and a pathetic excuse for a father? Not only nice people are victims.

    Personally I have no good information to judge how he has been treated by the system, but I found the above argument annoying. You can not go through life seeing everything in Manichean black and white terms.

    Are you freaking kidding me? Did you at least skim through his little manifesto to see what his definition of misandry includes? It apparently includes being arrested if you hit a small child hard enough to make her bleed, it includes not being allowed to return to your “castle” if you are a man and are terrorizing your family, and it apparently includes being expected to help financially support your children. He admits himself that he could have borrowed enough money to catch up on the child support he owed, but he just didn’t want to. His self-immolation was merely his final temper tantrum.

    Hell fucking no he was not a victim of misandry.

  117. matlun
    matlun June 30, 2011 at 5:47 pm |

    Annaleigh: Are you freaking kidding me? Did you at least skim through his little manifesto to see what his definition of misandry includes?

    Yeah, I read it, and I am certainly not convinced that he was treated unfairly (that was certainly not a convincing argument as much as some whiny rambling). I would have to read some objective report of exactly what happened since that process started.

    But “he was a bad guy” does NOT, in any way, constitute an argument against him being a “victim of misandry”. Which was really my whole point.

  118. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh June 30, 2011 at 5:50 pm |

    matlun: But “he was a bad guy” does NOT, in any way, constitute an argument against him being a “victim of misandry”. Which was really my whole point.

    And *my* point is that his idea of misandry almost entirely appears to be accountability for his own abusive actions, and for having to take some responsibility for the care of his own children.

  119. Tom
    Tom June 30, 2011 at 6:15 pm |

    Well, it’s good to see a few more feminists actually having a discussion about misandry in this thread. This guy’s life and death were not entirely in vain then. Remember, first they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win. 40 years late ladies, but nice to have you along.

  120. zuzu
    zuzu June 30, 2011 at 6:20 pm |

    Gosh, Tom.

    40 years is just about the time when various anti-discrimination laws went into effect. Could it be that you and your fellow MRA have your noses out of joint about that?

  121. William
    William July 1, 2011 at 10:17 am |

    Well, it’s good to see a few more feminists actually having a discussion about misandry in this thread. This guy’s life and death were not entirely in vain then. Remember, first they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win. 40 years late ladies, but nice to have you along.

    Please. Misandry is an oppression desperately looking for an oppressor. Yeah, you’ve got feminists here who don’t like men. I’ve seen feminists who I would argue probably hated men. The thing about that, though, is that in the absence of power you can’t say that men suffer just the same as women by using a word like misandry which is tailor made to appropriate the power of a word like misogyny. Men aren’t generally discriminated against, and certainly not for their maleness, because men are generally in positions of power and authority in the very places where you imagine the agents of misandry lurk.

    The accusation of misandry ultimately boils down to a lack of insight. People who employ it have experienced a loss of power and authority, they feel that the system has treated them poorly because they feel that the system has taken something from them. Unfortunately, they don’t recognize that what they have lost is privilege. Sorry, can’t beat your kids, or your wife, and if you do you’re going to have to leave the home and still fulfill your support obligations. You can’t just act like a king and, if that fails, take your ball and go home. Fuck, how terribly oppressive!

  122. Tom
    Tom July 1, 2011 at 7:48 pm |

    “The accusation of misandry ultimately boils down to a lack of insight. People who employ it have experienced a loss of power and authority, they feel that the system has treated them poorly because they feel that the system has taken something from them. Unfortunately, they don’t recognize that what they have lost is privilege.” – William, misandry is as old as the hills. Feminist women use less misandry than non-feminist women. Historically, men have always been relatively more oppressed than women – and have faced more misandry. Feminists are less misandric than average – but the average is a very low bar indeed – and given feminists’ reading, on how negative gender stereotypes should be avoided – it makes their still quite high levels of misandry completely unacceptable. Men have never been respected as a category, so there is no sense of loss – rather a sense of hope, at how more refined feminists’ discussions can become on the subject of misandry. “Men complaining about losing privileges” is a hoary old anti-male shaming tactic, to avoid the issues. MRAs know your game.

  123. Lisa A.
    Lisa A. July 1, 2011 at 8:35 pm |

    Tom:
    Historically, men have always been relatively more oppressed than women – and have faced more misandry.

    ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

  124. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 1, 2011 at 9:06 pm |

    Lisa A.: ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

    I know, I had a good belly laugh too. :)

  125. William
    William July 1, 2011 at 9:53 pm |

    Its like…its like the uncanny valley but with words! They fit together, they seem like communication, but…but…

    Ah, who am I fooling. He knows my game! Do you see? My game!!!!

  126. junk
    junk July 1, 2011 at 10:03 pm |

    QFT. THIS THIS THIS!!!!

    William: Please. Misandry is an oppression desperately looking for an oppressor. Yeah, you’ve got feminists here who don’t like men. I’ve seen feminists who I would argue probably hated men. The thing about that, though, is that in the absence of power you can’t say that men suffer just the same as women by using a word like misandry which is tailor made to appropriate the power of a word like misogyny. Men aren’t generally discriminated against, and certainly not for their maleness, because men are generally in positions of power and authority in the very places where you imagine the agents of misandry lurk.

    The accusation of misandry ultimately boils down to a lack of insight. People who employ it have experienced a loss of power and authority, they feel that the system has treated them poorly because they feel that the system has taken something from them. Unfortunately, they don’t recognize that what they have lost is privilege. Sorry, can’t beat your kids, or your wife, and if you do you’re going to have to leave the home and still fulfill your support obligations. You can’t just act like a king and, if that fails, take your ball and go home. Fuck, how terribly oppressive!

  127. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 1, 2011 at 10:32 pm |

    I guess that in the era of people editing Wikipedia in an effort to hide their favorite politicians’ lack of knowledge about just about anything, I shouldn’t be surprised than an MRA would argue that men have always historically been the more oppressed gender, but I was surprised just the same.

    Surprised and amused.

  128. matlun
    matlun July 2, 2011 at 11:20 am |

    Lisa A.: Historically, men have always been relatively more oppressed than women – and have faced more misandry.

    It just hit me: The second part of this absurd statement is actually true! Men have faced more misandry, since that is indeed by definition directed at men.

    I see no possible way to semantically spin the first part, though, so I guess Tom still loses that one ;-)

  129. matlun
    matlun July 2, 2011 at 11:21 am |

    What happened to that quote? I was trying to quote Lisa A’s post where she quoted Tom and that was the end result.

  130. Tom
    Tom July 2, 2011 at 6:28 pm |

    In the middle ages, women could ‘plead the belly’ to avoid harsh sentencing and to avoid the death sentence. In Victorian times, accused women could plead femme covert – the legal principle that they were unable to think for themselves, and that their husbands should therefore be jailed instead.

    Throughout history, chivalrous victim-feminism has been the normative state.

    Today, women serve half the time men do for the same crimes – and women are very rarely executed compared to men for the same crimes.

    In relation to this case, women are treated like special victims in the family courts – and there is nothing radical about it.

    I came across a 1968 feminist book, about the harmful nature of negative stereotypes on women (misogyny). Now, 43 years later – the negative stereotypes on men – as somehow inferior parents or as undeserving of equal treatment and advocacy – has still not yet been rejected by some feminists. 2nd wave feminism is middle-aged now, yet refuses to grow up.

    There is nothing radical about hoary old misandry-tinged victim-feminism.

    Can feminism survive without blaming men or ignoring men or laughing at men?

    Let’s try a radical experiment, and find out.

  131. Dommy Poet
    Dommy Poet July 2, 2011 at 6:42 pm |

    He’s actually right that in terms of certain crimes there is a presumption of guilt that there wouldn’t be with a Woman on Man incident and that the law goes out of their way to kick the crap out of the male.

    But men are also a shit load bigger, commit vastly more violent crime, and are a lot more capable of killing a woman than vice versa (guns not withstanding.)

    Don’t get me wrong, men aren’t dangerous.

    But a MAN can be. And hurting the feelings of a few bloggers so as not to have a few more dead women… I can live with that.

    If this is such a big deal, make a mandatory sixty day prison sentence for filing a false or misleading police report. But it’s not a big deal. Some women do use rape, molestation, and abuse claims (rarely) as tools of combat. Verbally beat the shit out of those women AFTER the allegation has been PROVED to be bunk.

    Don’t just make a broad-ass statement about how “women are getting one over on us.” I’ve probably had sex with more women than the statistical evidence; I’ve never been accused of rape or abuse.

    There is no epidemic here, just an angry little man tilting at windmills.

    DommyPoet

  132. William
    William July 2, 2011 at 6:57 pm |

    Can feminism survive without blaming men or ignoring men or laughing at men?

    I thought you knew my game, Tom. Now I’m wondering if you’re all bluster. Why would you ask if feminism can survive without laughing at men like you or ignoring them. Surely you’re aware that once Jill lets you past the automod cue you have to publicly laugh at or ignore one terribly oppressed man each week or she hands your IP address over to the Femstappo so they can hunt you down at your home and put you in the Gynoptocon. I understand that it is some kind of total-female observation jail designed to make your penis retract into your body and condition you to violently oppress anyone with a y chromosome should you hear the manchurian tones of Ani DiFranco.

    I don’t actually know for sure, though, because I’ve been here so long that mocking men is like air. Without it I will surely die. Which is what all these vile Feminazis wants. At least, thats what I suspect. But I’ll shown them! With this post I’ve bought myself another day of life.

    MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

  133. antiprincess
    antiprincess July 2, 2011 at 7:53 pm |

    Can feminism survive without blaming men or ignoring men or laughing at men?

    can men survive without blaming women or raping women or humiliating women?

  134. Tom
    Tom July 2, 2011 at 9:54 pm |

    Rather than deal with the issue, antiprincess says “can men survive without blaming women or raping women or humiliating women?”

    To her first point, research finds women blame men four times more than men blame women. Yes, women are four times more misandric than men are misogynistic on average – so on balance, it would be particularly timely if feminism actively reject misandry, explaining why it’s a bad idea to hate on anyone, and particularly if you are a person hating on a man or on men in general.

    To her second rape-hysterical point, I say, no means no – men do not want to rape you. Get over it. Wear what you like. Be as promiscuous as is physically possible. As long as women are not charging men for sex, we are happy for you – but if you exaggerate the prevalence of rape, then you are a masochist. At Slutwalks, when the speakers claim ‘one in two’ women sexually assaulted – and the crowd cheer with shrill excitement at the new ridiculous statistic- that crowd needs to wise the fuck up – and it’s the job of feminism proper, to get the message across. Rape hysteria and false allegations of rape are for douches.

    To her third point, men do not need to humiliate women, but we all need to criticize victim-feminism’s will to inertia and will to cry rape and will to blame men for everything.

    It is also our job to criticize the sexist and retarded attitude which assumes feminism is perfect and does not need to change ever.

    It is also our job, to focus our attention on trying to convince the innocent victim-feminist majority who do not know any better due to being misled by the victim-feminist minority responsible for spreading the misinformation in the first place- so goodbye.

  135. Tom
    Tom July 2, 2011 at 9:58 pm |

    Oh, and someone give William a doggy biscuit.

  136. antiprincess
    antiprincess July 2, 2011 at 10:00 pm |

    research finds women blame men four times more than men blame women.

    cite your source.

  137. antiprincess
    antiprincess July 2, 2011 at 10:04 pm |

    “feminism proper”? I have not heard that term used before. what do you mean?

  138. antiprincess
    antiprincess July 2, 2011 at 10:08 pm |

    It is also our job to criticize the sexist and retarded attitude which assumes feminism is perfect and does not need to change ever.

    this is funny to me. feminism is in a constant (paralyzing?) state of self-critique, which you’d know if you’d done your reading.

  139. Tom
    Tom July 2, 2011 at 11:01 pm |

    “… cite your source.” What difference does it make to you if I am being factually correct? I’m an MRA/feminist and you are being a victim-feminist douche. Grow up a bit, and cite a source about something vaguely interesting yourself, and then I might reciprocate. You’re an anti-princess, remember. I might want to learn something too. All take and no give makes Jill a dull whore.

  140. antiprincess
    antiprincess July 2, 2011 at 11:10 pm |

    I’m an MRA/feminist
    huh.
    my work here is done…

  141. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 2, 2011 at 11:19 pm |

    Tom: I’m an MRA/feminist and you are being a victim-feminist douche. Grow up a bit, and cite a source about something vaguely interesting yourself, and then I might reciprocate. You’re an anti-princess, remember. I might want to learn something too. All take and no give makes Jill a dull whore

    Wow, your assholery is spectacular to behold. I’m almost speechless.

  142. Lisa A.
    Lisa A. July 2, 2011 at 11:27 pm |

    Tom:
    “… cite your source.” What difference does it make to you if I am being factually correct? I’m an MRA/feminist and you are being a victim-feminist douche. Grow up a bit, and cite a source about something vaguely interesting yourself, and then I might reciprocate. You’re an anti-princess, remember. I might want to learn something too. All take and no give makes Jill a dull whore.

    Hey, what does a guy have to do to get banned around here?

  143. Tom
    Tom July 2, 2011 at 11:36 pm |

    “Hey, what does a guy have to do to get banned around here?”

    Yeah! Stupid freedom of speech.

  144. zuzu
    zuzu July 2, 2011 at 11:38 pm |

    Tom: In Victorian times, accused women could plead femme covert – the legal principle that they were unable to think for themselves, and that their husbands should therefore be jailed instead.

    And since the husbands owned their wives’ property, controlled their actions, had an absolute right to rape and beat them, were entitled to kill them if caught cheating (but wives were not) and held the vote in the household — you know, all of the OTHER stuff that went along with couverture that you so conveniently forgot to mention — a little jail time on balance isn’t such a bad thing.

    I also love how you even mention the whole femme covert legal fiction — a fiction created and enforced by men, as women were forbidden from becoming lawyers, judges, or politicians unless they happened to be queen, and even by the time we got to Victoria, the monarch wasn’t actually making the laws and wasn’t going to go against tradition — and even acknowledge that the effect that women were legally incapable of thinking for themselves, and yet the worst thing you can say about it is that one of the consequences of it was that a husband *could* go to jail in place of his wife.

    That’s like claiming that a man who takes out the garbage once a year is far more burdened by the housework than his wife, who cooks, cleans, does the laundry, beats the rugs, takes care of all the kids and the grandparents, shops, does the yardwork, cleans the gutters, etc., etc.

    Well done, sir. That kind of stubborn resistance to reality is quite an achievement.

  145. Tom
    Tom July 2, 2011 at 11:39 pm |

    I’m an MRA/feminist
    huh.
    my work here is done…

    So you didn’t realize there were pro-feminist MRAs and you’re calling me unread?

    I don’t think you have any masculinities sources to cite.

  146. zuzu
    zuzu July 2, 2011 at 11:40 pm |

    Tom: To her first point, research finds women blame men four times more than men blame women.

    SCIENCE!!!!

  147. XtinaS
    XtinaS July 2, 2011 at 11:40 pm |

    Tom:
    “Hey, what does a guy have to do to get banned around here?”

    Yeah! Stupid freedom of speech.

    Whoa, Jill is a government representative?

  148. zuzu
    zuzu July 2, 2011 at 11:41 pm |

    I count three posts after the flounce.

    Not a record, sadly.

  149. zuzu
    zuzu July 2, 2011 at 11:42 pm |

    Four!

    Missed one.

    Tom, how can we miss you if you don’t go away?

  150. antiprincess
    antiprincess July 2, 2011 at 11:47 pm |

    Tom: I’m an MRA/feministhuh.my work here is done…So you didn’t realize there were pro-feminist MRAs and you’re calling me unread? I don’t think you have any masculinities sources to cite.

    I admit, the idea of “feminist MRA” is new to me. can you recommend some reading so that I can catch up?

    honestly, the phrase “feminist MRA” feels like an oxymoron to me, makes about as much sense as “army intelligence”. but I suppose you’re as free to self-identify as anyone.

    nope, I don’t have any “masculinities sources” to cite, but I’m not flinging around absurd statistics that I need to back up before anyone takes me seriously. as Carl Sagan said – Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. got any?

  151. Lisa A.
    Lisa A. July 3, 2011 at 12:09 am |

    Tom:
    I’m an MRA/feminist

    I bet Tom can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast, too.

  152. Tom
    Tom July 3, 2011 at 12:15 am |

    Zuzu – women elect men to positions of dominance, to carry out women’s will (see Aries, E. 1996 for meta analysis published by Oxford) – so these times and places where men appear to dominate, are more likely a manifestation of female power (a slight over-simplification, but more accurate than to call it male power).

    Also, all told men work equal or more hours than women despite victim-feminist claims to the contrary (Hakim 2011. LSE et al). You appear to be floundering in the old ‘a woman’s work is never done’ or ‘second shift’ quagmire.

    Also, Victorian men did not have a legal right to beat their wives.
    ‘The rule of thumb’ is a myth. As for marital rape, I presume it was not an offence for a wife to rape her husband either.
    As for marital murder, I presume you’r referring to ‘crimes of passion’ – and given you’re track record, would be surprised but not amazed to find you are right about that.

    So, men did more of the work in Victorian times, and carried out women’s will to be ‘dominant’ (‘prominent’ more like – like when they paid for everything and went out to work), and men were disproportionately jailed, executed, enslaved in armies, and
    remember, in London in Victorian times, 1 in 64 houses was a brothel – so women were nearly all on the game, either inside marriage as economically inactive fainters, or outside marriage, in sex work – and you think the gender dynamics of the era justified men going to prison for women’s crimes because women couldn’t vote and were helpless?

    Whores knew, that if they asked for the vote, they’d have to give up the game and enter the real world of accountability one day – hence the Queen of whores, Victoria’s opposition to the idea of women getting the vote and the massive opposition to the idea from many women, and the support for women getting the vote from many men who did not want women to have any more excuses for being so helpless in future. I’m having a de ja vu.

    What game are you on Zuzu?

    And is it the future of feminism or the past?

  153. Tom
    Tom July 3, 2011 at 12:34 am |

    Antiprincess – I recommend you read some non-apologetic masculinities, or men’s movement authors – and I recommend you google it.

    How can you comment about MRAs if you haven’t read any of their literature?

    Also, a lot of MRAs describe themselves as anti-feminist, but this does not mean they’re anti-equality, it just means they don’t think feminists are interested in equality.

    I would estimate, that pro-feminist and/or egalitarian MRAs make up about 75 to 85% of MRM numbers – then there are a few fringe traditionalists, like religious or conservative anti-abortion types and so forth, who might latch on to the men’s rights movement.

    All the top MRAs are egalitarian – despite what some douchebuckets might claim.

  154. Tom
    Tom July 3, 2011 at 8:12 am |

    Stop press: Matt O’Connor, founder of Fathers4Justice, has just released a statement, saying he is about to embark on a hunger strike outside the prime minister’s home – to protest the anti-male comments the prime minister made on Fathers Day, and to protest about the government’s failure to carry out promised reform of the family court system.

    Matt O’Connor is a feminist fathers rights activist – or you could say egalitarian fathers rights activist – if you no longer think feminism is about equality.

    Matt has issued a list 10 reforms, which had been promised by the government, but not yet carried out.

    It will be interesting to see how feminist blogs deal with it. Laugh at it, ignore it, fight it and lose, or acknowledge the legitimacy of the fight, and do something useful about supporting it.

  155. becky
    becky July 3, 2011 at 10:20 am |

    Tom:
    I’m an MRA/feminist
    huh.
    my work here is done…

    ROTFL :)!!! And yet, 3 posts in a row… What’s keeping you?!

  156. zuzu
    zuzu July 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

    Tom: I’m having a de ja vu.

    Sweetie, you should learn your French a little better if you’re going to try to be all stinging with it. “Deja” is one word, dear.

    Also, that’s now six post-flounce comments. What’s keeping you, indeed. Run along, now.

  157. Lu
    Lu July 3, 2011 at 12:53 pm |

    I also have to correct the learned Tom. “Pleading the belly” gave the pregnant prisoner reprieve from capital punishment—TEMPORARILY. After she gave birth, the death sentence was back on again. Oh, woe is me–a condemned woman got to live a few more weeks or months and then got the axe, or the rope, or the bonfire as planned. The world is so unfair to men.

  158. Lu
    Lu July 3, 2011 at 12:59 pm |

    Tom:
    Zuzu – women elect men to positions of dominance, to carry out women’s will (see Aries, E. 1996 for meta analysis published by Oxford) – so these times and places where men appear to dominate, are more likely a manifestation of female power (a slight over-simplification, but more accurate than to call it male power).

    Ah, so THAT’s our game, huh? Seems like it would be simpler just to elect women in the first place. Gee, I wonder what the hitch is?

  159. becky
    becky July 3, 2011 at 1:07 pm |

    But Lu, the actual facts make you sound so mean! Also, at least women could look forward to labour pains before their death penalty – that is something teh condemned menz were deprived of :(… Also: the burning of witches – guess who always got all the marsh mellows?!

  160. becky
    becky July 3, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

    *marshmallows, sorry ;).

  161. catfood
    catfood July 3, 2011 at 1:16 pm |

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/matt-oconnor-the-man-behind-fathers4justice-406610.html

    So this Matt O’Connor grants an interview to The Independent and starts right in with calling the interviewer a “cunt.”

    Oh-kay then.

  162. Lu
    Lu July 3, 2011 at 1:17 pm |

    I know, becky, I must hate men if I use a public forum to talk about actual injustices. I hate it when I turn history inside-out and shake its pockets looking for things to be offended at like that. I guess I’m a victim-feminist!

  163. Tom
    Tom July 3, 2011 at 5:17 pm |

    And the silence on your parts, regarding the learned Matt O’Connor’s planned action to highlight the inequalities of the family court system, tells the story – hoary old business as usual in the family courts would suit you all just fine it seems. You’ll pick on a flawed and angry guy who burns himself to death, and pick through his manifesto, but when the articulate Matt O’Connor sets the case out, you run for the hills. Whores.

  164. becky
    becky July 3, 2011 at 5:24 pm |

    ROTFL – I think Tom wins FNTT, hands down! Whores.

  165. matlun
    matlun July 3, 2011 at 5:39 pm |

    becky:
    ROTFL – I think Tom wins FNTT, hands down! Whores.

    Yes, and he should also be given credit for great stamina. He will be a very strong contender indeed.

  166. Tom
    Tom July 3, 2011 at 5:49 pm |

    Lu – you claim pleading the belly was only a temporary reprieve, but not according to a cursory glance at the wikipedia page:

    Scholarly reviews of the Old Bailey Sessions Papers and Assize records from the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I have shown that women granted such reprieves were often subsequently granted pardons or had their sentences commuted to transportation. Even those women who were subsequently executed pursuant to their original sentences were often executed behind schedule.[3]

    Also Lu, you suggest that we should elect women. What a good idea! Well, given that women are the majority of the electorate, it is up to women to elect women – but then what would victim-feminists have to cry about. You would have to find new vocations.

  167. Tom
    Tom July 3, 2011 at 5:53 pm |

    What do ROTFL and FNTT?

    Does it mean it’s okay for you to be whores?

  168. Nahida
    Nahida July 3, 2011 at 5:59 pm |

    Wow, Tom’s still here?

  169. becky
    becky July 3, 2011 at 5:59 pm |

    Oh, and of course he’s BACK! I thought you were done, Tom, like fifty comments ago? Shame… And Lu, haven’t you read the Wikipeadia page (that very reliable source of information that people – not Tom! – sometimes change in order to fit the point they’re trying to make)?! But hey, it’s got the word “scholarly” in it, so it must be true. So now: Elect women! It’s THAT easy! And then find a new vocation for the obsolete victim-feminism. Like phallic-whining, I suppose – Tom will lead the way. Oooh, can’t wait for his new entry, it’s getting better and better :). Whores.

  170. Tom
    Tom July 3, 2011 at 6:11 pm |

    Wow – you still haven’t addressed the inequalities men face in the family court system. It is maternal gatekeeping, which is economic inactivity gatekeeping, which is wannabe housewhoredom.

    There’s a book called The Red Queen, by Matt Ridley, which mentions a study which found the leading female feminist authors were actually more likely to by hypergamous gold diggers, marrying up in status, than the average woman on the street.

    So, if any of you feel like giving up the old game, let us know. If you think it is useful for feminists to be useless, then you really are useless. Judging by your general gender knowledge though, I would say you don’t get it – and are just useless.

  171. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 3, 2011 at 6:15 pm |

    OMG, poor Tom, so confused by all us whores and our use of acronyms and shit! It’s so hard to be a dude!

  172. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig July 3, 2011 at 6:24 pm |

    Ya know, Tom, if you were really a feminist, instead of a Men Whine Associator troll, you might try cleaning up your language a bit. Oh, and learn the acronyms- ask your son what ‘ROTFL’ means ’cause I’m assuming you don’t talk to your wife or daughter.
    I’d also like to point out that most of the early feminists were very educated, but even with the best education, women couldn’t get very far back then. So what looks like hypergamy may actually be a case of highly educated women marrying men who had the same level of education they did. Just a theory.
    (Yeah, yeah, don’t feed the troll.)

  173. becky
    becky July 3, 2011 at 6:25 pm |

    You forgot your signature closing, Tom – whore! Or now rather: useless whore! Too bad you’re gonna toddle back to the very special MRA universe soon, to complain about all the evils of the feminazi world – this is priceless :D… Countdown for his next post: 3…2…1…

  174. Iris
    Iris July 3, 2011 at 6:29 pm |

    Tom:
    What do ROTFL and FNTT?

    Does it mean it’s okay for you to be whores?

    It’s a special secret feminist language.

    If you were really a feminist, mra, you would know these things.

    Shhhhhh….

  175. Tom
    Tom July 3, 2011 at 6:30 pm |

    Yep, still no sale.

  176. becky
    becky July 3, 2011 at 6:35 pm |

    Aren’t you listening, you victim-feminists?! Talk about my topic right now! Address what I’m telling you to address! I said: now! What, you’re refusing to do what I’m telling you to?! You’re useless. You’re talking in weird abbreviations. You’re too stupid to get it. Wikipedia. Whores.

  177. Iris
    Iris July 3, 2011 at 6:46 pm |

    becky:
    Aren’t you listening, you victim-feminists?! Talk about my topic right now! Address what I’m telling you to address! I said: now! What, you’re refusing to do what I’m telling you to?! You’re useless. You’re talking in weird abbreviations. You’re too stupid to get it. Wikipedia. Whores.

    ROTFL

    Somewhere a village has lost their idiot. Tom, be a dear and run along, see if you can help them, ‘kay?

  178. Tom
    Tom July 3, 2011 at 6:52 pm |

    I think you lost the argument, and are attempting to mock the messenger. You’ve had thirty years to address the topics at the core of this news story, and failed to get round to it.

    NOW actually rejected the principle of shared parenting in the early 1980s – since then, women’s groups haven’t really been the radical egalitarians – rather, the stubborn whores. All the playful circuitousness, and knowing mockery – but I think it’s time we issued whore types of feminists with yellow vests.

  179. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 3, 2011 at 6:58 pm |

    Tom:
    I think you lost the argument, and are attempting to mock the messenger. You’ve had thirty years to address the topics at the core of this news story, and failed to get round to it.

    NOW actually rejected the principle of shared parenting in the early 1980s – since then, women’s groups haven’t really been the radical egalitarians – rather, the stubborn whores. All the playful circuitousness, and knowing mockery – but I think it’s time we issued whore types of feminists with yellow vests.

    No, you’re just like a loose tooth really, lots of fun to play with.

    Oh, and whores.

  180. becky
    becky July 3, 2011 at 7:03 pm |

    Tom, you’re not too bright, are you? This is getting really sad now, messenger without argument… You can’t keep saying that we’re useless whores (now the stubborn type in yellow vests – was that a poor attempt at humour…?) and then keep re-posting the same stuff you’ve probably have already posted a 100 times in your MRA forums, and expect some equally genius reactions here. Also, we can’t keep mocking you forever, you know – we have lives and jobs and stuff.

  181. becky
    becky July 3, 2011 at 7:08 pm |

    Oh, and whores.

    Dammit, I forgot to add that (and yet I thought it might be my knew signature line…). Also: whores.

  182. Tom
    Tom July 3, 2011 at 7:08 pm |

    I’m the new tooth.

  183. becky
    becky July 3, 2011 at 7:09 pm |

    *new (it’s late… ;))

  184. becky
    becky July 3, 2011 at 7:11 pm |

    Actually, you’re the misogynistic asshat. Whores.

  185. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 3, 2011 at 7:12 pm |

    Tom:
    I’m the new tooth.

    My, aren’t we petulant?

    Whores.

  186. Tom
    Tom July 3, 2011 at 7:26 pm |

    You are the toothless conformists.

  187. William (aka WHORES)
    William (aka WHORES) July 3, 2011 at 7:29 pm |

    Tom:
    Whores

    Tom:
    Whores.

    Tom:
    whores?

    Tom:
    whores.

    I now believe that Tom is a failed Frank Miller character sketch that has somehow escaped onto the interwebs.

    Also, whores.

  188. Iris
    Iris July 3, 2011 at 7:31 pm |

    Tom:
    I’m the new tooth.

    Did you get a new brain with that?

    Whores.

  189. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 3, 2011 at 7:38 pm |

    Tom:
    You are the toothless conformists.

    Yer funny.

    Whores.

  190. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 3, 2011 at 7:42 pm |

    Tom honey, you know what they do with a loose tooth once it falls out, right?

    We’re gonna keep on picking at you and mocking you until you fall out and we put out our minds and forget all about you.

    I assume that will happen sometime Tuesday, so go ahead, keep whining.

  191. Tom
    Tom July 3, 2011 at 7:47 pm |

    Watch the Asch Conformity experiment on youtube. It only takes one person to agree with the outlier telling the truth, to make the conformist liars snap out of it. It turns out The Guardian have covered Matt O’Connor’s actions in highlighting the inequalities faced by men in the family courts. So, men’s rights activists appear to be the ‘outsider’ groups, at the centre of the debate. It’s a shame supposedly feminist women’s groups like this forum didn’t have anything useful to add. See ya.

  192. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 3, 2011 at 7:53 pm |

    Blah blah blah. Whores. Goodbye.

  193. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig July 3, 2011 at 9:10 pm |

    Tom: The Guardian have covered Matt O’Connor’s actions.

    *Guardian has*
    Not only is boring troll ignorant of acronyms, he can’t use grammar.
    Douche.

  194. zuzu
    zuzu July 3, 2011 at 10:07 pm |

    Tom: Flounces With Whores.

  195. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 3, 2011 at 10:11 pm |

    zuzu:
    Tom: Flounces With Whores.

    ROFLMAO!

    (oops, there I go using those whorish acronyms again!)

  196. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig July 3, 2011 at 10:14 pm |

    Annaleigh: You need to copyright ‘flounces with whores.”
    There’s a song, a band or an album in there somewhere.

  197. chava
    chava July 4, 2011 at 2:50 am |

    Does that mean we can exchange Tom’s comment for money?
    Whores like that.

    Annaleigh:
    Tom honey, you know what they do with a loose tooth once it falls out, right?

  198. becky
    becky July 4, 2011 at 3:34 am |

    zuzu:
    Tom: Flounces With Whores.

    LOL :D! It seems like he’s reached his final page on here, though… Anyway: whores.

  199. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig July 4, 2011 at 9:39 am |

    Oops, sorry zuzu, I attributed your quote to Annaleigh. But seriously, sell that idea to a band.

  200. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 4, 2011 at 11:58 am |

    Politicalguineapig:
    Annaleigh: You need to copyright ‘flounces with whores.”
    There’s a song, a band or an album in there somewhere.

    I wish I had come up with that, but it was zuzu! :)

  201. Dommy Poet
    Dommy Poet July 4, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

    The best part about these comments is for about two minutes on bing they made this page come up when you typed “feminism + whores.”

    That is the first accidental SEO optimization via trolling I’ve ever seen.

    -DP

  202. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm |

    chava:
    Does that mean we can exchange Tom’s comment for money?
    Whores like that.

    Sheer awesomeness!

  203. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 4, 2011 at 8:31 pm |

    Oh shit! He’s back again…hide yer whores…I mean acronyms!

  204. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 5, 2011 at 6:56 pm |

    Tom:
    If any of you scumbags want to hear the other side of the story, regarding this man who just died, then you can go to [redacted -ed] and listen to the show.

    Wow, this has to be the longest audition for FNTT I have seen yet. Oooh, and switching up the weak attempts at insults too. You’re trying awfully hard.

    Whores.

  205. William
    William July 5, 2011 at 7:03 pm |

    Fun Fact: “Scumbag” initially referred to a used condom. First the Milleresque rallying cry of “whores” (now with varied punctuation!!), now calling people used condoms. Tom, are you perhaps a little…frustrated?

  206. William
    William July 5, 2011 at 7:17 pm |

    Also, Tom, linking from A Voice for Men? Seriously?

    On the sidebar theres a link to one of their articles. Link is titled “Why every juror should vote to ACQUIT any man charged with the crime of RAPE.” The article is essentially an argument that false rape accusations happen almost as often as your average MRA tears up whilst jerking (“approximately 45%”). Money quote:

    And I would argue that if you are aware of how the system actually works, then you must be aware that reasonable doubt cannot be ascertained in a rape trial. There is just not enough trustworthy information in many cases to make that judgment, and unfortunately as a juror, you are not able to discern if the case you are seeing is one of the ones that has been tainted.

    There are perhaps exceptions to this. If the state is able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that breaking and entering, an abduction, the use of a weapon or extensive bodily harm occurred during the alleged attack, then a guilty vote may be justified.

    Followed, of course, by an explanation of why even under these circumstances the woman is probably lying and the prosecutors are grandstanding.

    Just buy yourself a Real Doll, name it “Whorey McWhorensten,” and be done with it Tom.

  207. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 5, 2011 at 7:42 pm |

    Jill:
    Nope sorry. Not linking that website here, Tom.

    Oops. I quoted him, Jill. My bad. Edit my comment as you see fit.

  208. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub July 5, 2011 at 7:51 pm |

    I say we just give him Top Troll, Jill. He wants it. He really, really wants it.

  209. Tom
    Tom July 5, 2011 at 8:17 pm |

    No, my bad for trying to present both sides of a story on a feminist website. What was I thinking?

    As for the false rape discussion of that site – I’ve been thinking, think there should be celebrity false rape accusation percentage that gets published too. When was the last time a celebrity accused of rape got found guilty? It happens, but it’s the extreme exception.

    There was Mike Tyson in 1990 or so, and he DEFINITELY did it – but who else? There have been a few statutory rapes, with under-age girls – but male celebrities found guilty of forcible rapes of adult women? V dismissed allegations against celebrities? 99.9% unproven or false?

    I mean, imagine if a celebrity like Jessica Valenti or Germaine Greer were actually raped. Would you believe them at first?

    Back to the topic though, of the family law enforcement – and it is known that false allegations of DV there are rampant. In India, it was thought by researchers that 97% of DV claims were false…

    Watch a disgusting victim-feminist Women’s Minister defend the false claims culture in this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in_4QhWQaq4

    Most feminists are in virtually complete denial about false allegations, so you can understand if the men’s rights site you don’t want me to link to might get a little heated about the problem.

    Whores lie about rape more than real women, so it is no real surprise though.

  210. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig July 5, 2011 at 10:53 pm |

    I wonder what the f Tom thinks a Real Woman is.. I suspect she resembles a doormat, or is in fact a Real Doll.
    Oh, and I checked out that link, only to snicker at it. A hunger strike? May they all starve to death. (Why, yes, I am an evil vindictive person :D)

  211. Brett K
    Brett K July 6, 2011 at 10:47 am |

    Return of the banhammer!

  212. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 6, 2011 at 3:43 pm |

    What I found so amusing about Tom was that he was soooo un-observant that he didn’t notice Jill saying in the OP that it was “kind of awesome” that conservative bloggers are comparing Amanda Marcotte to the Whore of Babylon, so he was clearly unprepared for the reaction he got when he started throwing the word whore around himself. I think he honestly thought that if he called everyone from Jill to freaking Queen Victoria and everyone else in between a whore that he could bully everyone here into submission. Amazing.

    But I am relieved he got the banhammer. He was part of the reason the DSK threads were unreadable for me. Too triggering.

  213. matlun
    matlun July 7, 2011 at 10:06 am |

    Annaleigh: he didn’t notice Jill saying in the OP that it was “kind of awesome” that conservative bloggers are comparing Amanda Marcotte to the Whore of Babylon, so he was clearly unprepared for the reaction he got when he started throwing the word whore around himself.

    I would say you should expect a reaction if you use that word even if Jill had not mentioned it in the OP. And note that he used it as a crude insult and not a synonym for “prostitute”.

    I was starting to wonder about the lack of a ban.

  214. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh July 7, 2011 at 4:22 pm |

    matlun: I would say you should expect a reaction if you use that word even if Jill had not mentioned it in the OP. And note that he used it as a crude insult and not a synonym for “prostitute”.

    I was starting to wonder about the lack of a ban.

    Oh of course he should have expected a reaction, I’m not saying that he shouldn’t have. But I believe he didn’t get the reaction he thought he was going to get and wanted to get: that he would upset everyone, get us to shut down emotionally and allow him to “win” the argument instead of people mocking him and throwing it back in his face in a humorous manner.

  215. Meet: The Phallic Cry Babies. « stop! talking.

    [...] their usually rapidly progressive decline from pseudo argument engaging to the throwing of “You Whores!“-fits when one refuses to derail the conversation in favour of what the troll deluxe wants to [...]

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.