Amanda Marcotte, feminist blogger and Friend of Man Boobz, has been taking a lot of shit from MRAs – and I mean a LOT of shit – for a comment she made here on the Thomas Ball suicide.
As you may already know, Ball burned himself to death outside a New Hampshire courthouse. In a lengthy manifesto he wrote shortly before killing himself, he portrayed his suicide as a protest against a corrupt family court system, and went on to argue that MRAs should quite literally assemble some Molotov cocktails and “start burning down police stations and courthouses.” (You can read the whole manifesto here.) Despite his calls for violence many MRAs have hailed him as an MRA martyr.
Marcotte, in her comment here, suggested that there might have been other, more personal reasons for his suicide – namely, the desire to hurt his ex-wife:
I’ll point out that setting yourself on fire is an extremely effective tool if your goal is to make your ex-wife’s life a living hell, and if your anger at losing control over her overwhelms all other desires. Which is common enough with abusers, who will ruin their own lives and their own shit and turn their children against them in an effort to hurt the woman they’ve fixated on.
One MR blogger declared this comment “pure feminist evil”; a conservative blogger compared Marcotte to the Beast of Babylon. Still other MRAs resorted to assorted variations on the c-word.
Marcotte has now responded to this, er, “criticism” with an excellent post on Pandagon. As she points out, correctly,
suicide and threats of suicide are common tactics used by abusers to hurt their victims. Abusers dramatically self-destruct all the time in their desperation to control and hurt the objects of their obsession. There was just recently a big story about this, in fact: Jason Valdez of Utah, who had a long criminal record that included domestic violence, held a woman hostage in a hotel room for 16 hours and kept updates about the situation on Facebook. He eventually committed suicide.
The notion that suicide can be a hostile, aggressive act designed to hurt other people is hardly a controversial one, whether the person committing suicide is male or female. Threats of suicide are often used to manipulate other people; suicide itself can be an act of revenge.
Marcotte goes on:
Apparently, I’m supposed to pretend that suicide isn’t a disruptive, selfish act in many cases (especially when the suicide victim commits it in a public and destructive way), and that people who do it, while yes victims of their own mental health problems, are also thinking that they’re going to make everyone pay for not indulging them. In fact, not only is this true in Ball’s case, but he spelled it out in his suicide note. The “make the bastards suffer” theme of his note is the reason that wingnuts are supporting him.
But you don’t have to take her word for it. Read Ball’s entire manifesto, to the end, and ask yourself if this man is an appropriate “martyr” for any political movement.
OK sweetie, I will:
–> The male-female ratio in colleges today
(1) is 57/43, hardly evidence that young men are opting out in droves
(2) mostly a problem among low-income boys or minority communities–there are more stereotypically male working-class jobs that you can do without a college diploma than stereotypically female ones
(3) in many schools is being offset by easier admissions for boys
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm
–> The national debt (as far as I can tell; I know very little about economics, and I am looking this up from Wikipedia. If anyone wants to correct me, I would be grateful)
(1) is the sum of federal securities held by individuals or non-US-Government entities and US Treasury securities held by other US government entities. This is not the same thing as our GDP or our employment rate–it can therefore tell us nothing about how many Americans are participating in the economy
(2) is very large right now due to things like the wars we are fighting and the bailouts, neither of which have anything to do with men “opting out of society” in large numbers
–> The unemployment rate for white men over 20 for May 2011 was 7.7; for white women over 20 for the same month it was 6.9.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are no official underemployment rates.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm#Ques12
How many women do you believe are gainfully employed in this country? And how will men live once they are all unemployed?
If you want to know what the future will look like, imagine a teenager..slamming the bedroom door..FOREVER
Damn, too late.
roflcopters.
And in my second paragraph I should have said Toysoldier and not he. Sorry for the confusing pronouns.
Also, I think we can stand by the idea that Ball’s family is upset and does care a great deal about his suicide.
From the article I linked to before: “Ball’s brother, Donald A. Ball, a Worcester, Mass., attorney, said he would not comment other than to say ‘The family’s very upset’.”
I mean, I kind of feel like that’s a no-brainer, but just in case your point was that you felt that Ball’s ex-wife and children were a bunch of heartless psychopaths.
I find him telling his version of what occurred as implying blame when his version of what occurred blames his ex-wife and daughter and completely dismisses the idea that he may be to blame for anything, yes. He had the opportunity to take some of the responsibility, or to try to frame things from his daughter’s or ex-wife’s points of view. He didn’t. He blamed them. Sorry that that doesn’t fit in with your version of how you want him to be.
As far as turning Ball into a scapegoat, I haven’t seen that here. Although I do think that in any lengthy discussion about something this sensitive, the conversation is probably going to (regrettably) become disconnected at some point, so that we end up arguing over details completely separated from the sad human situation that brought them to our attention.
Toysoldier, once again, I’m going to have to ask you to provide evidence for your claims.
I see no quotes here. That’s too bad. But let’s go.
(1a) ‘Willingness to grossly misrepresent [Ball’s] reasons for committing suicide”, whether it exists or not, is not the same thing as “relishing,” or “enjoying” his death.
(1b) I see no “willingness to grossly misrepresent” Ball here. What I do see is speculation–much of it based, however, on things Ball actually wrote: as Marcotte said,
And before you freak out about the word “abuser,” it’s in the court documents and his manifesto that he hit his daughter.
(2) You can’t go from “Marcotte” to “people in general” (“It is not just that people have done it, but that they smugly do it “) if we’re talking about Marcotte and one of her posts
(3) Assuming you are talking about Marcotte, how do you see Marcotte as being “smug”? Is there any specific quote you’re basing this on, or just a general feel?
Is this smug?
Does it “relish” Ball’s death?
Incidentally, you are aware, aren’t you, that if Marcotte cannot interpret Ball’s writings as evidence for his mental state, then you can’t interpret Marcotte’s writings as evidence for her mental state either? Then nobody interprets anyone’s thoughts from their words, and you get to go hang out in a corner with Wittgenstein and freak out about whether or not you hear what I feel when I say what I think.
Aaand…more:
That’s not “mocking Ball,” that’s “disagreeing with a position that some people hold.” A position which she believes is worthy of attack, because it would force abused people to live with the people who are hurting them. Not to mention that you’re equating any criticism of people whom Ball agrees with as mockery of the man himself, and by extension his death. That’s either sloppy or disingenuous. Stop appealing to sentiment and use logic.
ERRATUM
*”criticism of people with whom Ball agrees”
Buck Swamp: I don’t see anything in that farrago you posted which says, “Accused rapists have no presumption of innocence” You showed other people’s opinions, but nothing from the actual person you are slandering.
Moreover, as she’s not a member of a jury deciding the case, nor a prosecutor she’s not required to think anyone “innocent”. There are lots of people who’ve not been convicted of things whom the popular opinion holds to be guilty (Lizzie Borden, OJ Simpson). Just because someone thinks it of someone, or a group, you think isn’t guilty is the way of the world.
As to your misogyny, thanks for being honest. I have a low opinion of bigots, and even lower one of bigots who can’t put an honest argument together. If that offends you either stop being an idiot, or stop parading your idiocy in public.
Bucky… Have I offended you too? Oh my. That was so not my intention. Oh wait, yes it was.
Wow… I’m impresssed. I mean really. Someone who thinks he has achieved one of life’s ambitions. I suppose you can die a happy man now. Then again, maybe not? I mean now that you’ve decided you’ve offended a feminist what is there to live for?
It’s not like your dream of a misogynist paradise is going to happen.
Toysoldier: If you get to infer from Marcotte’s writing, and tell me what “means”, I get to infer from Ball’s writings.
He implies that had his wife just kept it to herself, let him smack their daughter around, and not called the mental health worker, then there would have been no need for her to “protect them from the state”.
Moreover, he’s imputing that. We have no corroborative testimony from anyone else that this was his wife’s thinking. I am not arguing that the person his wife was speaking with may have had an affirmative duty to report it, but that’s not the same as his wife deciding she had no choice.
But you are willing to grossly misrepresent Amanda Marcotte, so why should we listen to you any further, when you are decrying her for something she hasn’t done, and doing that very thing yourself.
@ Pecunium
“If you get to infer from Marcotte’s writing, and tell me what “means”, I get to infer from Ball’s writings.”
Not really. She can defend herself and correct misinterpretations, he cannot.
Yes really, and you have it completely reversed.
He made a public statement (very public). I read it. That means I get to interpret it.
It means, actually, I have to, because he’s not around to ask. So I am forced to interpret it. You may disagree, that’s your privilege, but that doesn’t change a thing. You want me to agree with your inferences (which is what you are trying to do… because you don’t know what he meant. You don’t know the truth. You know what he wrote), fine. Go ahead, convince me.
Show me some evidence (outside his manifesto… one cannot use a document to to prove itself), make an argument.
Because what you are doing here, isn’t that. You are asserting,and saying, “unh-uh… you’re a poopy-head!”
@ Pecunium
“He made a public statement (very public). I read it. That means I get to interpret it.”
I never said you don’t. I said you don’t get to interpret it “because toysoldier gets to interpret Marcotte’s writing”. Given how you misread me, I should think that goes to show that your interpretation of somebody’s suicide note is probably not accurate.
unreal man: This is what you said:
That’s everything you said. Nothing about toysoldier. If you want to say I didn’t accurately read you because I didn’t add something you didn’t mention to what you said when I responded… the mind boggles.
Let’s look at the grammar in your comment.
Your addition was the last sentence. “Not really. She can defend herself and correct misinterpretations, he cannot.”
Not really is a negation of the first sentence. In it there is a comment from me, to toysoldier. I refer to Amanda Marcotte, and Tom Ball. You say “she” can defend herself. That’s a pronomial substitution,and refers to Marcotte.
“He” cannot. Grammatically that pronomial substitution is for Ball. Logically it has to be Ball, because you are saying the distinction between the “she” and the “he” is that one is capable of defending the words they wrote, and the other isn’t.
Since toysoldier is, presumably, still alive. he is capable of mounting his own defense, and “he” must refer to Ball.
So the charge that I misread you is farcial.
Pecunium says: Buck Swamp: I don’t see anything in that farrago you posted which says, “Accused rapists have no presumption of innocence” You showed other people’s opinions, but nothing from the actual person you are slandering.
If you want to argue about whether or not Amanda Marcotte believes in lowering the burden of proof in rape cases, you are a fool. This is not some deep dark secret about Ms. Marcotte’s past, this is something she proudly proclaims in her own writings. If you don’t believe me, go read some of the things she has written for God’s sake!
As for your calling me a bigot, so what? That is your opinion. Despite what you may think, calling someone a “bigot” is not an argument, it is an attempt to avoid arguing altogether. I realize that feminists believe that it is some kind of crime to say that men are more capable than women. Again, so what? I will say what I believe, and you cannot shame me into doing otherwise. What do I care?
@ Pecunium
Well then let me walk you through it and perhaps your “boggled” mind will be a little clearer:
You wrote in response to toysoldier:
“If you get to infer from Marcotte’s writing, and tell me what “means”, I get to infer from Ball’s writings.”
– thereby justifying interpreting Ball’s writings because “well you did the same”. The fallacy in that response is that he did not do the same because Marcotte and Ball do not have the same capacity to illustrate their thoughts. And because of that, I said the following in response to your response:
“Not really. She can defend herself and correct misinterpretations, he cannot.”
Then you responded with this:
” He made a public statement (very public). I read it. That means I get to interpret it.
It means, actually, I have to, because he’s not around to ask. So I am forced to interpret it. You may disagree, that’s your privilege, but that doesn’t change a thing.”
-thereby implying that I said that you don’t get to interpret it. I never said that and therefore you misinterpreted me.
VoiP,
A couple of points: The Department of Labor unemployment statistics do not include people who are working part-time but want to work full-time, or people who have quit looking for work altogether. “Real” unemployment is much higher than the official numbers. 20% may be an exaggeration, but the real number for all men is certainly higher than 15%. Historically this is very high, and it won’t be dropping in the forseeable future.
As for the male-female college ratio, I think that the important thing to look at is the trend. And the trend for males is dropping fast. And a 57-43 ratio should be cause for real alarm, anyway, unless you believe in a real superiority of females over males, which is laughable. Except for the hard sciences, colleges today are inhospitable places for men.
A lot of feminist believe all this is good news (remember “The End of Men”). I think they are wrong.
@Buck Swamp ‘I realize that feminists believe that it is some kind of crime to say that men are more capable than women.’
Only a crime against intelligent discourse. What you are stating is merely your own uninformed and laughable opinion. With nothing backing it up. We don’t have to consider your words a crime to correct your ridiculous conclusions.
‘Again, so what? I will say what I believe, and you cannot shame me into doing otherwise. What do I care?’
You seem to care enough to aim a rebuttal at hir.
Yaz,
You said “What you are stating is merely your own uninformed and laughable opinion. With nothing backing it up.”
Nothing to back it up? Look around. Almost everything good and useful was invented by men. Historically, women have had babies and men have done everything else. All the great innovaters were and are men. Most of the great artists and writers were and are men. All the best athletes were and are men. Shall I go on?
Now I realize that women would’ve invented everything if men hadn’t oppressed them so badly, but men did, so women didn’t. Too bad.
The fact is that by any criteria, in terms of wealth and lifestyles American women in the 20th century were the most privileged human beings ever to walk the planet. Men made that happen. A little gratitude would be nice.
‘Historically, women have had babies and men have done everything else.’
Historically, women have not been allowed to do anything but bear babies. Being oppressed out of academia by fists, lack of money, and peer pressure doesn’t mean women were ever less capable on an intellectual level.
Context is everything, Bucky boy.
‘A little gratitude would be nice.’
Yes, yes, you hunted the mammoth for women, I know. Yeesh…
“Historically, women have had babies and men have done everything else.” Um, no, see the history of any culture. I know of no traditional culture where the only labor role for women was birthing (or even raising) children. Stop projecting your illusory ideal of 50s upperclass life onto reality, which functions in pretty much the exact opposite way.
Also, as a point of fact, women were legally barred from holding patents in the early US, so it goes without saying that no woman inventor at the time would have held patents (patent data is a common source of information of invention in modern times, in pre-modern times the concept of individual invention was less defined and most inventions are of unknown source).
Yaz said: Historically, women have not been allowed to do anything but bear babies. Being oppressed out of academia by fists, lack of money, and peer pressure doesn’t mean women were ever less capable on an intellectual level.
Buck Swamp said: Now I realize that women would’ve invented everything if men hadn’t oppressed them so badly, but men did, so women didn’t. Too bad.
I guess we both agree that men have done pretty much everything. Great!
Oh, also another fact error point: “The fact is that by any criteria, in terms of wealth and lifestyles American women in the 20th century were the most privileged human beings ever to walk the planet.” Men in the US have more networth (in every income quantile) and more income. Also, the US has lower standards of living, lower life expectancies, and greater income gaps than the rest of the developed world, as well as no guaranteed vactions, a lagging educational system, no guaranteed parental leave, no guaranteed healthcare access, and many other things which are commonplace in other developed nations.
There’s a great episode of Louis Theroux about survivalists, who were people living far away from the rest of society, reasons ranging from just liking it out there, feeling safe, believing in a crazy New World Order, all types. Everyone seemed pretty cool, and they didn’t discriminate against anyone coming to live there as long as they kept it safe.
Buck Swamp, I seriously think go for it. Question being, have you gone yet? You get anyone to come keep you company yet?
“I realize that feminists believe that it is some kind of crime to say that men are more capable than women.”
I love that telling someone to shut the fuck up is equated to a ‘crime’. Try going and talking to someone who gives a shit about your hate.
Baby.
“I guess we both agree that men have done pretty much everything. Great!”
SOME men did great things, not you tho. You’ve done fuck all to prove your wild claims about male superiority. What great feats have you accomplished compared to us?