Categories
antifeminism misogyny MRA oppressed men threats violence against men/women

Amanda Marcotte on the Thomas Ball suicide, and MRA haters

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

436 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Buck Swamp
Buck Swamp
9 years ago

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.

Buck Swamp
Buck Swamp
9 years ago

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.)

Buck Swamp
Buck Swamp
9 years ago

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.

theLaplaceDemon
theLaplaceDemon
9 years ago

“Females own 65% of the wealth in the US,”

Citation?

Buck Swamp
Buck Swamp
9 years ago

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.

Yaz
Yaz
9 years ago

‘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.

Yaz
Yaz
9 years ago

*Beliefs.

Magical Laura
9 years ago

“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.

Toysoldier
9 years ago

It’s weird that he didn’t get that stating that Amanda didn’t say “This is fact” in her blog post was a parallel to his argument that since she didn’t use the word “opinion” she must have meant what she wrote to be read as fact.

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.

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’.”

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.

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.

But if you find that, that is your opinion. That is not what he actually stated, which is what is in contention.

As far as turning Ball into a scapegoat, I haven’t seen that here.

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.

Toysoldier
9 years ago

@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.

Spearhafoc
9 years ago

I may be misunderstanding your post, but I get the impression that you don’t find me physically attractive

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.

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

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

Spearhafoc
9 years ago

Oh, what I wouldn’t give for a starfield suit.

Yaz
Yaz
9 years ago

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.

Yaz
Yaz
9 years ago

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?’

Buck Swamp
Buck Swamp
9 years ago

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.

duncan macleod
duncan macleod
9 years ago

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 .

Buck Swamp
Buck Swamp
9 years ago

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.

Yaz
Yaz
9 years ago

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.

Buck Swamp
Buck Swamp
9 years ago

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.

duncan macleod
duncan macleod
9 years ago

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.

Yaz
Yaz
9 years ago

@ 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.

Buck Swamp
Buck Swamp
9 years ago

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.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

@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.

Spearhafoc
9 years ago

Thanks. Now I feel much better.

I’m so glad to hear it, my sweet.

Yaz
Yaz
9 years ago

‘An ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.’

wikipedia

‘An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim’
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

So there you are. Insulting a moron, like yourself, is not ad hominem. Using that insult to discredit an argument is.

This is a fallacy = Everything Bucky says is wrong because he’s a moron, is ad hominem.

NOT a fallacy = Bucky’s argument is wrong because of the following reasons [insert reasons], what a moron he is.

Double Fail again. Be proud.

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

@kirby

My non-identifying as feminist and my supporting of men’s rights is often, very often on feminist blogs, seen as basically “my being an asshole who wants to rollback women’s rights”.

So yeah, if you interpret everyone who doesn’t agree with everything feminist as an extreme misogynist, you won’t ever find moderates – you define them out of existence.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Bucky-boy… I wasn’t arguing about Amanda Marcotte’s opinions. I was arguing with your contention that you had proven what they are. The difference is subtle, but important.

If you want me to believe you, then support your claims. Contrary to what you think, telling people that there is lots to find which supports you, isn’t argument.

As to your bigotry, it wasn’t an attempt at argument. It wasn’t an attempt at argument… any more than your declarations of what your bigotries are was argument. It is, howevever, enjoyable to point out that you have declared cognitive biases. Those aren’t argument, but they are relevant to the honesty of your behavior. You have declared you think less of women’s aruments; not because of their merit, but because of the speaker.

That’s bigotry, self-admitted, and relevant to any argument you claim to make about the validity of an argument made by a woman. I am not trying to shame you (you flatter yourself, the self-declared intellectual blinkering you have inflicted on yourself is only of concern to me in direct relation to how many people might be persuaded by your words. I don’t think anything is going to shame you. Your sense of victimization is your problem)

Pointing out that bigotry isn’t shaming, it’s what you aren’t doing with your accusations about Marcotte: showing what you have publically said.

I guess we both agree that men have done pretty much everything. Great!

A misrepresentation, ans a lie. What Yaz said was that women were prevented from doing things they were capable of. You have said men, “did everything but have babies” because having babies was all women were capable of doing.

Not only is this provably false from historically obvious figures (Queen Elisabeth,Melisande, Molly Pitcher), but the actual research data on stone-age societies in the modern world (the best examples being in Highland New Guinea) show that men, in practical terms, lazed about and killed each other, while women did most of the food generation. Cultural transmission was about 50/50. Had there been nothing but, “babies” from the women, the men would have starved, been living without roofs, etc.

Ad you really need to look up some simple terms, Argument, ad hominem, shame… they don’t mean what you think they mean.

re Women owning 65 percent of the wealth in the US… I’ve seen that figure numerious times in various articles, etc. Then you should have no problem citing it.

Pretty simple… you type {a =href(url)} “text” {/a}. Just replace the curly brackets with angle brackets. So simple a child can do it, so it ought not be a problem for a man of your amazing intellectual gifts. I mean really, citations… I see women doing them all the time, so I am sure you must be able to.

And since you are trying to convince women… whom we know are a little dense; and who are being foolishly resistant to the truth (just becuase they don’t like you) a little smackdown with actual facts would be just the thing to put them in their place.

Come on, you can do it.

Pecunium
9 years ago

duncan mcleod: yaz i read the original sources, i wouldnt have posted them otherwise, so you read the Marylin French novel, and understand that the quotation you cited (and in such a way as to make it seem it was said more than once) is that of a fictional person in a work of fiction.

What did you think of the story by the way?

Or, perhaps you didn’t read the actual source; but rather some online link to a story about the novel, which attributed a fictional character’s opinions as those of the author, much as people try to say Heinlein thought blacks were white-hating cannibals because of the plot points in “Farham’s Freehold” or that Elizabeth Bear believes Christopher Marlowe sold his soul to the devil because of the Promethean Age books.

speedlines
speedlines
9 years ago

Hey, did you know William Shakespeare advocated killing all lawyers?

ithiliana
9 years ago

Molly: Oh, sorry, my mistake about Woolf and PLath: it wasn’t their own writing that stated that, but some of the readers/fans/academics writing about them. They are very much canonical writers (within the Anglo American feminist canon), and in the classes I had and the scholarship I read, the biographical approaches to their writing and the writing itself was read in ways that….over time began to seem disturbing. I’m not see that as much anymore, although that may be a function of me doing other scholarship!

I love Woolf’s work, and admire, cautiously, Plath’s — it was how some feminist literary critics were reading them that disturbed me.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Bucky-boy: Time to go back to school.

Logical Fallacies (see how easy that was?)

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)

Because it’s a category, there are several types of ad hominem fallacy. I’d list them all, but I don’t think you will actually read them.

That, btw, wasn’t an ad hominem, it was a rhetorical device… insult. Insult isn’t wrong, per se, though it’s methodological use is one which requires care. duncan mcleod engaged in it, with ahis parenthetical aside that Amanda Marcotte was doing more ham than good to feminism; which he didn’t support, and which his later comments that disagreeing with him = discounting him for disagreeing, rather than being wrong; which calls his entire line of argument into question as coming from someone who isn’t arguing from an honest position, but rather one which has received truths, much as with you and the discounting of women’s arguments, because they are from women – which is a different fallacy.

But you can go to the link, and look up the various forms of ad hominem. Perhaps you will even decide to learn what they mean, rather than just throw them around as a way to avoid arguing and merely stop debate.

ithiliana
9 years ago

Voip: If you want to know what the future will look like, imagine a teenager..slamming the bedroom door..FOREVER

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!

*wipes tears of laughter from eyes*

**Hands you the Orwellian Parody Reference Internets Award**

ithiliana
9 years ago

Buck Swamp: Women could always own property in the US

Bullshit. Black women and men could not own property while they were property. American Indians and property rights has a long complicated history which you can google if you wish. Women from the various immigrant groups were not treated the same. White women could not in fact always own property–and it probably differed from state to state which is why the whole state’s rights things if fucking crap. Women could not even KEEP their own ages legally some places until it changed: from wikipedia: In New York, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, and Ohio, women’s property rights had expanded to allow married women to keep their own wages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_States

Property rights

During the 19th century women in the United States and Britain began to challenge laws that denied them the right to their property once they married. Under the common law doctrine of coverture husbands gained control of their wives’ real estate and wages. Beginning in the 1840s, state legislatures in the United States[45] and the British Parliament[46] began passing statutes that protected women’s property from their husbands and their husbands’ creditors. These laws were known as the Married Women’s Property Acts.[47] Courts in the 19th-century United States also continued to require privy examinations of married women who sold their property. A privy examination was a practice in which a married woman who wished to sell her property had to be separately examined by a judge or justice of the peace outside of the presence of her husband and asked if her husband was pressuring her into signing the document.[48]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights#Property_rights

So what you say is total fucking bullshit in this case, and in other cases as well. You know nothing, and are too arrogant to admit you know nothing, that you’ve just been sucking up propaganda.

Plymouth
Plymouth
9 years ago

his seems to be a “your either a feminist or a mysoginst” style of page

I don’t identify as a feminist and I don’t believe I’ve been accused of being a misogynist. At least not here. Sometime in the history of forever it may have happened once or twice 🙂 (also, sometime in the history of me I may have actually been one. When I first figured out that gender doesn’t work for me I had a LOT of hate and I threw it around rather haphazardly. Teenagers can be like that. I’ve mellowed.)

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

@Schala:

“My non-identifying as feminist and my supporting of men’s rights is often, very often on feminist blogs, seen as basically “my being an asshole who wants to rollback women’s rights”.”

This I do not believe, honestly. If you show up to a blog and say “I’m an MRA,” the worst you should get is a “that’s nice.” If, on the otherhand, you show up to a conversation about women and rape and say “I think we’re all missing the real issue here, what about the huge quantity of guys that are raped every day?” then yeah, you’re gonna be labeled as an asshole. If you aren’t talking to a particularly out-there person, in my experience you will be called out for your actions, not your identification.

Also, for this particular blog, Plymouth is a good example of how “not feminist” does not equal “misogynist” or “asshole.”

Buck Swamp
Buck Swamp
9 years ago

Whew! There sure is a lot of hatred on this site. OK, I give up. People with vaginas are really, really smart! Vaginas are magical, too. And men suck! OK, I get it.

Yaz
Yaz
9 years ago

‘Whew! There sure is a lot of hatred on this site. OK, I give up. People with vaginas are really, really smart! Vaginas are magical, too. And men suck! OK, I get it.’ Bucky McSwampthing

You get called out for being oh-so-wrong and rather than admit it and move on, you engage sarcasm overdrive, accuse everyone of hate, and flounce? How very cute.

speedlines
speedlines
9 years ago

It’s only cute when NWOSub does it. Everybody else is a poor imitation of the original.

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

Too bad he can’t stick the flounce. He’ll be back.

Bee
Bee
9 years ago

Toysoldier:

Marcotte does not state that Ball might have or appeared to or perhaps or seemingly — opinion indicators — killed himself over something

Well, except that she does. Listen, I’ve already quoted Amanda’s words to you twice. You seem set on mischaracterizing them and misreading her. What part of “suggested” and “might” do you think don’t indicate opinion?

The rest of what you have to say seems to rest on the theory that you, alone, out of everyone here (Amanda included, although she’s actually not here) have the luxury of giving meaning to words. “Family” can’t include Ball’s daughter or his children’s mother. Ball’s narrative, in which he sets out a story that starts with his daughter licking him, lingers on his ex-wife’s willfully ignorant role in his arrest, and concludes with the malicious actions of his ex-wife’s lawyer bringing him to the brink — and contains not one word about how his actions may have played a part in the resulting outcome — can’t be read as placing blame on anyone. Fine. If the rules we’re using here say that Toysoldier is the only person who is allowed construe a set of words to mean anything, obviously I can’t add anything to that. I think that your reading is wrong, obviously — laughably so in places — but whatevs. Clearly, “family” cannot be read to include someone’s daughter or her mom.

Magical Laura
9 years ago

“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.”

You never ‘demonstrated’ anything, you just said it. Why are we talking only about inventions? Why do you think it was illegal for a woman to patent anything? Which things are men better at than women, according to which evidence?

I admit it, I am too magical to think myself crippled from birth by my vag. Prove I am.

“I’ve seen that figure numerious times in various article”

Yeah, well I read a book once that said men are all rapists so I guess it must be true!* Link to your source,

*I don’t think all men are rapists. For the slow.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Bucky-boy: Whew! There sure is a lot of hatred on this site.

Since you decided not to cite the “hatred” let me help you out (one man to another)…, that was an argument by dismissal, just in case you ever want to call someone else out for doing it to you.

Buck Swamp
Buck Swamp
9 years ago

Magical Laura,

OK Laura, the fun’s over. I get it. In this war every inch of ground will be fought over. Nothing will ever be stipulated. No quarter will ever be given.

Were most inventions created by men? Hell no! Prove it! Did Amanda Marcotte say what she said? We deny it! Prove it!

I get it. It’s radical feminism or Hell, and nothing in between. It’s hatred and more hatred forever. I finally get it.

Yaz
Yaz
9 years ago

@hellkell ‘Too bad he can’t stick the flounce. He’ll be back.’

Well, you called that one right. 😀

Pecunium
9 years ago

unreal man: Repeating yourself doesn’t change anything. The grammatical content of what you said is what I responded to. If you want me to respond to something, you have to say it.

You didn’t say it, so I couldn’t respond to it. It may be what you meant to say.. but it isn’t what you did say.

If you want to go into the details… here is the relevant comment from me,

Citation needed. You want to say that nowhere in the Ball’s writing is any of the things Marcotte is inferring directly said, then you either have to show specfic statements which are textualy, “bigotry, sexism and perverse satisfaction over someone’s suicide.” Otherwise you are a demonstrable hypocrite.

It’s demanding toysoldier hold himself to the same standard he’s trying to hold Marcotte to.

toysoldier said, in response:

In his suicide note Ball stated that his ex-wife made a decision to protect their children from the state which in turn punished him. Unless you consider telling his version of what occurred as implying blame, there is nothing in his comments that blames his daughter or ex-wife.

Which I said was keeping two standards. He can’t show where Marcotte said any of the things he’s saying are in her message. He admits it:

I see it in the willingness to grossly misrepresent Ball’s reasons for committing suicide. I also see it in the willingness to use that misrepresentation to attack those who agree with Ball’s opinions regarding family courts. It is not just that people have done it, but that they smugly do it and seem to genuinely enjoy minimizing a man’s suicide to support their own views.

He says she (and unnamed others) enjoy minimizing a man’s suicide to support their own views. When challenged to back this up with a quotation he says,

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.

So, he admits she doesn’t say it… he just sees it. But we aren’t allowed to “see it” in Ball’s suicide manifesto, not even when he lays it out. To infer his meaning/intent, is verboten; but to declare as fact hers, is.

And that (go back and look at what you said, not what you meant to say… it’s all there; diagrammed and everything) is what you told me I wasn’t allowed to do.

English, it has rules. If you want to be understood, you need to follow them.

ithiliana
9 years ago

Buck Flounce: I thought you left before my comment was posted — but look here, refutation of “women could always own property in the US”:

http://manboobz.com/2011/06/27/amanda-marcotte-on-the-thomas-ball-suicide-and-mra-haters/comment-page-5/#comment-34993

My ability to google is not linked to my vagina, btw, nor is knowledge of a subject (in this case, women’s history) necessarily related to intelligence (depending on how you define that very slippery term).

You were wrong. Man up and live with it.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Magical Laura: I think we can award you The Palm

Thank goodness the fun isn’t over.

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

“This I do not believe, honestly. If you show up to a blog and say “I’m an MRA,” the worst you should get is a “that’s nice.” If, on the otherhand, you show up to a conversation about women and rape and say “I think we’re all missing the real issue here, what about the huge quantity of guys that are raped every day?” then yeah, you’re gonna be labeled as an asshole. If you aren’t talking to a particularly out-there person, in my experience you will be called out for your actions, not your identification.”

I went on feminist posts that says that female on male domestic violence was a minor problem not needing funding, and disagreed.

I never even identified as MRA – I’m not, either. I’m also not a feminist. I abhor this tribalism of us vs them. And sorry, but Finally Feminist 101 has told me that sexism against men cannot exist by definition – so I can’t support that.

Schala
Schala
9 years ago

I also generally reply to comments, even if they are a derail – much like threads on this blog at time. So it might not be the post itself.