Not everyone in the MRM is hailing Thomas Ball as a martyr. Here’s what the blogger at Rise of the Zeta Male has to say on the subject:
What happened was a tragedy, and he absolutely should be honored for his fight. But at the end of the day, I still think his methods, and advocacy for violence (see the Molotov cocktail section) are wrong. The only thing violence breeds is more violence, and I am not going to excuse that, just because he proves a point I stand by. This was not an act of self defense, it was not an act of selfishness, it was an act of self destructive protest and it is a great tragedy.
I don’t often agree with what’s posted at Zeta Male – I’m not sure I’ve ever agreed with anything he’s said previously – and there are things in this comment and the rest of the post that I think are problematic. But I have to give the blogger credit for taking a principled stance on this issue, and one that is distinctly unpopular amongst MRAs online.
Many MRA’s are filled with grief and anger because the mis-treatment that Thomas Ball received in family court is the mistreatment that we have all received. Some of this grief and anger spills out in negative ways. However, the MRM is a positive movement. A movement that seeks equality for men and boys. A movement of hope:
* We MRAs are mostly fathers, who have been cut out of the lives of our children by family courts that believe any lie that a mother says, without question.
* We MRAs are mostly fathers, who know that 92% of primary custody is awarded to mothers.
* We MRAs are mostly fathers, who face hard, multi-year prison sentences if we miss 6-12 child support payments — often due to unemployment or health problems.
* We MRAs are mostly men, who think that men and boys should have equal rights under the law, and equal protection of the government.
* We MRAs are angry at feminists because feminists no longer advocate for women. Feminists advocate against men. Feminism has become a movement of hate. If you need proof, examine the NOW campaign to have fathers thrown in prison for years or decades when they fall behind on child support:
http://rinow.org/legislative-agenda/2011-legislative-agenda-draft-as-of-21411/
What POSSIBLE advantage is there for mothers or children, if a father is thrown in federal prison for 10 years when he loses his job? Think carefully about the words of the NOW. Why are they trying to make “child support arrearage constituting a felony”? It cannot be to help women. A father in prison is a liability for his entire family.
It is simply hate. Feminism is a movement of hate.
The MRM is a movement for equality, legal and political. Feminism is a gender superiority hate movement.
If you are tempted to forget this, ask yourself … why prison? Why not a misdemeanor jail sentence of a few weeks (as has been the case for 50 years)? Jail could convince a man to pay. But prison? For decades? Because of unemployment?!? What are the feminists REALLY trying to do?
Every voice of dissent in the MRM gives me hope.
With any luck, some of the less extreme MRAs out there will branch off from the main body and create their own spaces. Maybe more moderate people who actually care about men’s rights will gravitate towards those groups because the only major alternative group is still a haterage clusterfuck. Maybe, without being surrounded by a barrage of pro-violence, blatant misogyny, and veiled misandry, those offshoots will eventually grow into a legitimate pro-man-focused side of the MRM. Then the radical haters will fade into history alongside such over-the-top feminists as Andrea Dworkin, and then MRAs and feminists can skip off together into the gender equality sunset.
*smiles blithely from within Radically Optimistic Bubble*
Wow that’s very admirable of him :] <3 to him! 😀
(what's a Zeta Male?)
(also the first comment seems to be boilerplate xD )
Jeez, who can tell I didn’t refresh before posting? *bubble pops*
Ami, a Zeta Male is a man who “opts out”. Opt out means the man refuses to participate in society (no employment and no relationships). It is how a growing number of men protest against a government that (we feel) is increasingly the enemy of men and boys.
As to my comment, the only thing I can say is, political repression leads to anger, possibly even over-reaction. Men and boys do not usually have a voice. I was expecting Futrelle to delete my comment. I must admit that I am very surprised that he has not.
The MRA would be much more reasonable, if we did not feel like society was hunting us like animals.
Maybe you can answer me, Ami. You seem reasonable.
Why is the NOW pushing for long felony prison sentences for men who fall behind on their child support? For years, “two nights in jail” was the standard. This usually got fathers to pay, if they could. Things are different, there are so few jobs. Many men simply cannot pay, no matter how harsh the penalties. I am sure that the NOW knows this. So, what are they really trying to do?
There are many states that have already changed the law, in response to feminist pressure. This month, the Rhode Island NOW is trying to make late child support a felony in RI:
http://rinow.org/legislative-agenda/2011-legislative-agenda-draft-as-of-21411/
Thanks for your answer.
Rly? o_O *I* seem reasonable? xDDD (Crack Emcee and NWO and others would disagree w/ you xD )
As for NOW, I’m not them, maybe you should ask them 🙂
Anthony, how does a man “opt out” with no job and not become a drain on the government (getting welfare or whatever doesn’t seem like an effective protest) he despises? I’m not trying to be a smart-ass, I’m truly curious as to how this works.
“This month, the Rhode Island NOW is trying to make late child support a felony in RI”
No, it’s already a felony if it’s $10,000 or more. They want it to be $5,000 or more.
You know, like if you steal a car. Even a used one. It’s a felony. This is money the kid is supposed to eat on.
I’m meeting a lot of ppl I’ve never seen before on this blog before :O yay! 😀
“* We MRAs are mostly fathers, who face hard, multi-year prison sentences if we miss 6-12 child support payments — often due to unemployment or health problems.”
If you’re unemployed you go back to court. LIke my friend’s husband, who always mysteriously got re-employed every time his child support was cut to zero or near-zero.
Hi Anthony,
I know your question was directed to Ami, but I’m going to weigh in with my two cents.
I think you are conflating NOW with all feminists. NOW is indeed an organization that considers itself feminist, but I am not convinced that NOW accurately represents most feminists.
In some senses, the term “feminist” is so broad it’s almost useless; at the heart of the matter the only real ideal connecting these diverse groups is that they believe in gender equality. When you start asking individual feminists or feminist groups what that means, and how it can be best achieved you will get a myriad of different answers.
Much like any other large group of people sharing a core belief (say, the Christian community, Muslim community, atheist community, pagan community, or Hindu community) you will find that there are a range of viewpoints that often seem to have little to do with each other.
I would argue that feminism is far from a hate movement. There may be hate factions within it, but they are far from the norm.
@oldfeminist
That is how it used to be. After pressure from feminists like you, courts simply say “get a job, and quick”. Courts rarely modify a child support order due to unemployment. Family courts have changed over the past 20 years. For a mother, they are all smiles. For a father, they are cruel, inhuman, capricious, and compassion-less
“Courts rarely modify a child support order due to unemployment. ”
Citation, please.
@oldfeminist
Your car analogy indicates just how bigoted and cruel you are:
“No, it’s already a felony if it’s $10,000 or more. They want it to be $5,000 or more.
You know, like if you steal a car. Even a used one. It’s a felony. This is money the kid is supposed to eat on.”
People are not thrown in prison when they lose their job and cannot make payments on a car. In the 1980s, the only debit in the US with misdemeanor non-payment penalty was child support. But that was not enough for feminists like “oldfeminist”. Only felony, multi-year imprisonment is enough “punishment” for the crime of being born male.
Those of you who feel that MRAs are “over reacting” should read “oldfeminist” and her justification for felony imprisonment of fathers who lose their jobs.
“Those of you who feel that MRAs are “over reacting” should read “oldfeminist” and her justification for felony imprisonment of fathers who lose their jobs.”
And you should go read what I said about diversity within feminism.
Is feminism a hate movement? Lets contrast the comments from feministe concerning the death of Thomas Ball -VS- Osama bin Laden.
PrettyAmiable, on bin Laden…”I’m not happy, per se, about bin Laden, but the Hussein thing sickened me.”
PrettyAmiable, on Thomas Ball…”Also, I’m sure it’s inappropriate to laugh at someone’s suicide note, but this is the best line by far: “No wonder the Speaker of the House is always crying.” hahahahahahahaha
Obviously she feels Ball was more worthy of her scorn than bin Laden.
Raja, on bin Laden…”Under International law we had the right to kill Bin Laden because he declared war on us and engaged in hostile actions against our country.”
Raja, on Thomas Ball…”This man is sick. I’m glad he did the world a favor and ended his life its a better place without him, however it is disturbing that people are taking up his cause.”
It seems bin Laden’s death was justified but garnished no negative or positive emotion. While Thomas Ball’s death brought joy and happiness.
Of course I could go on with more of their comments, but many of you seem to have an aversion to reading more than a few paragraphs. It would seem mockery, hatred and ridicule reign supreme when talking about Thomas Ball. While with bin Laden, there was actual anger expressed at anyone who said they were happy in any way with his death. There wasn’t any ridicule or mockery.
@Anthony Zarat
I have to take the trash out, so I’ll just leave you with some questions:
When a man is made caretaker of the children and his female ex doesn’t pay child support on time, is she ever punished?
If these men lose their jobs, why do they not notify the court of their changed status?
Does the law explicitly state the punishment is for people of a specific gender?
S0023
Would decrease the amount of child support arrearage constituting a felony from $10,000 to $5,000
H5411
Would decrease the amount of child support arrearage constituting a felony from $10,000 to $5,000
This are the bills that Rhode Island NOW supports. But these are amendments. What do the bills they are hoping to amend say about unemployment? I know other laws specifically make exceptions for unemployment. What are they in this case? (the links lead me to a wall)
Links please!
‘Nother troll with selective reading skills.
NWO, you should probably have mentioned that none of those quotes are from comments here.
Oops. You did.
Or maybe you did. Are those quotes from the blog feministe, or was that a typo on your part — ie, were you trying to type “feminists?”
I ask only because you and accurate typing do not generally go together.
@theLaplaceDemon, you say…”And you should go read what I said about diversity within feminism.”
Well I’m afraid that doesn’t work, precious. If you are garnishing privileges by law, due to the members within your faction you are culpable. Every law that gives women privilege, entitlement and power over men has been obtained thru the efforts of your privileged group. You LIKE those privileges that you enjoy in all sphere’s of society. YOU enjoy the security of knowing that at any time you can use one of these many privileges and entitlements. YOU like being able to wield the guns of the State; to use men to subjugate other men, which is all feminism ever was.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1909/09/women.htm
Dave, those comments are from your sister site. Doesn’t feministe foot the bill for this site?
It is how a growing number of men protest against a government that (we feel) is increasingly the enemy of men and boys.
That’s the dumbest protest, ever. You don’t change things by surrendering your power – you change things by becoming powerful.
Also, you probably missed the last time I brought up Actual Real Facts ™, but here you go, taken directly from the U.S. Census report:
* Mothers are the custodial parent in 82.6% of the cases, fathers are custodial parents 17.4% of the time. This isn’t a perfect 50/50 – but when you look at the stats of mothers who are primary caretakers pre-divorce vs fathers who are primary caretakers, it’s actually pretty even. Whoever was primary caretaker pre-divorce gets primary custody.
* 57% of custodial mothers are awarded child support. Only 47.1% of mothers awarded child support received the full amount. 33.3% of custodial mothers who were entitled to it received no child support at all. The numbers are fairly equitable when it comes to women paying child support (yes, women pay child support – 40% of custodial fathers were ordered by the courts to receive child support).
* 81.7% of non-custodial parents who were ordered to pay child support also had some sort of joint custody or visitation worked out.
For what it’s worth, I know a guy who owes about 45K in child support and has no intention of paying a penny of it. And he still sees his kids and is not threatened with jail time. Also, I spent about 5 minutes on Google, and now know exactly what I would need to do in my state in the eventuality that I lost my job and needed a child support payment plan to be modified (hint: all it involves is filing some paperwork with the court and then a hearing).
Anthony
From the link that you provided, they’re supporting a proposal to decrease the felony child support arrearage threshhold from $10,000 to $5,000. There’s no information on “sentencing” – presumably because there is no “sentencing” as such. I’m not really that familiar with the vagaries of US state laws, but I would guess that this is because the failure to pay is “contempt of court”.
Quite how a state court matter translates into 10 years in federal prison escapes me – perhaps you elucidate, you know, with actual examples of real life individuals that this has happened to.
I’m pretty sure that the minimal standard for being sent to jail is “wilful contempt” – ie the ability to at least pay something, but refusing to do so. Generally speaking, I would guess that those jailed for wilful contempt decide after a couple of nights that paying something is the better option…..
Technical contempt – ie the verifiable inability to pay via job loss, reduction in income, medical or disability issues – is probably not going to get you jailed.
Why is NOW supporting this? Perhaps because the $10k arrearage threshhold is being abused.
Given the current economic climate, is this the best time to be doing this? Perhaps not, but I would note that the other side of the equation is, you know, a kid, or kids who may be in a difficult situation as a result of the arrears.