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.
No True Scotsman would publish this.
So, I’ve noticed that Hook is, at least, the second MRA here to consistently call Bell Ball. Is this, like, a way to valorize him? By comparing him to testicles?
I THINK I’M ONTO SOMETHING HERE GUYS!!!!!
Sarah – I thought that was backwards? His actual name is Ball but they call him Bell? I’ve seen both so many times I think I’ve lost track of which is right 😛
Hmm, yeah, all the actual news articles I can find say Ball. That’s the correct name.
Sarah: His name is Ball.
Oh. Damnit. There goes my conspiracy theory. D=
(Note to trolls: That is how one graciously admits to being wrong.)
Fuck yeah, Ami! I love the Queen Beetch. How perfect! *hugs Ami*
And I love Johnny Pez’s fanfic too. I’m on the edge of my seat for Parts II et seq.
Oh, and Hook’s original premise is wack. Unless xie’s can link what happened to Tom Ball to Erin Pizzey and her (supposed) experience with British radfems. Erin Pizzey’s purview is/was DV shelters. Neither Ball nor his wife or kids sought help from a DV shelter as far as I can see from what he wrote or what’s been published in any newspapers.
Damn it. I keep calling him Bell.
It sounds like the MRA’s would support the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”
Yes? Common ground?
*giggle*
So you spend an entire post explaining how Marcotte is so mean to MRAs, and such a nasty, unpleasent person, and she really should keep her tone in check… Then say that the actual OP quotes aren’t that bad for her?
Yeah. I guess I’m getting pretty general here. But the point is, I do understand some of the knee-jerk responses that Marcotte gets, because if you’re an asshole a lot of the time, you aren’t going to be given the benefit of the doubt the rest of the time.
And don’t even bother talking about the OP’s links to the MRA’s responses, calling her the “beast of babylon” and “pure feminist evil?”
I don’t like modern feminism, but at the same time I’m not about to identify in any way, shape or form with the MRAs. Those guys are fucking nuts. But they’re also something of a joke. Someone on here recently guessed that there were about 500 really active, self-identifying MRAs. I think that’s probably about right. Seriously. They’ve all just congregated on the Internet (the only place they can find like-minded people) and love obsessively making a big stink in comments sections. (“Father’s rights” I’d say are distinct from the MRAs, are slightly more prominent and much more reasonable). I’ll say I think people like me are more common, ie, those who have a general dislike of feminism but aren’t about to make a Grand Canyon-sized leap of logic and determine that men are wildly disenfranchised in society. But that’s a topic for another post.
In contrast to the MRAs, feminism and Marcotte are not jokes. Feminism is a powerful, if fading, cultural force and Marcotte is a noted agent of that force. That means that yes, they need to hold themselves to a higher standard than the freaking men’s rights activists. Sorry. That’s the price of being taken seriously.
Pecunium,
Yeah, have you ever noticed that MRAs like to throw around the phrase ad hominem but they really have no idea what it really means, much less any sensibility that they themselves love to use it?
(Of course you have. Rhetorical question.)
A little late to the game, but look, I rated a specific response from Slavey, just for reminding everyone that he’s a lying liar who lies:
Mockey? Hell yes. As for the hatred and misandry… Thanks for giving me a chance to once again drag out my well-worn stock response:
“I don’t hate men. I hate assholes. It’s not my fault if YOU think those are the same thing.”
It pretty much distills my experiences with feminism, going all the way back to high school.
Captain Bathrobe,
it’s not just MRAs who throw “ad hominem” around as a reflexive defense every time someone accurately identifies an idiot as an idiot. In fact it’s exceedingly rare on the internet to find an accurate ad homimen accusation.
Oh noes, if we don’t stop making fun of MRAs, some person named “Michigan” isn’t going to take feminism seriously!
Hmmm… something is telling me that anyone who thinks that making fun of MRAs takes away feminism’s credibility wasn’t going to take it seriously in the first place.
SallyStrange: It’s exceedingly rare. It just happened to Rachel Maddow on The Today Show
Marcotte: Agent of the Force.
Not to defend all of MRAdom… but
Yeah. I guess I’m getting pretty general here. But the point is, I do understand some of the knee-jerk responses that Marcotte gets, because if you’re an asshole a lot of the time, you aren’t going to be given the benefit of the doubt the rest of the time
Michigan does have a point there. Tho whether it’s fair for what she’s said in the past and how they’ve interpreted it, is I guess a discussion for other ppl. xD I mean there are lots of ppl that ppl here prolly would take harsher said by some than others… simply b/c we know of what they generally have been like in the past so there’s a way we read it, even if in a vacuum or to their supporters it might seem just great… : As I said before, I dun like Marcotte either (for different reasons, tho maybe historically they might be similar? I dunno xD I dun keep track of who finds Marcotte’s stuff problematic xD ) and so when I read stuff of hers, while I try to be fair, I still have that history there. And it’s not just even that, there’s also that the mindset that I found problematic before i still there, or maybe I just THINK it’s still there xD Either way, it does colour the way I read it and I’m less likely to give the benefit of the doubt… and maybe that’s not fair, but I get it :] (just in the same way we’re more likely to give leeway to like.. ME… rather than Roissy, b/c ppl know what he generally thinks and what I do, so context is added in)
but I do get that they are reacting to the whole of Amanda and how they see her… : (as I said, fair or unfair)
Since I went to bed, here’s a bit on patents. Under the British common law rules that states applied until the federal law in 1790, women could not hold patents. After that, women were not barred by the federal law, but women in states without property rights were legally barred from owning the patent and often from having the patent in their own name. When married women’s property rights increased, the number of women’s patents exploded. http://invention.smithsonian.org/centerpieces/ilives/womeninventors.html
Think I might have posted that last one on the wrong thread….
I am finally reading the screed that Ball wrote and the man really was not taking responsibility for his actions.
He admitted he hit his child to the point of drawing blood and got lucky because the state charged the wrong thing. No concept as to why a person would be less trusting in the future with him and the kids in the future.
He admitted he did nothing to save his marriage. So his ire at the family court is because he refused to do anything that could have kept him out of family court.
The family court judge gave him a way to see his kids unfettered-he refused because apparently sticking it to “the man” mattered more.
He probably could have avoided most of his pain and suffering had he been willing to be more of an adult and actually tried to work with his (ex) wife instead of being so petulant.
Testing.
The ERA! Hah, Rachel Maddow had a great bit about that last night, talking about all of the objections to it back in the 70s… the ERA would outlaw single sex bathrooms!! OMG!! This is a bad thing why exactly? Personally I think single sex bathrooms are one of the stupidest ideas ever.
Like PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth, just got around to reading this crapsack’s nauseating screed. And I have zero sympathy for him.
Busted a kid in the face hard enough to give her a split lip, refused to even negotiate with the system to reduce his payments, plus pretty much outright endorsing terrorist violence. And all those people agreeing with him, saying that it’s time to put down the keyboard and pick up the gun.
But I have to wonder, what precisely is it that makes him and them believe us quislings and collaborators have a problem defending ourselves? Because last time I purchased a firearm, there wasn’t a question on the background check form that disqualified “manginas” from owning guns. Just something our would-be insurrectionists might want to think about before they start trying to line people up against a wall.
Yeah… Having been a soldier… I have some familiarity with both the use of them (and the principle of application, there’s a reason the Lybian rebels need outside support, an it’s not that they lack fervor) and the attitudes of other soldiers toward the idea of insurrection.
They suffer from the common belief among fringe movements, that there is a vast wellspring of support, just waiting for the signal to rise up and throw off the chains of oppression. This is usually not the case.