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.
darksidecat said: 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
Not sure that is true, although I admit that I know next to nothing about the history of patents in the US, nor am I interested enough in the subject to do the necessary research. Can you verify that women were LEGALLY barred from holding patents in the US? Women could always own property in the US, so that doesn’t sound right. It could be a feminist urban myth.
And if women were denied patent rights, is there any anecdotal evidence of women inventing things for which they were denied patents? I’ve never heard any stories like that, but I’m sure some feminist can enlighten me.
Magical Laura said: 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?
Laura, dear, you know nothing about me and I know nothing about you (nor do I wish to). Your question is simply a diversion. We ain’t talking about me, we’re talking about men versus women in the context of modern feminism.
And please try to refrain from ad hominem attacks. They prove nothing.
(But I did invent cold fusion once. Really, I did too.)
Darksidecat: Females own 65% of the wealth in the US, and have access to a lot of wealth that is nominally owned by males. In terms of wealth, privileges and lack of responsibility, American women in the 20th century were the most fortunate human beings in the history of the world.
I seriously doubt that the 21st century will be as kind to American women.
“Females own 65% of the wealth in the US,”
Citation?
To all my friends and admirers, I am leaving the site for now. But this has been a lot of fun, like stirring a hornets nest. I hope we can do it again real soon. Love and kisses.
‘We ain’t talking about me, we’re talking about men versus women in the context of modern feminism.’ – Bucky
Actually, we’re talking about the unfounded believes of one random internet troll and how wrong it is.
‘And please try to refrain from ad hominem attacks. They prove nothing.’ Bucky
You use this phrase…ad hominem. Do you actually realize what it means? Insulting you and calling you a dumb fuckwad, which indeed seems warranted all things considered, is not an ad hominem attack.
*Beliefs.
“And please try to refrain from ad hominem attacks. They prove nothing.”
Oh I am sorry for my logical fallacy, I should have been seriously indulging the idea that all men are somehow ‘superior’ to all women… Wait.
If men are inherently superior you should be able to prove that. Of course you can’t, because it’s not true. That is why presuming ‘inferiority’ because of gender, or race, or any other cultural group, is STUPID.
“Females own 65% of the wealth in the US”
Errrrr… Where did you possibly get that fig—
It’s cool, you have apparently left already.
That is because it is not. My statement was, “She never states that she is expressing her opinion. Rather she presents her opinion as fact while mocking Ball for killing himself and making fact-free assumptions.” While your head did not explode, it does appear that you do not understand the concept of nuance. To state and to present are two different things. Marcotte does not state that Ball might have or appeared to or perhaps or seemingly — opinion indicators — killed himself over something, but that “Ball killed himself in a fit of obsession over a divorce that happened ten years ago […] and his obsession was clearly fueled by his engagement with the online anti-feminist community.” That is clearly her opinion, but she presents it as fact, and slanders the man and men’s activists in the process.
That does not mean that Ball’s brother spoke for Ball’s ex-wife. For all we know his ex-wife has nothing to with Ball’s family.
But if you find that, that is your opinion. That is not what he actually stated, which is what is in contention.
That is your opinion. Nothing is stopping anyone from discussing the sad human tragedy of a man feeling so boxed in that he lit himself on fire to kill himself. All the issues related to how horrible that person must feel, the situation that person must be in, that person’s mental state, and how people around that person missed or ignored the warning signs has been traded for trashing the man as serial abuser who killed himself to guilt his ex-wife and daughter.
@VoiP: I provided quotes in my above comment. If you chose not to read them, that is fine, but they are available.
Regarding your other comments, consistently misrepresenting Ball’s reasons for committing suicide and using it to attack a group one disagrees with does count as relishing his death.
Secondly, quoting Marcotte’s inaccurate speculation about Ball’s statements is not proof that the speculation is based on Ball’s statements.
Thirdly, my comment about the smugness was about comments made on this thread, not Marcotte’s comments, although her comments are quite smug and conceited, which is her general writing tone.
Fourthly, a throw-away comment like “To be very clear, I feel bad that Thomas Ball killed himself” does not negate an entire post that trashes the man.
Fifthly, Marcotte did not talk about Ball’s mental state. She talked about her opinion of his motivation for committing suicide, and fabricated elements of Ball’s motivation to suit her views. If she believes he killed himself to spite his ex-wife, she can believe that. However, there is no evidence supporting that. In contrast, there is evidence in Marcotte’s article and throughout her writings demonstrating that she harbors a very negative opinion of men and men’s issues, which would influence her opinions about Ball.
Finally, I am using logic. It appears to be the source of our disagreement. If one wants to attack the opinion of those who view Ball as a martyr, one can do so without bringing Ball into at all. Instead, those people attack the other side by misrepresenting Ball’s reasons for committing suicide and then wrongfully equating Ball’s actions with the opinions of the other group, which is a common political tactic designed to cause readers or viewers to associate their opinion latter with the former. In other words, classic association fallacy.
Not at all, my dove. I’m sure you’re quite lovely.
I was merely musing on the similarities between George and Logan. The only thing I know you have in common with them is word-choice, you beautiful little flower you.
Spearhafoc! Apropos of nothing, really, but I thought you should see this:
http://jrblackwell.tumblr.com/post/7018152057/for-my-friends-on-the-executor-via
Oh, what I wouldn’t give for a starfield suit.
http://manboobz.com/2011/02/15/factchecking-a-list-of-hateful-quotes-from-feminists/
There’s a whole post that debunks a bunch of these quotes, duncan. You should read it.
From that post : ‘Given how poorly this list held up to my fack-checking attempts, from now on I will consider this list and others like it spam, and delete any comments that link to them.
If any of you antifeminists still feel the desire to post “evil feminist quotes” in the comments here, you may do so, but only if you (or the list that you link to) provides clickable links to the original sources of the quotes in question. If you can’t provide a link to the source, I’ll delete it.
When I quote from MRAs and MGTOW-ites and other misogynists on this blog, I provide links to the sources. What’s so hard about that?’
Yaz said: Actually, we’re talking about the unfounded believes of one random internet troll and how wrong it is.
Your saying something is wrong doesn’t actually make it wrong. Perhaps you don’t really understand how logical arguments are constructed.
Yaz said: You use this phrase…ad hominem. Do you actually realize what it means? Insulting you and calling you a dumb fuckwad, which indeed seems warranted all things considered, is not an ad hominem attack.
Now you’re just being unpleasant. Are you really Carl Yastrzemski, the ball player?
Magical Laura said: If men are inherently superior you should be able to prove that. Of course you can’t, because it’s not true. That is why presuming ‘inferiority’ because of gender, or race, or any other cultural group, is STUPID.
If demonstrating that men invented almost everything useful and women almost nothing does not constitute proof of male superiority, I doubt if there is anything I could say to convince you. I do not find that at all surprising. After all, you are magical.
Magical Laura said: “Females own 65% of the wealth in the US”
I’ve seen that figure numerious times in various articles, etc. Now I realize that most feminist are mathematically and logically challenged, but stop and think about it for a moment. Of course, the 65% includes all private wealth women HOLD JOINTLY with others (such as marital property), all inherited wealth, and all wealth created and owned by women. How the hell could it possibly be less than 65% (of course the total of all wealth owned by men and women is way over 100%, because a lot of wealth will be counted twice.
Duh.
yaz i read the original sources, i wouldnt have posted them otherwise, im looking at what you have written and i really hope the term mysoginist was not aimed at me because i have really, really tried to create a middle ground here , the point behind me using those was to illustrate that there are man haters and extremists within the feminist mindset , i had the misfortune to be in the audience during bbc question time a few weeks ago to listen to one of them germain greer try and turn the idea of a goodnight kiss from daughter to father into something sexual , i posted these in an attempt to show that these people have said some wild things, hell sweeden till recently had excerpts of the scum ( society for cutting up men ) manifesto used in the shelters they ran , my point remains the same, this ill man who killed himself and has hurt his child by leaving without answers was no a self identified MRA and right now feminisim is using him as a rather large stick unfairly .
Yaz,
FYI:
ad ho·mi·nem /æd ˈhɒmənəm ‐ˌnɛm, ɑd-/ Show Spelled
[ad hom-uh-nuhm ‐nem, ahd-] Show IPA
–adjective
1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.
Your saying something is so doesn’t actually make it so. Perhaps you don’t really understand how logical arguments are constructed, Buckster. The person asserting something is true needs to BACK IT UP. With facts and stuff. You haven’t done that.
‘Now you’re just being unpleasant. Are you really Carl Yastrzemski, the ball player?’ – Bucky Boy
So that would be a no. You don’t understand that someone insulting you outright is not actually an ad hominem.
You apparently don’t understand the concept of logical fallacies or logical arguments. Kudos to you. Double Failure.
Spearhafoc said: Not at all, my dove. I’m sure you’re quite lovely.
I was merely musing on the similarities between George and Logan. The only thing I know you have in common with them is word-choice, you beautiful little flower you.
Thanks. Now I feel much better.
and i think i will step back from discourse, after reading that page and seeing that this seems to be a “your either a feminist or a mysoginst” style of page there seems to be no hope for discourse without insult ….. as such im afraid you will miss the chance to actually have two sides rationally debate issues that matter to them , just because i disagree with feminisim as it exists today ( and i come from a family where my granfather was excommunicated from the church for joining the communist party as he belived it was the most morally right politics ) so i have been raised to stand by my convictions and to listen and talk sometimes i have even been swayed by arguments , but tell you what , go read the eve bit first blog , the comments about killing men and enjoying it etc etc ( i wont link as i refuse to give hate speech bandwidth ) and you will see why some people have knee jerk reactions to what feminisim has become , I have re read every post i made on here every single one is moderate in its wording and context and i gave the examples for the reason of showing why people should keep their powder dry when it comes to throwing accusations about groups instead of looking at individuals, i was actually in my words if reread stating that not all feminisim is what is seen in public discourse as the man hating aspects … im starting to wonder just now.
To those who I talked to and were friendly, listened and replied , thank you for the talk and the respect ….. mods maybe you need to review things because this is sad.
@ Duncan.
I didn’t write that. It’s a quote from the owner of this blog, David Futrelle. I identified it as being from that post that I linked to.
@ Bucky the Bandit
An ad hominem as logical fallacy is, in fact, disregarding someone’s argument because of said insult. That hasn’t happened. Your arguments are disregarded because they have no merit. The insults directed at you are icing on the cake. Therefore—>not a logical fallacy on the part of Magical Laura.
Yaz,
Since you are unusually dense, let me try again. “Ad Hominem” is a Latin phrase that means “Against the man.”
When you respond to an argument by attacking the arguer’s character, reputation or intelligence, whether your attack is true or not you are making an “ad hominem attack.” You are arguing “against the man” rather than against the man’s argument.
This is a logical fallacy because no matter how bad or stupid a person is, their argument could still be valid. I hope I’ve cleared it up for you, dumbass. Oh, sorry. That was kind of ad hominm.
@Buck Swamp:
An ad hominem attack is in the context of a debate. In other words, it is the statement that “So-and-so is X, therefore so-and-so’s argument is false.” Simply saying “so-and-so is X” is not an ad hominem, as Yaz has repeatedly told you.
@Duncan Macleod:
Provide the sources, then. The point of the article Yaz pointed to is that the quotes were false, and nobody bothered to source them. Upon further investigation, they turned out to be misquotes, fabrications, or lies. So again, if you want to argue about what famous feminists say, provide sources.
Here’s the problem though. There are radicals in every movement, this you agree with. The difference between Feminism and the MRM is that we can point to moderates in our community, and we routinely distance ourselves from the more extreme/hateful statements “radfems” make (no MRA here seems to care about that distancing much). And yet, when we ask for what moderate MRAs exist, the ones here suddenly grow very quiet. Hence our assumption that the MRM is largely a cesspool of misogynistic hatred.
I personally never try to attribute views of the MRM to a specific person, especially those who show up here. I always try to take each person on a case by case basis, and take it from there. What many trolls here tend to do is quote extreme statements by feminists and say “Ha! You all must believe this, because feminism does!” Not only does feminism not believe that, but even if major feminists did, that doesn’t mean we do.
I’m so glad to hear it, my sweet.