Good news, ladies and manginas: Apparently some MRAs don’t think it’s time to go out and start shooting people. At least not quite yet.
Some background: In recent days numerous MRAs have taken up the cause of a man named Thomas Ball – who burned himself to death outside a courthouse in Keane, New Hampshire in a protest against what he saw as unfair treatment in family court. Ferdinand Bardamu of In Male Fide has declared him “a martyr for the cause of men’s rights, a casualty of feminism’s stripping one half of the population of their humanity.”
Before killing himself, Ball wrote a long manifesto outlining his grievances and suggesting that the time had come for men “to start burning down police stations and courthouses,” describing the inhabitants of such buildings as “[c]ollaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War … So burn them out. “ (He offered specific advice on how best to do this, including tips on how to select the proper bottles to use for Molotov cocktails.)
All this has inspired some in the MRA to start talking ominously about violence. On The Spearhead, W.F. Price has responded to this talk with a piece suggesting that the time isn’t quite right for the MRAs of the world to take up armed struggle. Not just yet, anyway. As he puts it:
It is never a good idea to pick up a gun and start shooting to address some vaguely defined injustice — that is savagery. Before the American Revolution, for example, patriots took pains to spell out a long list of grievances that justified rebellion. …
We have to make our own lists, air our grievances, and give the state the opportunity to redress them. … Before anyone resorts to the same methods the state uses against us, we must put every reasonable effort into working with the law and the political system we have. Because this effort is still in its infancy, any calls for armed resistance are entirely premature and counterproductive, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Obviously, the flip side of this argument for delay is a justification for killing people if these “grievances” aren’t dealt with in the way that those in the MRA would like. Price’s reference to the American Revolution is an interesting one, because of course the central issue of that struggle was, you know, taxation without representation. The colonists couldn’t vote out the king if they didn’t like his policies. In case anyone has forgotten: we actually do have the vote now, which was kind of the whole point in the first place.
Of course, many of Price’s readers are a bit more impatient than he is. In a comment that drew (last I checked) more than 40 upvotes and only two dissenting downvote, Taqman took issue with Price’s call to delay the armed struggle:
Tell that to men who are facing imminent imprisonment for failure to pay child support.
They don’t have the luxury of time and can’t wait a couple of decades for the manginas of the world to wake up and decide that a gentlemanly form of armed resistance is now acceptable.
The ironically named Firepower, meanwhile, took a little swipe at Ball’s own actions, but didn’t challenge his advice for the rest of the men of the world:
What IS crazy is having to point out that setting YOURSELF on fire is a ridiculous way to “win” anything.
Set your enemies on fire. To even have to remind this questions the long term chances of victory for such a pathetic lot.
Jean Valjean suggested that political action was pointless — due to all those damned women who vote:
No amount of “stoic logic” will make politicians see our point of view.
Politicians are in the business of getting re-elected rather than the business of good governance. So long as women are the majority there will only be tyranny of the majority.
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) — you knew we were getting to him, right? — expressed his profound disappointment that more Spearheaders weren’t willing to embrace a violent solution:
Gee you guys are whimps and tiptoe around the ‘use of force’ like freaking ballet dancers. Are you so scared to speak about this when it is CLEAR the guvment LOVES using force against you and lots of other people too?
And he made the argument personal, explicitly denouncing, by name, the judge he claimed had “criminally abused” him with his rulings:
Judge [name redacted’s] life is now in my hands. He lives by my consent and my consent alone. …
And, like Ball, he declared judges to be essentially treasonous:
These judges pretended to be your servants. They are evil, evil people who deserve the kind of treatment reserved for those who commit treason.
There is more to Nolan’s comment(s) than that, but to get into it would require going down the rabbit-hole into his particular brand of crackpottery, which seems to involve him setting up his own courts to try judges he doesn’t like. (I frankly don’t understand his belief system and don’t care to.)
Now, it should be noted that a few Spearheaders actually objected to Nolan’s violent talk. But the last I checked, the comment I just quoted had more upvotes than downvotes. W.F. Price took more flak for suggesting men wait a little longer before taking up arms than Nolan did for, well, you saw what he wrote. That tells you a lot about The Spearhead, I think.
EDIT: Added quote from Ferdinand Bardamu; removed similar quote from The Spearhead.
sorry we dont worship terrorrists enough for whatever dumb false equivalency tear your on.
maybe you should be less of a pretentious gasbag?
why do these clowns always show up at the site that says ‘misogyny. i mock it.’ expecting to have a ‘debate’ instead of just getting made fun of for trying to provide pseudointellectual cover for violence
Another one who can’t handle xD apparently…
Consider it LOL in face form? x = crossed eyes; D = open mouth; xD is a cousin of : D = 😀
“Taken into context, Tom Ball hitting his child was wrong. No reasonable person would disagree with that. But we have no proof of serial abuse. We know of one single act of hitting. By itself, what do you think should be the punishment for that? How long would the punishment be? He felt the ramifications of a single act for 10 years. In no way is that reasonable, especially since he was ACQUITTED of the charge in court. ”
Taken in context he was still being “punished” 10 years later by having to pay child support. Is this going to be an anti-child-support rant, or an anti-divorce rant, or are you going to go for the pro-child-abuse angle?
AndrewV: Can’t see where our view is lacking?
Let’s see:
Thomas Ball hit his daughter, and drew blood. He admits this.
He was arrested, in a procedurally flawed way.
He was, for the admitted act of violence toward his child, ordered to stay away until he took a brief amount of counselling.
He refused. He was denied visitation.
After some time of this, his wife divorced him.
He was unable, for whatever reason to meet the child support obligations.
He failed to petition for adjustments.
He then killed himself, published a manifesto, called for a wave of terrorism to root out the source of the injustices listed above.
That’s the case we are dealing with.
We, unlike some, think that he has no case, and that it was his refusal to bend, in the least way, to the idea that the laws apply; nor to take advantage of the protections those same laws afforded him, which brought about the pass in which he found himself (facing jail for longstanding violation of a court order).
So that his suicide wasn’t the result of long standing oppression, and it wasn’t some noble act of a man who had no recourse.
What’s lacking?
Diogenes: . Would you call Mohamed Bouazazi, or Thich Quang Duc (the burning monk) selfish cowards?
If what they were protesting was the same sort of thing Ball was, yes.
Does the act smack of desperation? Someone here tried to make it out like he picked a horribly painful way to die as revenge. That’s sick.
Yes, it was.
How would any of you view an abused Afghan woman who drinks draino to kill herself? If you could relate any more to her, there is a problem.
I see, you are trying to say Ball was the victim. That he was forced to refuse to attend the counselling session which was all that was required to regain visitation?
That his wife filing for divorce was in no way related to any action of his.
Nice try at the false equivalence.
Taken into context, Tom Ball hitting his child was wrong. No reasonable person would disagree with that. But we have no proof of serial abuse. We know of one single act of hitting. By itself, what do you think should be the punishment for that?
Some anger management classes. A bit of supervision. Tom Ball refused those.
That was on him.
His grievance, in case you didn’t read his suicide note was that outside of the court, there was a system of bureaucracy that couldn’t be escaped. He complained about a social worker who didn’t let him see his children because “of his attitude.” Just like that. No judge, no jury. We have a social worker on the case.
The social worker was administering a court order, which Ball refused to accept. Again, that’s on Ball.
Ball was probably a jerk, No probably about it. He called for people to engage in rebellion and murder; because he wasn’t allowed to hit his child with impunity.
That’s more than “a jerk”.
Diogenes: @Snowy
Don’t be a jerk, and don’t call me a troll. It reflects poorly on you. If there is a thread you want me to cmment on, by all means post a link.
Another Inigo Montoya moment. You aren’t in any position to tell anyone what they can think of you, nor what they may call you. That makes you look petulant. I don’t know that I’d call you a troll, but I’m an old-school user of the word. I’ve not seen that you are here just to stir shit.
Then again you did make it a point to go to a long dead thread; the implication is you were trying to slip the last word into a place that no one is paying attention to. That’s indicative of less than honest intent.
That, coupled to the name you’ve chosen, reflects poorly on you. More poorly than Snowy’s reaction to those facts. So
@denelian | July 13, 2012 at 10:34 am
I only mentioned it because I thought you may find it a useful resource. The fact that you are already aware of it speaks for itself.
I wish you well.
@pecunium | July 13, 2012 at 11:29 am
I was under the impression that he was being required to confess to something that he did not consider himself guilty of, and in fact was cleared by the courts of. Nontheless there was an apparatus in place that considered him guilty, and required him to be punished.
Another frequent complaint is the impossibility of getting support costs lowered no matter what the facts are. The judicial system apparently does not care what the actual constraints on the ability to pay are, only that they be satisfied. Which is not to say that some men will willfully attempt to evade their responsibilities, clearly there are, I do not see Ball as falling into that category, reread his manifesto and evaluate his account of the economics of his situation.
There are issues concerning child support funding. For example here is a 2010 report by the Michigan court about the underground economy and child support system:
http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/reports/UETF-2010.pdf
But the attitude is clear. Page 25. Make your own judgement of course.
Ball was honest in relating the truth of his faults, for example slapping his daughter, and admitting his mistake in years later in finding out that his wife had only reported him because that was the choice she was offered. Him or her children, instead of his initial assumption.
Finally, despite what he advocated in his manifesto, he did chose to kill himself outside the court, rather than burn it down with himself inside it.
Of course you could argue, and I have no way of disputing it, that he could not get inside in the first place. Nonetheless, I tend to place a greater weight on what someone actually does versus what they say. In any event, it is open to interpretation unless the facts can still be determined at this point.
This besides the point however, the greater lessons are the unnoticed restructuring of society, the power of the state, and the impacts upon people who believe themselves to be living in a different milieu. In this case Thomas Ball and his wife.
I would suggest once again re-reading the manifesto with the point of view of challenging your assumptions. One example, if his wife knew in advance that the state would destroy her family one way or the other, by removing her husband or the children, would she have talked to anyone?
Or, you can put aside your morals and conduct your own experiments:
For example, the next time you hear a neighbour’s child crying, call your local child protection agency and report that you fear abuse. Suggest to your female friends that they call the police and report that they feel threatened by their male significant other. Observe, evaluate, and form your own conclusions.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that you do the above, because in mind that is immoral. You could however, map out what you think would be the consequences, and draw your own lessons from it.
Andrew, take your faux-rationality and Ball cheerleading somewhere else. I’m not sure why you need to resurrect and re-hash a year old thread. The ship has sailed.
AndrewV: For many noncustodial parents, however, the decision to enter the underground economy is “reactive.” The latter group goes underground because, due to their own inaction, ignorance, or avoidance, the support arrearage has become too large for them to pay, often before they first actually receive a demand for payment.
Note the words, “due to their own inaction, ignorance, or avoidance,
I would also argue the last line is a bit misleading. The, “demand for payment” is not the first they became aware of it, since it’s a court ordered payment, established at the time of the divorce.
Unless, for some reason, they were not involved in the divorce, it’s not true they had no knowledge of the obliged state.
Finally, despite what he advocated in his manifesto, he did chose to kill himself outside the court, rather than burn it down with himself inside it.
And… he still advocated for killing judges, and cops and others who work in government.
I would suggest once again re-reading the manifesto with the point of view of challenging your assumptions. One example, if his wife knew in advance that the state would destroy her family one way or the other, by removing her husband or the children, would she have talked to anyone?
The fuck? With regard to “challenging my assumptions?” What do you mean by that? It sounds like you are saying I ought to read it, and then come to agree with it.
As to the latter… nice one. It’s not the state that destroyed her family. It was Ball’s intragience at making any changes in his relationship with his family; in light of that stuff you say, “he admitted”. He may have said, “yes, I hit my four year old and splut her lip open because she licked me”, but he didn’t want to actually deal with it. He refused to go to so much as four hours of counselling about it.
That’s what broke up his family. You seem to be arguing that his wife ought to have just let him keep on beating the kid when she “acted up”.
Fuck that.
Or, you can put aside your morals and conduct your own experiments:
Put aside my morals?
When I hear a child crying, I listen to see why.
When I heard my neighbors hitting their kids, I paid attention. Whent they did it again I called the cops.
Because that was the moral thing to do.
If my friends tell me they feel threatened by their SO (note the lack of gender specificity) I tell them they need to think about what they are getting out of it. When I know one has beaten them, I tell them to call the cops, and to leave.
I’ve had people who were left (no cops) tell me they were going to kill me; one of them did it when he was armed, and we were at the same event; so we were in a hotel, 400 miles from my home, and he was packing heat.
He used a 14 year old to convey the message. It was quite plain; but we already knew he was stupid.
So I don’t need to put aside my morals., and, “conduct experiments”. I know what I’ll do when those things come up.
I wonder that you think I would need to. It’s an interesting set of morals you ascribe to me; one that seems at odds with what you, in the earlier parts of your comments, ascribed to me as being my “unchallenged” assumptions.
Automatic fire-extinguishers, anyone know if the courthouse has them?
And for someone claiming to place greater weight on things that were done, rather than said, you’re putting an awful lot of weight on Ball’s claims about why didn’t pay child support. Of course, this one is just blatantly untrue —
That “apparatus” would be called “his wife filed for divorce”. Or would you like to speculate on why she did that and whether she might not have in different conditions? (Hint, doesn’t matter, they weren’t in different conditions, and plenty of men do not get violent over being divorced)
Argenti: That “apparatus” would be called “his wife filed for divorce”.
And did so after he had, in effect, abandoned the family (by not doing the trivial things required to regain his ability to spend time with them).
So it’s less, “the apparatus” and more a case of his insistence that the rules ought not apply to him. Andrew might want to read the case history (and Ball’s manifesto) with a mind more open to having his beliefs challenged.
“Andrew might want to read the case history (and Ball’s manifesto) with a mind more open to having his beliefs challenged.”
Indeed, for all the rambling in it, it does have a coherent timeline to it.
@pecunium | July 13, 2012 at 11:53 pm
I am now under the impression you have not read the report. For example, on page 26 the recommendations attempt to address people who are unaware:
In any event that should not have been taken as the substance of my argument. Basically, it does not matter what the reasons are or their validity. The current system, certainly at the time Ball self immolated did not care either and still does not, unless of course the recommendations are implemented, and there is no guarantee they will be either.
Since then, one part of the system apparently has taken notice that there is a funding issue. You could argue that what Ball did had absolutely no impact on the system, and I would agree with you. Ball was aware that he was possibly facing jail, and while the report does have a recommendation that adressses that, from page 28:
I believe that even if the above was in effect at the time, I doubt that the outcome would have changed. Ball had lost his job two years earlier when he wrote the following. Clearly he had had enough:
That in effect is the issue. Men are dropping out of the system. Ball chose to make his exit a spectacle, and I feel safe to assert that based on the report which I suggest you read, enough men by now have also dropped out, that the impact in loss of resources is finally being noticed.
Some of your assumptions are quite clear. Hence my suggestion that you re-read what Ball had to say. It is quite clear to me where your mind is made up. For example:
I told you that I believe you should challenging your assumptions. If you refuse to do so that is your perogrative. What you should not do impute assertations at me and then get outraged at your own strawman.
It is perfectly valid, to solicit my opinion and then get outraged, but not before.
In any event, the marrige was in trouble (they were going to counselings remember) and right after she had him arrested, it was over:
Remember also, that years later he gained a different perspective on what her motivation was and the circumstances. If he had been aware of it then, would he have come to the same decision? I think it is possible. I have doubts about the probability though.
It is pretty clear to me that his arrest, started the ball rolling in the wrong direction given his personality. You keep implying that if he had gone for the counselling the system wanted him to do that all would be well. It is quite possible it would have helped. We both know however he refused as a matter of principle, and he did write that inspired by Jim Brown going to jail for refusing, he decided to do the same.
By now, it should be clear that having stepped down that road, Ball was never going to submit. I think it is also quite clear that the majority of men are not going to follow in his footsteps. I certainly did not.
The same can not be said for the number of men who have committed sucide after their divorce, or successfully navigated the process like I have, or those that have dropped out, in sufficient numbers that the system in Michigan has noticed.
This in my opinion, is an issue with broad societal implications. Apparently a sufficient number of men have dropped out for the system to take note and propose a few reforms, but the main thrust is to enforce compliance, as the men in question apparently, are unwilling to provide such voluntarily.
What is clearly absent, are any proposals for incentives despite what the report claims, as their incentives are self serving to the system. The men in question are unlikely to view them in the same light, as having already gone through the process, they have already voted on it.
To be fair though, real incentives are beyond the scope of the report, and I do not expect to see much movement in that respect till the situation becomes much more worse than at present.
I wonder that you think I would need to. It’s an interesting set of morals you ascribe to me; one that seems at odds with what you, in the earlier parts of your comments, ascribed to me as being my “unchallenged” assumptions.
Once again, you are ascribing things to me I never wrote nor implied. Please do not do this again. I will continue to respond to substantive posts, but not to any future post that contains a strawman.
@Argenti Aertheri | July 14, 2012 at 1:53 am
No idear about automatic fire-extinguishers.
However, one implication is that if there were automatic fire-extinguishers and Ball was aware of it, he would have realized that any attempt to burn the place down would quite possibly have been futile, and so not even attempt it.
On the other hand, on page.14 of his manifesto, Ball touches on the subject of sprinklers, so I am inclined to believe that if they were there, he was not worried about them:
Finally, he gave no indication that he was going to burn the courthouse down, just himself:
Ball not paying because he was out of a job for two years, sounds reasonably consistant with what he wrote up to that point. If you have a different perspective I am willing to consider it.
I believe I covered that in my previous post. Ball says himself he let the marrige go, and learned after the divorce why she had had him arrested.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwsXQkhQdiLDN2JjM2Q1ZTgtMWNkNC00M2ZhLTg1NjItMjYzNTQ0ZTIxYjMy&hl=en_US
The quote is from page 4.
As for the “apparatus”, well it gets interesting by the time you get to page 9. Here is a quote from page 8, but you should read the whole to get a better perspective. At a minimum you will be better able to judge how representative my quote are.
On page 9 he argues that:
He also explains where he got the second set of books:
@Argenti Aertheri | July 14, 2012 at 4:11 am
Are you implying that a case history exists in a different document? If so cite it please.
Andrew V, if you’re trying to have a serious debate about whether Ball’s self-immolation was a rational response to misandry vs he was a melodramatic moron who thought he was exempt from the rules, why are you trying to have it:
a) on a thread that’s over a year old, on
b) a blog devoted to MOCKING misogyny?
@Unimaginative | July 14, 2012 at 8:45 pm
I am not interested in a debate unless I can learn something from it. If I learn something from a discussion it is a win.
As for Ball, I have an unresolvable and fundamental disagreement with him. Given his circumstances, I am pretty sure I would stay alive for my kids rather than kill myself over a principle. But I have known people like Ball in my life time, and I find them interesting.
This thread is still on my “Notify me of follow-up comments via email” list from over a year ago and :
a) I am still interested in the topic, albeit within a broader framework.
b) I am interested in the topic of misogyny, but again in a wider context than addressed here.
So stubborn pride is to blame? That argument would actually make sense, unlike the convoluted mess of a point you’ve been making so far.
You already said that what he wrote was not what he did. I was arguing that it might’ve been out of concern he’d be put out before he died (because death by self-immolation is a whole lot different from causing annoying levels pf property damage).
You’re another one who can’t scroll up eh?
You: “I was under the impression that he was being required to confess to something that he did not consider himself guilty of, and in fact was cleared by the courts of. Nontheless there was an apparatus in place that considered him guilty, and required him to be punished.”
Me: “That “apparatus” would be called “his wife filed for divorce”. Or would you like to speculate on why she did that and whether she might not have in different conditions? (Hint, doesn’t matter, they weren’t in different conditions, and plenty of men do not get violent over being divorced)”
Pecunium: “And did so after he had, in effect, abandoned the family (by not doing the trivial things required to regain his ability to spend time with them).
“So it’s less, “the apparatus” and more a case of his insistence that the rules ought not apply to him. Andrew might want to read the case history (and Ball’s manifesto) with a mind more open to having his beliefs challenged.”
Summery — the “apparatus” that led to his divorce (which led to the support order, which is why he said he self-immolated) — that all was because his wife, another conscious being with agency, left him. Your options here are to argue that divorce is immoral or similar nonsense, or to accept that the divorce was out of his hands (because we really can’t guess at how other situations would’ve played out, because they didn’t).
You have implying and “stating outright” mixed up — I was stating outright that his manifesto lays out the time gap between hitting his daughter, the divorce, and the court date in question. You even quoted part of it.
Andrew: it does not matter what the reasons are or their validity
Really? The reasons, and the validity, of the claims don’t matter?
So what, the facts are irrelevant, because you have an idea about how things ought to be, and the reasons and validity don’t matter?
As to reading the rest of the report… you didn’t cite the rest of it. You cited that passage. I responded to that passage. One may reasonably assume that a quoted passage is the one the person presenting the argument thinks is most important.
I believe that even if the above was in effect at the time, I doubt that the outcome would have changed
You’re right, because Ball was in New Hampshire, not Michigan.
That in effect is the issue. Men are dropping out of the system. Ball chose to make his exit a spectacle, and I feel safe to assert that based on the report which I suggest you read, enough men by now have also dropped out, that the impact in loss of resources is finally being noticed.
Ball claimed he was being bullied for being a man. A man who had a court order to provide child support. A man who had beaten his child. A man who refused to go to a pro-forma counselling session.
That’s a pretty pathetic excuse for a caring parent. It’s a selfish, self-induldgent asshole.
I told you that I believe you should challenging your assumptions.
Which assumptions are those? The ones you say are so clear?
What you should not do impute assertations at me and then get outraged at your own strawman.
What strawman?
You keep implying that if he had gone for the counselling the system wanted him to do that all would be well.
No, what I said is that if he went to the counselling the situation would have been different. What I said (and maintain) is that his absolute unwillingness to admit to any culpable fault (and no, his, “I did this” is not the same as, “What I did was an act deserving of notice and response. He says he did, and the system overreacted. I don’t agree. I think anyone who beats a four year old for acting like a four year old is committing an act which deserves some official attention).
Once again, you are ascribing things to me I never wrote nor implied. Please do not do this again. I will continue to respond to substantive posts, but not to any future post that contains a strawman.
What strawman? You did ascribe morals to me. You said I needed to examine them. I have examined them. I’ve spent decades examining them. I’ve put them to the test, and assessed them in light of that.
I don’t need you to postulate gedankenexperimenten because you think they will give me some brilliant insight and come to agree with you.
And I will continue to tell you when you are full of shit. If you want to avoid that by calling that,”strawmannig”, well you may choose any avoidant behavior you like.
Sorry, his absolute unwillingness to admit to any culpable fault was the cause of all his problems. He was too stubborn to admit to being wrong, in any way. It’s why the courts denied him access, and it’s why his wife divorced him.
It wasn’t, “the system” , it was him.