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.
@Molly Ren
In aswer to your question, “Does the law explicitly state the punishment is for people of a specific gender?”
Yes it is gender specific. The Bradley Ammendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Amendment
Also, each state is given millions of dollars from the Federal Guv to incarcerate only men who are unable/unwilling to pay their extortion payments. The more men you imprison, the money you get.
Anthony, your first post seemed quite reasonable, but then you lost me when you got to “Feminism is a movement of hate.”
There is a balance that needs to be found, but when you paint feminism as a “movement of hate” instead of reaching out in good faith, you make it difficult for some of us to want to help find that balance. And believe it or not, there are those of us who do want to help – http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/ (no, I’m not one of the contributors there).
Hey NWO – “Every law that gives women privilege, entitlement and power over men has been obtained thru the efforts of your privileged group.”
[Citation needed][Citation needed][Citation needed]
That link you provided? It’s an opinion piece from 1909, full of assertions without evidence. Please explain how that supports your statement.
@NWOslave, the earlier link you provided is basically 1.) Women are stupid, 2.) votes are useless (with the example that the author himself, presumably a male, doesn’t vote.)
Re: the Bradley Amendment: according to Wikipedia, the reasons offered for people not paying include “being in a coma”, “captive of Saddam Hussein” and, basically, “unable to use the legal system”. I am not terribly convinced.
I read the wiki article on the Bradley Amendment, but I couldn’t find any gender discrimination in there.
Also, each state is given millions of dollars from the Federal Guv to incarcerate only men who are unable/unwilling to pay their extortion payments. The more men you imprison, the money you get
Citation needed.
Also, an edit: I said in my previous post that 33.3% of custodial mothers did not receive any form of child support. This is wrong, the correct number is that 23.3% of custodial mothers do not receive even partial child support. 26% of custodial fathers do not receive even partial child support. So the Bradley Amendment would conceivably apply to those women in arrears.
@Victoria von Syrus…When you say primary caretaker what you’re doing is relegating a man who works and a woman who stays at home as nothing more than an ATM.
Isn’t the mans job in that situation at least as important to the “care” of the child as the woman who stays at home? How, in that situation, is his role any less “caring” than hers?
@NWOSlave, child support payments aren’t usually enough all by themselves to support someone. Many single mothers AND fathers work.
Anthony Zarat: * 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. and refuse to go to the courthouse and petition for relief.
FTFY.
I looked at that Rhode Island law you are so upset about.
I took advantage of the Rhode Island Child support calculator. Let’s run some numbers.
First… the law is equally applicable to men and women. The non-custodial parent is the one who pays support.
A custodial parent with an income of $0.00 is to be given $847.00 if the noncustodial parent has an income of 5,000 per month.
The present law means it would take a year of non-payment before any action could be taken.
The actual percentage of income the NC parent is paying, is just under 17 percent.
If the Non-custodial parent is making only 30,000 a year (2,500 a month) the burden is a bit higher, as a percentage, at 20 (i.e. 600 a month). That would take 17 months before the $10,000 threshold kicks in.
If both parents are earning money the amount the non-custodial pays is a lot less. If they are each making 24,000 a year, the Child Support is $368 a month. It would take 28 months to reach the $10,000 threshold.
I’m not seeing a real problem with this, from a purely logical standpoint. Making someone wait more than year, if they are without any income to care for their children is excessive. Making them wait more than two years, while supporting the children alone (and it’s not as if the non-custodial parent wasn’t involved in making the kids) isn’t fair either.
Cutting that to six months, or a year..? Doesn’t seem evil, esp. as the non-custodial parent can petition the court for reductions, suspensions, etc. If one refuses to take part in the process, and the process is known, one takes risks.
I have some mixed feelings about prison for debt… but there is also the question of the interests of the child.
It’s also not “decades”. The most the state can impose in the RI law is five years. That’s the maximum. I can see a court, in the interests of the child, making a suspended sentence. so long as the non-custodial parent in arrears is paying, they stay out of jail. It’s certainly what I, as prosecutor, would be pushing for.
Why? Because the “two nights in jail” wasn’t getting them to pay. Past failures lead to new methods.
@Victoria von Syrus I think NWOSlave just focused on this bit: “The amendment was intended to correct a perceived imbalance between the power of the obligee (usually the mother) and the obligor (usually the father) during subsequent child support disputes. It had been alleged that a significant number of men were running up large child support debts and then finding a sympathetic judge, often in another state, to erase them.”
Damn, I think we chased Anthony away. He was shaping up to be such a nice troll, too. : /
@Victoria von Syrus…When you say primary caretaker what you’re doing is relegating a man who works and a woman who stays at home as nothing more than an ATM.
There are quite a few primary caretaker fathers. It’s estimated that the number of full-time, stay at home dads is somewhere between 2-3% of parents, but the government estimates that fathers who are the primary caretakers could be as high as 20%. Any sort of ‘relegation’ is only happening in your mind, because you apparently can’t distinguish between ‘primary caretaker’ and ‘sole caretaker.’
No one ever said that the non-primary caretaker’s full time career is unimportant. But when it comes to driving the little tykes to school, helping them with their homework, scheduling doctor’s appointments, providing meals, laundering clothes, choosing a safe and reputable daycare or babysitting service as needed, keeping a clean and safe house… what, are you saying that’s not important and that the only measure of ‘care’ for a child is strictly monetary?
Lastly, the mother stays at home and takes care of children while the father works model of the family is based off old gender norms. You know who’s all about trying to dismantle those gender norms to make family and child care more equitable? Feminists.
Dan: http://www.cse.ri.gov/services/enforcement.phpState Criminal Prosecution
An individual who has incurred past due support in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or who has willfully thereafter having the means to do so, fails to pay for over a period of three (3) years, shall be guilty of a felony for each instance of failure to pay and upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for period not to exceed five (5) years. These cases are referred to the Attorney General’s Office for prosecution.
Bonds
I’m confused.. how are a couple commenters (or ALL the commenters) on feministe responsible for the supposed feminist conspiracy state was live in? o_O did they make the laws? xD NWO also believes that we’re benefiting from the banker controlled world too, does nebody who works at a bank then speak for us too? xD
@Victoria von Syrus
Plain and simple, in a household where only the man works and the woman stays at home. Is his contribution any less beneficial in the “caring” of a child?
My answer of course will be no. He is an equal “caretaker” in the childs welfare.
Whats your answer?
Anthony Zarat: Courts rarely modify a child support order due to unemployment
Citation needed.
. Only felony, multi-year imprisonment is enough “punishment” for the crime of being born male.
Um… no. 1: Imprisonment is the heaviest penalty which may be imposed. 2: It’s not for being male. It’s for having open, and longstanding, failure to fulfill a court order. 3: It’s on any non-custodial parent.
NWO: Primary caregiver = one who is the, “first responder” for things. The one who is making the lunches, changing the diapers, picking them up from school.
In short the one who is doing such things primarily.
If “Daddy” wanted to spend his time at work when they were married, and just contribute money… then it seems fair to continue that arrangement after the divorce (and vice-versa).
NWO, the bill for this site is $0, so, yes, Feministe covers all of that nothing.
Given how a lot of these trolls honestly do seem to believe all feminists and women are linked together in one big hive mind, or we have meetings and votes or.. well something where *I* can get a msg up to our elders who will then enact some sort of law thru our mangina leaders (or something xD ) it’s starting to make a lot of sense to me why their idea of activism is shouting at feminists online xD b/c since commenters at feministe are able to affect policy, and we’re like their.. i dunno buddies or something.. changing our minds is the best way to get actual change IRL xD
David, he means the OTHER things you get … fess up
@Victoria von Syrus
Plain and simple, in a household where only the man works and the woman stays at home. Is his contribution any less beneficial in the “caring” of a child?
My answer of course will be no. He is an equal “caretaker” in the childs welfare.
Whats your answer?
Of course he’s providing for his child(ren), but he’s not doing the majority of the hands-on child care… because he’s too busy at work.
In the case that this couple divorces, where the father works 40+ hours a week to support his family and the mother spends all of her time at home taking care of those children… with which parent ought the children live? I mean, you just said that the father is busy working – he might not even have *time* to take care of the children properly.
@NWOSlave: “Plain and simple, in a household where only the man works and the woman stays at home. Is his contribution any less beneficial in the ‘caring’ of a child?
“My answer of course will be no. He is an equal ‘caretaker’ in the childs welfare.”
Sure, someone has to bring home the bacon. But even though that’s extremely important, it’s not *everything* you have to do to raise a kid. You need to say, feed them, read them stories, change diapers, and make sure they don’t bite their siblings.
If you were a stay at home dad, and your wife came home from work, would you expect her to help you do the dishes? Hold the screaming baby while you took a nap? Take them on playdates? What if she refused to do any of these things because “I went to work today, my half of childcare is done”?
@Pecunium, you say…”If “Daddy” wanted to spend his time at work when they were married, and just contribute money… then it seems fair to continue that arrangement after the divorce”
The vast majority of men are in low paying jobs, or not making very much more than needed to simply survive. Also the reason they call it “work” is because it ain’t fun. Whatever coddled life you might lead doesn’t reflect on the average Joe. My guess is, not many men, including myself, jumps up in the wee hours of the morning screaming hallelujah, another day of hard labor.
Yea thats right, daddy doesn’t really “want” to go to work. He does it to provide and be the primary caretaker of both his wife and children. And you have degraded that down to a vile act. Congrats!
I have a bit of a soft spot for the Zeta Male. He seems so darn fragile. Which is a nice-ish change from all the brittle guys the MRM usually attracts.
Good researchin, Pecunium. I always have to wonder about these horror stories I hear on the internet about good fathers being locked out of their children’s lives by awful moms. I have no trouble believing that it happens sometimes. But out of all the divorced couples with children that I know, I can’t think of one of them where the father has not been granted at least visitation, without very good reason. Like, he abused the mother. Or he abused the child. Or he’s a drug addict. Hell, even in those cases (and even in the ones where the father refuses to pay support), the fathers I know generally get extensive visitation rights; the only difference is that the mom ends up in court a lot more trying (unsuccessfully) to fight it.
Oh well. Anecdotes! Where was I going with that? Oh yeah … I always suspect that in a lot of the MRA sob stories about family courts, there’s some details we’re not hearing. Maybe not in all of them, but at least in some.
Yeah, this isn’t one of those MRM sites where everything’s moderated to within an inch of its life. Nice, ain’t it?
And @NWOSlave once again thinks all men work in coal mines and all women have one perfectly behaved child to take care of. Why, childcare is no more work than cleaning out a gerbil cage once a day!
NWO, thank you for posting that interesting article from 1909.
It is very thought-provoking. For example, it provoked this thought: If the great-great grandson of E. Belfort Bax, the author of your article, were to marry singer Danielle Dax, and she chose to go with a hyphenated name, she would be Danielle Dax-Bax.
I would also like to call your attention to this article from 1920, which gets to the bottom of a movement even more sneaky and evil than feminism.