Thomas Ball is now famous in the men’s movement; his act of self immolation in protest is emphasized and pointed out, to the point that he is being called heroic. Some people are even using this as an advocacy or justification for violence. Before you make judgments about him, you shouldread what he had to say.
And here are my thoughts: 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.
We need to regard and acknowledge him, not just for his own suffering and battles with the legal system, but also for the points he makes in the numbers he found regarding things like domestic violence.
Also, in confession if I heard he slapped his kid, when things started I would have given custody to the mother. He slapped his kid once, and just because the majority of the country sees it as a just method of punishing children doesn’t mean it isn’t one. I would have separated him from his kids in the initial stages just as fast. And in reality, I don’t know what I would have done from there in the long term regarding custody.
However, there are other misconceptions going around that need to be clarified. First, he did not wish this to punish his wife or children, nor did he advocate for allowing abusers to stay in their homes regardless of situation. In fact he advocated that homeless shelters be open up to men as well, as this could remedy the problem in itself.
The man is not a martyr, a hero, an abuser, or a coward. He is just a protester who was in great pain, and it
Some time last year, I wrote about the Pink Industry-a series of businesses, primarily safety services that are female oriented and entirely female employed under the notion of protection from men. The clear problems are that it demonizes men, and makes women excessively paranoid for cash, completely ignoring the possibility of female abuse, violence, and lesbians (another concern was taxi cab drivers hitting on people they were driving).
There were a few complaints that I equated women only gyms and salons with women only taxis and trains. And in the text of the article, to an extent they are right. The reality is, that some of them, are not as terrible as others, so it is time we break it down.
At the bottom of the list, I put female only gyms. Gyms, are designed to all out exploit insecurity of women of being judged by men, but they are also judged by women which they cannot avoid. The greater message is also “we don’t judge here” (similar to a sleazy bar). Does it make men look bad? Yes, but it is just a groan, not a scream. To see the worse parts click here
join the facebook revolution!
Updated 23rd-June-2011 at 04:32 AM by zetamale
The family law practice is and has been the main concern of fathers rights movement. But how can we rate family law legislation? What should a "fair and just" family law legislation look like? In this part, a few criteria are discussed. 1. Parenthood First.
"If a person is a child (under 18), the person cannot be held responsible for parenthood without involvement of their parents (the newborn's grandparents), attorneys or both." No child support shall be required from victims of rape. Rape perpetrators shall automatically lose custody rights.
[For example, when a teenager under 18 is supposed to provide child support, the teenager cannot be held legally responsible without involvement of his parents or attorneys since the teenager is not of the age of majority.] When?: Raped minors, a 12-years-old kid paying child support, other raped minors. 2. Parenthood honesty.
"No person shall be financially liable for child support unless the parentage is scientifically established or the person acknowledges the parenthood. At any point in the child life, if a person realizes not being the biological parent, that person shall retrospectively from child's conception never be liable for child support." [Money is not "the best interest of the child". The society just don't assign parenthood to any person who happens to be with more money than the biological parent. Any time a person is to be forced to pay for child support, a DNA test should precede the first check. The child has all the rights to know who their real, biological parents are.] When?: Required to pay regardless, incarcerated putative parents, fraud.
3. Child Support Golden-Rule
"A parent who has paid child support but later found parenthood fraud, will be entitled full refund the child-support money paid, with the same interest, method of
Updated 24th-July-2011 at 05:26 AM by Daylight
When we look at the successes of the women’s movement, the biggest two noted are the right to vote, and the freedom of choice between workforce and family. Unfortunately, the latter also came at the cost of less happiness for women. This is a predictable outcome, when you consider the “what might have been” factor. When you have an abundance of choices, you will wonder what life would be if you took a different route. On a particularly bad day, or a time where you have some empty time to think, this can lead to a bit of mental suffering. The world is a cold place, and when you change your life plan, in hindsight there will always be a bit of regret. You may not wish to change things, but part of you will always wonder what the world would be like if you made a different decision.
So will we see the same in a successful men’s movement?
If we break away the necessity of being the provider and having a family, men are going to see an abundance of options in life and more freedoms, due to the new choices. Especially if there is a financial/social abortion document. Imagine what it might be like to see someone that was almostyour child but you decided not to raise them. We might have to deal with the “what might have been” factor ourselves. Who hasn’t looked into the past and wondered if life would be better if they made a different decision? It’s not too unreasonable to say that this is going to come out of a successful men’s movement, especially when we look at options of choice for men.
The next question would have to be, “is it worth it?” See why some hesitation may appear here Join the facebook page before the flesh-eating virus gets you
In order to understand the full context of this post I refer to you here to db0's blog.
I think I made a bad and unjustified comment on his blog about the topic of feminism. I said I think feminism on the whole was misandric. This is obviously untrue and a strawman to boot. I don't really like identity politics, especially in the context of gender rights. I yank ideas from both MRAs and feminists, I gladly do this. It suits my purposes. Indeed, my actual attitude towards gender politics is "egalitarian humanist" I am a non-feminist and a non-MRA.
The knee jerk assumption of misogyny from MRAs honestly provoked me to make a similar statement about feminists. I do think that both feminists and MRAs can be sexist(and many are). For many sexists, it is my opinion that they use the labels to have some sort of legitimacy for their sexism. The egalitarian aspects of both the MRM and the feminist movement should be emphasized and the sexist rhetoric/actions needs to be minimized or non-existent.
I do like the "kyriarchy" idea, and I think it's more accurate than saying men have more power than women by default. I personally see class as the biggest indicator of oppression and I do think that sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. can add on to that and make it worse. However, I think the issues are not so black and white, sometimes the same issue can be looked at in different ways and in different angles. It also seems to me that many people are looking at offensive comments as though they are really signs of deeply rooted oppression. Well...as a queer woman, I have been offended several times about the assumptions about my moral character, my attitudes about heterosexual people, or even my attitudes about sex. I wouldn't say I was oppressed.
As an anarchist, I am for the empowerment of people to be responsible and ethical members of society. This also means we have to recognize and address bad behavior when
In some states in the US you can lose a driver’s license if child support is backed up too much. It doesn’t make much sense-how are you going to get to work to pay support if you can’t drive there? Now in Canada your credit ratings might suffer as well. The idea is to restrain these men from spending and having money because they won’t pay for child support.
There are a few things rather illogical about this. The first is, it hinders the economy. How can people who are having their finances cut actually spend money and put forth towards job development? Even worse, how can they make money in order to actually pay the child support if you hurt credit ratings so they can’t get a roof over their heads?
Doesn’t make much sense. And it gets even trickier.
It is hard to determine (during the paperwork process) which people can’tpay child support and which people won’t. There is a huge difference. No matter what you think of child support laws, those who can’t pay are put in a worse situation than those who won’t, because they are treated the same way and get unjust punishments.
So why don’t we consider something else. Why don’t we give assistance to people who are struggling? By assuming that they can’t pay instead of won’tpay we can work with things like job assistance to keep these people employed, well fed, and able to survive on their own we can then move on to also working to help their children. We do more damage by punishing everyone for the what the few are guilty for than by helping everyone, and punishing those that don’t follow through in the end (those that are then proceeding to do well after receiving assistance can have assistance taken away/garnished wages/etc.).
Punishing these men, who often don’t deserve to be punished doesn’t help the kids. If we really want to be in the “best interest of the child” it needs to be about getting the child the best and most
Very rarely do I bitch about shit like this. I actually hate identity politics. I hate them with every moral fiber in my body. Yes, I frequent MRA sites and blogs, but I still frequent feminist blogs, despite finding most feminists to be insufferable due to the oppression olympics that pervade them.
The fact of the matter is, we are all oppressed, some more than others and that's not limited to any characteristic, it's related to classism and state-capitalism. I know that, and hopefully you know that. A man is screwed by social factors that force him into a soldier/robotic servant role and a woman is screwed by those same factors that forces them to be dependent on the state or others by being a baby machine. Whether you want to call these factors "patriarchy" or not, doesn't concern me, what matters if you recognize that we are all screwed by the system. The state isn't our friend, it has proven that consistently, and yet it still has the audacity to call itself our friend. Heh.
The system of statism and capitalism creates an hierarchy that favors divisiveness and and hierarchical relations between people and anything that doesn't fit at the top(99% of people) are oppressed. If there is anyone above us, we are by necessity, slaves; anyone below us are our slaves. We need to start looking at people as our equals, whether we have an advantage or disadvantage. We are all in this together and justice requires us to look at people as equals and start working together.
So what about identity politics? They are very divisive. I do not have a problem with say a MRA bringing attention to an issue affecting men, but attacking women is divisive. I actually have the same attitude towards feminists, it's one thing to bring an issue affecting women out in the open, but for fuck's sake don't blame men or attack men. It is fair to address selfish behavior in both men or women, but it isn't fair to paint all men or women like that. NAMALT
“If there be a human being who is freer than I, then I shall necessarily become his slave. If I am freer than any other, then he will become my slave. Therefore equality is an absolutely necessary condition of freedom.” -- Mikhail Bakunin
It is often said that socialism is unnatural and that it is incompatible with libertarianism. This is a lie. My vision is that socialism is first and foremost about freedom and therefore about overcoming the domination, repression, and alienation that blocks the free flow of human creativity, thought, and action. I do not equate socialism with planning, state control, or nationalization of industry, although I understand that in a socialist society (not "under" socialism) economic activity will be collectively controlled, managed, planned, and owned. Similarly, I believe that socialism will involve equality, but I do not think that socialism is equality, for it is possible to conceive of a society where everyone is equally oppressed.
At this juncture, you might be wondering what the hell are the libertarian parts. The simple answer is that I am in support of limited government though I could easily justify no government. My personal vision is a socialist minarchy, though I accept that most libertarian socialists/ left libertarians are anarchists and will support anarchism in the event that I am unable to justify a state(which after some thought I think there are legitimate functions of a state*). I think equality is a valid part of freedom and after some deliberate thought, one requires the other.
So you might be wondering what's wrong with capitalism. Well, the problem that I see with it is that it is an exploitive system and is authoritorian. The problem with capitalism is that it creates shit heaps called neighborhoods and reduces the poor and other disadvantaged workers to animals. This is anti-human and not good for human dignity. It is true that I accept the labor theory of value
A great criticism of those who defend people from false accusations is that we are dealing with such a small minority of the population that it is not a major issue from a larger standpoint in society. The False Rape Society, which shares a story of a false accusation just about every day, only qualifies as anecdotal evidence of a handful of disasters in these peoples eyes.
So how many people need to be harmed by a false accusation for it to be considered a problem?
I would say 11% is a decent size, and that is actually what we have.
SAVE recently did a bit of a survey. Yes a bit over 1 in 10 people have been falsely accused of some form of domestic violence. Note that this is not specifically rape, or what percentage of claims are false rather what percentage of people have actually been accused of a domestic crime they did not commit.
1 in 4 of the accused are men, and 70% of the accusers were women, and a bit less than half of the accusations are of a sexual nature. Everyone has blood on their hands as an accuser, and no one is safe from an accusation.
1 in every 4 false accusations occurred during a divorce. This is not a surprise, if anyone is surprised by this; I think the shock is that it is sow low as 70% of alleged instances occur during a divorce after a lawyer has been seen. Along the same lines, the majority of the falsely accused are attacked for child abuse. I have a bone to pick with them, but I will get to that later.
There is a disturbing ignorance in America, when less than half of Americans have heard of any form of false accusations. I was 15 when the Duke scandal occurred, I was not involved in men’s rights at all, but I was well aware of the false accusation. I didn’t know all the details, but with cases like that all over the media, I feel a sense of shame for the society I reside in. If a kid can hear about a case like that through the grapevine, then far
Let's begin with a strain of thought:
Do I think that LGBT organizations should help fight for heterosexuals? Yes, I do, actually.
Modern feminism has put people into a state where they’re starting to force themselves into an Us vs. Them mentality. I see it all the time. I’m pan-romantic and demisexual but I always see LGBT organizations purposely make others that prefer the same sex seem like “aliens”. Opposed to trying to get people to understand them and find common ground, all of the focus is on making LGBT people to be these loud, unapproachable individuals. We’re all human. Why do we feel the need to keep dividing ourselves from each other?
Yes, LGBT orgs have their obligation to spread awareness and fight their issues. That’s not what I have a problem with. I feel as though it’s trying to take an eye for an eye in a battle for equality here. By trying to define themselves as people worthy of respect in all areas of society and invading the ‘straights only’ club, they’re creating a ‘gays only’ club. I’ve even talked to feminists about this. There ARE instances in the LGBT community where some people start to see their issues as more relevant or harsher than heterosexuals.
Straight people commit suicide. LGBT individuals commit suicide.
Straight people lose their jobs. LGBT individuals lose their jobs.
Straight people have emotional issues. LGBT individuals have emotional issues.
Straight people are struggling economically. LGBT people are struggling economically.
Straight people get bullied and hated. LGBT people get bullied and hated.
We’re ALL the same and like modern feminism, I don’t like the fact that these movements are so adamant about ignoring other groups because they feel as though it’s justified.
I don’t even like attending LGBT events because I feel as though a great deal of the people in there blow themselves up to be special snowflakes. Yes, we’re all
antimisandry.com is a voluntary-sector organisation supported mainly by member reader donations.
If you wish to reduce the advertisements, sign up and log on as a registered member.