posted by Helen at 1:38 PM
Monday, June 27, 2011
Contributors
Previous Posts
- "The report's findings fly in the face of conventi...
- USNews.com: "One fifth of all men of prime working...
- Happy Father's Day!
- "As OK Cupid has demonstrated, women rate 80 perce...
- Ned Holstein and Glenn Sacks: Bill would give 'dup...
- Facing Violence
- The PickUp Artist
- "... no one can picture that same legal fate befal...
- What if Shriver had to pay for a child that wasn't...
- The wonder of Matt Drudge
95 Comments:
I don't think it is a particularly "American" notion that whenever I take my pants off, the government leaps into legislative session.
There are billions of dollars that go from A to B because of the divorce industry and the efforts of the Fuck-the-Father crowd.
And THAT is why Thomas Ball's Wikipedia page was erased. If this snowballs, certain people stand to lose their careers.
When a lucid citizen prefers a fiery death over the American Judicial Process, people murmur about revolution.
They left Thích Quảng Đức up. Of course his snowball made it to the bottom of the hill and melted a long time ago.
i don`t think he was lucid. not in the psychological or the legal sense.
in his world he chose searing pain for a brief period vs. long term agony of whatever HE believed he was going to face.
that`s usually how it happens when we make decisions; we weigh up the costs and take the most cost effective option...in this case, a fireball.
again, not what we would choose, but what he came up with.
i have personally felt despondant to the point of physical agony over not being able to see my children during the seperation process with my ex, and on one occasion i was so broke i couldn`t afford to feed them on the week-end they were due to stay, but never once felt that i had the right to kill myself to stop the pain.
to me that is so self-absorbed as to be beyond words, and to suggest that he was acting out of some meta-purpose to speak for all men in similar circumstances and that his actions could alter the tide of judgements against men is laughable.
and one of my teachers characterised suicide as a short-term solution to a long-term problem.
one of my teachers characterised suicide as a short-term solution to a long-term problem
Suicide seems pretty long-term to me.
ha ha....
This comment has been removed by the author.
Helen,
Clearly, if more people know about Thomas Ball, they will figure out that there is a shadow state that operates outside of the US constitution, under the guise of 'feminism'.
Helen, you MUST write a book on misandry. If Kay Hymowitz can write an extremely ill-considered and amateurish book that is logically flawed from the get-go, you can do something way better. You could go down in history as someone who made a big difference. You have an 'instaplatform' that others don't have. And no man would be taken as seriously as you would (sad but true). So really, you are the only person who can do it.
You have vast resources to draw from. From Paul Elam to Roissy to The Misandry Bubble.
You could tie it to an 'Army of Davids' theme too, given that wikipedia is choosing to no longer be an 'Army of Davids' when offending feminists is a risk.
Do it.
kmg,
I have talked with publishers about writing such a book--mainly one for men as an audience. Their take? Men won't buy it. I don't know if they are correct or not. Maybe they won't. Maybe they will. Maybe men don't respond to that type of platform. Maybe a good book that captures the real feelings and thoughts of men in our modern society hasn't been written.
I think men's issues are human issues and their real feelings and issues need to find a way out into the larger society before more people like Mr. Ball end up harmed or dying from despair, disgust and in some sense, oppression.
However, a woman burning her husband alive is not only relevant, but heroic. Make a movie of it, have one of the most beautiful actresses play the part.
Men are irrelevant and will continue to be so until enough of them rise up and say, "Enough!"
BTW - dr. Alistair, you got the quote reversed. Suicide is a long term solution to a short term problem.
Helen,
Their take? Men won't buy it.
I don't know. Men's Rights blogs have pretty sizable traffic.
Is Stephen Baskerville's book not selling well?
Separately, in the Kindle age, one can breakeven on the time spent authoring a book very quickly. PUA Roosh is seeing his Kindle sales skyrocket, and his target market is much smaller than yours.
I think even an 80-page book for the Kindle is something that could be worth your while, and could grow quickly.
There are few (well, no one) more suitable to do this than you, at this point in time.
Helen,
Think of it this way - what if your 80-page kindle book saves just 10 lives? 10 men who gain knowledge and redirect their lives accordingly. 10 men who do not commit suicide. Or 10 children who don't experience a broken home, damaging their chances in life?
10 lives.
I'm really beginning to dislike the overwhelming majority of the way things are going in this country.
It is being systematically dismantled in my view. I see the shit hitting the fan within my lifetime, considering what has transpired in the past couple years.
I'm really beginning to dislike the overwhelming majority of the way things are going in this country.
What took ya so long?
It sounds as if your boys are extraordinarily lucky to have you for their dad, Alistair. I can just imagine you all sitting together in that apartment, blankets and egg crates tacked up all over the walls, and everybody sniffing about the superiority of tube amps and swooning over Les Paul Goldtop guitars.
While I am not arguing that this story has tremendous merit and is extraordinarily newsworthy, there is probably one big reason that Wikipedia took it down: the article doesn't read like a third-party, unbiased piece.
I challenge your readership to an experiment: rewrite it. Make Mr. Ball's sad and important story read as unbiased and "newspaper-like" as possible. Then repost. Let's see what happens.
And yes, I am sure that there are lots of other Wikipedia articles that read like fan magazines, but that's not the point. This isn't about them (or media bias, or liberalism, or the MSM ... yet), this is about getting THIS story back on Wikipedia. If it is taken down again, then you have a serious reason for some squawking.
Anyone? Go for it!
Dr. Alistair,
You're remembering it backwards, it was pretty standard Jr. High Health Class "clever phrase on the subject" --> "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem." Made us watch Billy Joel's "second wind" video right after that too...
I like Joelle's reasoning here. At least a more nuetral posting getting wiped would pretty much verify what we're all thinking.
I prefer Dr. Alistair's take on the old saw. If, as I do, you believe this world is just a training ground for the next, then suicide IS a short term solution to the longer term problem of growing as a complete human.
If 'Dr.' Alistair actually has a doctorate, I'm betting it's an EdD.
Dr. Helen,
I run a small publishing company.
If you write the book, I suspect I would be happy to publish it.
Contact me at skellmeyer@bridegroompress.com if you are interested.
Wiki "Articles for Deletion":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_James_Ball
Also, some free-form debate from the deleter's talk page (down near the bottom):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Master_of_Puppets
Thomas Ball shows up as the last entry from the following Wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_self-immolations
I wrote a rather lengthy comment from the point of view of a long time Wikpedia insider, but Blogger has decided to censor, filter or moderate it. (Kind of dampens my enthusiasm.) If you can't rescue the comment, and would like some insider perspective on why articles get deleted, email me.
The deletion is probably technically correct under the Wikipedia rules for "notable" persons. However, as always on Wikipedia, the zealotry with which the rules are applied has a distinctly leftward bias.
One thing that always makes me laugh is when an editor or commenter claims to have no personal interest whatsoever in the subject, but is simply trying to be accurate or enforce the rules. Riigghhtttt... that's why you're here. Because you don't have any interest in the subject.
Of course, if Mr. Ball showed up in a book written by a certain attractive and accomplished psychologist who already has her own page on Wikipedia, then it would certainly be difficult to ignore him and keep his story deleted. ;)
Like he said.
People who are
only known for one event -- especially when the event isn't all that well-known -- don't have a strong case for being "notable" themselves and getting their own WP article.
There are at least two problems with the "one event" line that become apparent with even a little thought. First, it permits a judgment on what is worthwhile by someone. For examole, Omarya Sanchez has a page, and she was just another tragic victim of a natural disaster in a 3rd world country when all is said and done. Who decides these things and judges the "importance".
Secondly, The person makeing these call can actually be impacting the effect of these events. One man lighting himself up in Tunisia started a regional revolution cascade. What if he never got any coverage and nobody new about it? He would suddenly become a not acceptable "one eventer". Perhaps if Ball had actually gotten coverage he might have triggered something along those lines in our "family" court system?
Frankly this sounds a lot more like politicized memory-holing than any journalistic or ethical standing point on wiki's part. I'd wager that someone like Marcottte complained and they pulled it.
This is in response to the posts about writing a book and how publishers don't think that men will buy it.
All I have to say is that it doesn't make sense to avoid writing a book from fear that others will not buy it when the marginal cost of distributing that book is zero.
There would be an opportunity cost associated with writing such a book, but once written it would cost nothing to distribute it to anyone willing to read it.
Andrew Breitbart wrote Righteous Indignation about how to change the country for the better through online activism and efforts at the grass roots level. I know because I read it....in hardback, which makes no sense whatsoever. Had I been him, I would have published it in PDF form and given it away for free.
When the purpose of your work is more important than the money, it doesn't make sense to limit oneself to actions and efforts that make money.
Dr. Helen - Regarding writing a book about misandry - maybe men wouldn't buy it, but I bet women would. We aren't all men haters, and we would like some insight to the effects of runaway feminism and a rebuttal to all of the Strident Sisters on the subject.
kmg, Lee Reynolds etc.,
Thanks very much for the encouragement about the book. I like the idea of the Kindle book. And yes, I have written a book (The Scarred Heart) and given it away for free, so I understand that some topics are more important than money. The treatment of men in our modern society is one such topic. I will consider it. Thanks!
BrendaK,
Good point.
Helen, his page was deleted because of a combination of factors.
1. "Lack of notability" because MSM coverage was minimal.
2. "Lack of reliable sources" ibid
3. Because at best he would be notable for one event, for which Wikipedia has a policy.
Please, everybody, get a grip. Clearly, someone willing to burn himself alive is in serious psychological pain, but Mr. Ball was not killed by the Court system. He killed himself rather than comply with its rules. Having decided that the court system was against him, he bailed out of it; he declined to file paperwork letting the Court know that he couldn't pay his child support because he was unemployed, and as far as anyone knew, he was just another deadbeat. It's an unfortunate but undeniable fact that significant numbers of men simply stop supporting their kids when they don't get what they want. In this case, Mr. Ball's access to his children was limited because he believed hitting a 3-year-old in the face was an acceptable method of discipline. Call me sentimental if you will, but I beg to differ. I don't in any way want to minimize the real problems that families face when they find themselves compelled to work out their problems through the courts. It's bad. It may even be awful. But suicide is its own territory, and no one but the actor bears responsibility for it, or, ultimately, can explain why it seems to better to end one's own life than to carry on. From what we know--which isn't much--Mr. Ball seems to have been a troubled soul with a long history of problems of all kinds. I don't have any useful opinion about Wikipedia's policies, but it may be kind to let Mr. Ball rest in peace.
Michelle,
No, Mr. Ball was not killed by the Court system. They did not take him out and shoot him. They could have, however, caused him to feel that his situation was hopeless and there was not much he could do about it. In the 1980's a teen named Jeremy killed himself in front of his class because other kids bullied him (it's now a Pearl Jam song--look it up). Did his classmates kill him? Of course not. But the entire society is looking at bullying differently and realizing that being tortured at school may have psychological consequences that are extremely negative for society and individuals. People started to take action against bullying and try to help schools to see their part in this mess.
I think that Ball's case should give us pause and start a conversation and change in a court system that is antiquated, outdated and unfair to the male gender. You may disagree and call this man a deadbeat. For that, I think you are being heartless.
Helen, his page was deleted because of a combination of factors.
1. "Lack of notability" because MSM coverage was minimal.
2. "Lack of reliable sources" ibid
3. Because at best he would be notable for one event, for which Wikipedia has a policy.
Sort of works to the advantage of those who control the press doesn't it? The left doesn't want a story in Wiki it can simply point to the fact that the leftist controlled media didn't cover it. Neat...
Please, everybody, get a grip. Clearly, someone willing to burn himself alive is in serious psychological pain, but Mr. Ball was not killed by the Court system.
So then Mr. Ball would have burned regardless of how the court system reacted? Exactly when did we reinstate debtors prison? And who thinks this is a good idea...?
Michelle opines "It's an unfortunate but undeniable fact that significant numbers of men simply stop supporting their kids when they don't get what they want."
---
Around a quarter of men with child support orders are in default in some way or another; over HALF of women with child support orders are. And women are ordered to pay much smaller amounts on average. They also pull the number where the new husband or boyfriend is supporting them - the non-custodial women are living in luxury but refuse to work - and courts will not "impute" income to them like they routinely do to men.
"I have talked with publishers about writing such a book--mainly one for men as an audience. Their take? Men won't buy it. I don't know if they are correct or not."
Helen, one way to find out: self-publish to Kindle.
New Hampshire also produced Carl Drega.
Some of 'em take that license plate slogan as gospel.
Helen, you should write the book. Most men wouldn't buy it, but some might.
Why wouldn't I buy it? Because I am not a victim. This one fact is central to my self-understanding, and defines simply what it is to be a man.
Our society is beginning to recover this understanding. Would your book help?
firstly, thanks to those who kindly pointed out that i dislexified dr.bandler`s quote about suicide...and secondly thanks golddigger...goldtop guitars and tube amps helped me through a rough patch in my life, and sharing precious moments with my children made it all worthwhile.
another of the good doctor`s quotes is that it`s not that you trip, it`s how you get up again that matters.
most of us here have been served injustices of one form or another, yet we bash on.
my time in the company of lawyers brought me to anguish, pain, tears, anger and a whole host of other emotions and the entire experience made me stronger and more able to deal with the next thing that spins my way.
i watched my own lawyer betray me to the system and try to sell me on the idea as good for my children.
i fired her by serving her with papers from her own beloved court system.
legal. final.
i got married again, not because i`m foolish and asking for the same result, but because i have faith in my wife and myself and the things we want in life and the way we do things each day together.
and is there a men`s movement like there is a women`s movement ready to counter the 100 years of feminism? probably not. there certainly are enough men hurt and angry with their treatment at the hands of the court system, but men are a different species than women in that they react differently to media than women and so a book about this issue wouldn`t be on oprah`s list.
the media is by definition liberal and feminist, designed to sell new and improved eye-liner to narsissists and fraudulent investment schemes to seniors.
most men that i know just get on with it, get past the problem, find solutions and put it behind them.
the last thing they want to do is read a book about what they just missed.
unless there is a clear-cut solution provided.
Yikes.
To Helen: I'm not saying he was a deadbeat. I'm saying the Court system has rules, and Mr. Ball refused to comply with them. The Court system may be a mess, but it's what we have. And refusing to play by the rules is a choice. If Mr. Ball had let the Court know that he couldn't pay his child support, they would not have considered him a deadbeat. The Court, by design, only knows the information that is put in front of it. There's no debtors' prison. There are penalties for contempt of court. Possibly heartless, okay, but no court system can function unless it can enforce its own decrees.
To JG: Yes, of course post-divorce misfeasance is an equal opportunity BAD THING. But let's stay on point. Mr. Ball was not, in fact, paying his child support, albeit with mitigating circumstances that he, and no one else, was aware of at the time. Because he didn't tell them.
To PierreLeGrand: Who knows what would have happened to Mr. Ball if he had not chosen this course, which was self-destructive in, let me count the ways. But his marriage fell apart, at least in part, because he was hitting a three-year-old in the face. This does not appear to be a well-balanced individual, although, I'll repeat, we only know what we know. I'm reluctant to make him the poster child for the failures of the court system. Everybody has to own his own actions.
@ Michelle
"I'm not saying he was a deadbeat. I'm saying the Court system has rules, and Mr. Ball refused to comply with them."
So did the resistance during WWII.
So did the followers of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's.
So must any decent human being when faced with tyranny and injustice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
To Paul:
Well, okay. But conflating the Jim Crow south or NAZI-occupied Europe with our admittedly fraught but still relatively civilized society does your argument no credit. By all means, let's agree that no one need comply with any social rule they don't like. Then we can have some real chaos.
If you don't like the court system, by all means, work to change it. But immolating yourself in the public square yards from the library where other people's kids are coming and going is not useful. It's not remotely defensible.
If a woman had slapped her kid, people would be more understanding about it - lots of people were understanding (unbelievably) when Andrea Yates systematically drowned her kids - on after the other - in fact, some feminists were trying to pin the blame on her husband.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr Alisdair is correct: Tube amps are superior. Case closed. All it takes is to play each side by side.
Digital amps are for those who can only be bothered to use the on/off switch.
@ Michelle,
Comparing what is happening to men in family courts to Jim Crow is not conflation. It is a fair comparison, just as it is fair to compare the massive roll back of men's civil rights in family courts to Dred Scott.
And it is similarly fair to compare the reactions of so called "decent society" to what is happening to men and boys in this culture to the reactions to slavery and oppression in the antebellum south.
That is to say, peoples capacity for rationalization is at times almost incomprehensible.
As we speak, family courts, driven by the profit motive of Title IV-D, are routinely stripping men of their children, homes, income, future income and civil liberties with nothing more than the desire of the wife to have it done.
Those who don't comply are legally harassed, stripped of other rights, public demonized and incarcerated.
How much worse must this become before people recognize the struggle as one against true tyranny and oppression?
Would men have to, say, self immolate on the steps of courthouses? Or would that result in more dismissive rhetoric from a general public desensitized and indifferent to their pain?
Oh, my. How would it be if we didn't impugn people's motives or descend into name-calling?
You don't have to be a heartless, hypocritical princess to believe that Thomas Ball is a very sad and singular tragedy personal to him. His situation and fate are not a useful metaphor for the failures of the court system, as many as they are. Ditto Andrea Yates. It's why practically the oldest legal saw in the book is that "hard cases make bad law."
However, you can't run a civilization on the principle that "he made me do it" -- my brother, the court system, "racism," whatever. We may mitigate blame, but we do not absolve people of responsibility because they're unhappy or feel they've been a victim of circumstances, a vast right-wing conspiracy, or whatever.
Thomas Ball's suicide and the problems of the court system are two separate issues, notwithstanding that they intersect within his life. It does not seem at all helpful to me, in addressing the manifold inadequacies of the court system, to say, "See what you made me do?"
While I understand that Mr. Ball had his own problems prior to his death, what is REALLY interesting to me is how people react to his death. I can agree that family court did not kill him, but I can also plainly see how his death is activating the pain of disposessed fathers and abused x husbands.
That is the interesting part. John Brown may have been a loon, but it was the reaction to his death that was so interesting and powerful.
Trey
To Trey:
Exactly.
@Michelle,
Ball was due to go to jail for inability to pay support after 2 years of unemployment.
Going to jail would not affect the outstanding debt, and the support meter would continue to tick over.
I suspect that language is an issue here. If you were thinking of him as "struggling, unemployed Dad" rather than "deadbeat Dad", you might cut him some slack.
The Jim Crow comparison is apt and relevant. Ball was facing debtors' prison, which in all other spheres of law in the US is considered outdated and barbaric.
If a single mother had set herself on fire, there'd be people shouting from the rooftops about it. There would be a "List of female self-immolators" page, and everyone on it would get her own page with a full bio.
But some guy does it, but it's okay, he was just a crazy moron. Not notable at all, right? After all, if he were IMPORTANT, there'd already BE a page on Wikipedia about him, right?
@PierreLagrand
I posted the reasoning to that the comment thread at least had a record of it. As you say, lack of MSM coverage keeps a lot of "inconvenient" stuff out of Wikipedia. Likewise, there are frequent attempts to shore up the cordon sanitaire by arguing that publication X shouldn't be considered a reliable source when they ignore a blackout and discuss something.
For the avoidance of doubt, I think he's extremely notable.
Helen said...
kmg,
I have talked with publishers about writing such a book--mainly one for men as an audience. Their take? Men won't buy it.
Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. They won't publish it because men won't buy it, but men CAN'T buy it because they won't publish it.
Maybe a good book that captures the real feelings and thoughts of men in our modern society hasn't been written.
If there is, I'm not aware of it. However, this book desperately needs to be written. Decades of cultural and institutional misandry, and the accompanying mockery and devaluation of men and the male ethos, have taken a toll on American men and people need to hear about it. Just because men don't generally wear their feelings on their sleeves doesn't mean they don't have them.
To Dead Dog:
When Mr. Ball lost his job, he could have filed a financial affidavit attesting to the fact. His payments would have been adjusted. Financial support is based on income and the amount of time the children are in your actual care. You can't just say, I don't recognize the authority of this court and pick up your marbles.
The Jim Crow analogy is NOT correct. Men do have rights in the court system, but they have to exercise them. It helps if they refrain from hitting their kids.
In all times and places, courts have been influenced by the culture around them, and I don't disagree that women's veiwpoint and interests are given more weight than they used to be, and possibly too much. Women have played the victim card for much too long, but I don't think the situation is improved by men's playing it too.
Unknown said...
Helen, you should write the book. Most men wouldn't buy it, but some might.
Why wouldn't I buy it? Because I am not a victim.
I'm not sure I understand your point. One doesn't have to think of themselves as a victim to have an interest in how modern society treats men or how men think and feel about this treatment and themselves in modern American society.
Michele speculated :
"It's an unfortunate but undeniable fact that significant numbers of men simply stop supporting their kids when they don't get what they want."
Absolutely false. You have been brainwashed well.
Men consistently sacrifice more for their children than most women do.
In fact, if women cared about the well-being of their children, they would not divorce the father of the child to begin with. That is clearly a case of women putting themselves first and their children last.
"Men consistently sacrifice more for their children than most women do."
Please cite your source.
Michelle sez: "When Mr. Ball lost his job, he could have filed a financial affidavit attesting to the fact. His payments would have been adjusted."
-------
Michelle, what happens a lot is the court will "impute" income to a man (they don't do this with women in practice).
The judge may not reduce his child support order. The judge may thunder at him that he damn well better get a job or he's going to see the inside of a jail cell.
That really happens in practice.
According to 42 USC 666 ("Bradley Amendment") and the state implementations, his arrears can never be eliminated by a judge. They keep growing with accumulated interest at the very least, and usually also by the monthly amount if it is not reduced.
You really don't get it.
i can`t see myself becoming part of a movement for men`s rights and more than for any other movement because it won`t work.
there is already one winner in all this and it`s the court system. men and women have to equally deal with this meat grinder...it`s just that women tend to get better results from it.
the meta-reality is that people fighting are much easier to control. it`s classic macchiavelli.
we fight over everything. politics, sport, musical taste, money....
if i said such and such a person here was a narrow-minded asperger`s case with low tolerance for debate, i would expect uproar...so i don`t do it, but if i wanted to control that person`s reactions i would hit that button as much as i could to control him.
life is funny that way.
Is your shift key stuck, Alistair?
If a man loses his job, and he happens to get a tough judge who imputes income to him, his life can absolutely spin out of control.
I've never heard of a judge imputing income to a woman, even one who was living in the lap of luxury, paid for by the new husband or boyfriend, with no kids (obviously - they're with the father if she's non-custodial), and a steadfast refusal to work or even think about work.
Women are the royal class.
Helen,
Since you have picked up on the Thomas Ball story.
I have proven that the FC in Australia is a criminal cartel and that this is back up to the Prime Minister and Attorney General. I am still the only man to have ever done this.
http://www.youtube.com/user/peternolan1109?feature=mhee
Here are some of my lawful notices. You will notice I have lawfully noticed all federal members, all NSW state members, all police officers, all men who employ fathers and all fathers. Of course. The last two I am trying to get the word out.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/97/scope/threads/Default.aspx
You may also want to read this.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/80/threadid/464/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Here's an example of how hard the state can be on child support:
A guy named Clarence Brandley, a janitor at a school (who was making child support payments), was arrested for killing a female student there. He was convicted of murder and put on death row.
Years later, evidence came to light that he had been framed. He was eventually released from jail.
What a relief.
Well, not quite.
The state now came after him for $50,000 in back child support that had built up while he had been unfairly locked away (and unable to earn any money).
Spiffy, huh?
As I said above, there is now an aptly numbered law (42 USC 666) saying that any arrears you have can never be reduced for any reason.
Child support is also absolute, meaning that young boys who were the subject of statutory rape have been ordered to pay child support to the woman who raped them (nominal amount at first, which the parents pay, but when the victim turns 18 he has to start making hefty payments to his rapist). Men have to pay when a woman sticks her finger in the condom or holds sperm in her mouth from oral sex and uses that to get pregnant. A woman had sex with a guy passed out from alcohol, got pregnant and got a child support award.
You can google Clarence Brandley, and you can google this one:
Bobby Sherrill was working for Lockhead in Kuwait and making child support payments. He was captured and held hostage in Iraq for five months, probably expecting to die. When he was released, he got the first flight back to the USA and was promptly arrested at the airport - because he hadn't paid child support during the five months that he sat with a bag over his head, chained to the radiator.
Frankly, I don't feel the love.
Michelle, read this one and tell me your honest opinion:
S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
A guy went to a party at a woman's house. He drank too much and passed out. His brother put him into a bed. Several people testified in the court case that the guy had, in fact, passed out.
In the morning, he woke up with only his shirt on. Two months after the party, a woman who was at the party bragged that she had intended to go to a sperm bank to get pregnant, but he "saved her a trip". She apparently had sex with him while he was passed out. A doctor testified that it was possible, because erection and ejaculation are involuntary body functions. The man had no memory of it, and certainly didn't intend to have sex.
The mother then gave birth and (on top of everything else) sued him for child support. She won.
The guy not only had to pay child support, he had to pay arrears of around $9000 (and he was apparently not a big earner), put her on his medical insurance and pay half of the bills that weren't covered by insurance.
For the lawyers here, you can look that case up in Lexis or whatever you use. For the rest, here's the full case in the Internet:
http://web.archive.org/web/20061114221501/www.nas.com/c4m/S.F.v.State_ex_rel._T.M..html
If that case had been reversed in terms of gender, the man would be in jail for rape. The woman DID rape him, but she gets rewarded.
I invite Michelle (and anyone else) to listen in tonight so that she can hear what men are willing to do in response to her kind of depraved indifference to the pain of men.
We won't be setting ourselves on fire, but we will be turning up the heat quite a bit.
A Voice for Men Radio
JG, those cases are horrific. I wonder how I will get to sleep tonight.
Trey
First, to the best of my knowledge, while some kinds of payment arrearages accumulate interest, I'm not aware that child support is one of them. At least not in New Hampshire, where I live.
Next, I'm not about to defend the outcomes of all divorce and child support cases everywhere for all time. Terrible stuff happens; the court system is a very blunt instrument for solving family issues that, if everyone were being reasonable, wouldn't be in court at all. People go to court when all else fails. By then, you're already in real trouble. But the bald fact is that child support payments, whether made by the ex-wife or the ex-husband, often mean that the payee doesn't have enough money to do anything much except pay. And a large number of people--both men and women--decide not to pay, for all kinds of ingenious reasons, including the conviction that the court system is "unfair."
Court's do "impugn" income when they think people are hiding assets, which they do all the time. I mean, let's face it, we're not a very nice species.
I have absolutely no opinion whatever about the series of "can you top this" horror stories that have been posted. If you think stories like this, even if true, represent the normal operation of the family court, there is probably no basis for a conversation.
I don't for a minute doubt that men get ripped off in divorce courts, but they're not alone. Women get ripped off too, in all kinds of ways. I am willing to believe that the courts are over-correcting in favor of women. But I am struck by the tenor of these postings.
Men's rights are important, but they're not more important than the safety and welfare of a small child. Mr. Ball's marriage ended because he was hitting his toddler in the face to discipline her. If you, as a mother, need to get a batterer out of your child's life, you can (a) take him to court, or (b) take your kid and go on the run. The people who are defending Mr. Ball's actions seem to be column (b), i.e., if you think the system is unfair, do what you need to do. Are we really saying that, as a society, it's the better choice? Really?
This comment has been removed by the author.
And here is how to lawfully not pay a court 'order'. I am alleged to have over USD200,000 in 'arrears'. No-one has spoken to me about this since I sent the BILL for the ORDER.
The only other man who tried this? Worked fine. The judge said "we are not dealing with a sane man here" and threw out the request for child support. The guy laughed his arse off.
I am amazed men are not interested in not paying alimony and child support.
“If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.”
Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment
Helpless and ineffectual? Does that describe any fathers you men here know?
oops.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/111/threadid/392/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Michelle?
I really despise women like you. I really do. I just want you to know that.
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c)
www.peternolan.com
Michelle,
I have the feeling that if I cite statistics, you will say that the individual cases are dispositive.
If I cite individual cases (which I did), you will ignore them because they are only individual cases.
You are playing the "gravity game". Minimize this, maximize the other thing (that you want to present), kind of ignore this, say that bad stuff happens to everyone, mix it all up, and otherwise be generally dismissive and irritating. Keep on it until everything is a gray muck.
Are we cutting into your shopping time or something?
JG, as far as I'm concerned, I grant your point without reservation. You can be quite persuasive when you set your emotions aside and focus on building your case. This was well crafted even though you must have been very emotional when you were working on it.
"...debtors' prison, which in all other spheres of law in the US is considered outdated and barbaric."
I keep seeing this. Has no one ever hear of income tax and the consequences of not paying enough ("your fair share") of it? Why do you think IRS agents carry guns?
Michelle said...
"But conflating the Jim Crow south or NAZI-occupied Europe with our admittedly fraught but still relatively civilized society does your argument no credit"
True. The USA, Australia, UK, Canada etc all have laws that FAR EXCEED what Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin had in place before the outbreak of hostilities. Indeed? In 1936 Stalin recognised that 'no fault divorce' was so catastophic to Russia they stopped it.
Similarly in Nazi Germany not even a BVLACK JEWISH MAN could have his son stolen from him.
So you are correct Michelle. To compare our current system to the nazis or communists does not do the argument justice. We have a MUCH more corrupt and tyranical 'legal' system that Hitler or Stalin had outside of wartime.
Indeed? It is worse for a father today than a slave in southern USA in the days of slavery.
Women like you trying to make light of this? I despise you. You disgust me.
"... I grant your point without reservation."
--
I almost keeled over with the vapors when I saw that one. LOL
Umm, I guess I agree.
"Has no one ever hear of income tax and the consequences of not paying enough ("your fair share") of it?"
---
That's a good point, but there is a difference between submitting a correct declaration and then not being able to pay ... and tax evasion (in other words, lying to them about how much you owe).
In the former case you won't go to jail for the debt.
But I think the income tax should be eliminated, and it really conflicts with other parts of the Constitution (like the 5th amendment for starters, since you have to give all sources of income and then sign the declaration under threat of jail time if you lie).
"Has no one ever hear of income tax and the consequences of not paying enough ("your fair share") of it?"
Income tax is optional. The IRS is a criminal cartel that has no power to take or incarcerate. I no longer pay income taxes because I learned how to volunteer not to pay them.
Aaron Russo covered this in detail in his excellent film 'from freedom to fascism'.
Women brought us fascism by demanding more and more spending from the public purse to benefit women and the women demand the police throw in jail any 'dead beats' who do not pay such things as taxes, alimony and child support.
Well? We are seeing the cops and the judiciary starting to take us VERY seriously now in Australia because we have our numbers to create our courts.
And by the way? In the last 3.5 years? Only ONE Australian woman has stood up to assist me re-introduce the rule of law into Australia.
Pathetic would be putting it kindly.
Women are equal? My arse.
peternolan9,
You know that the actor Wesley Snipes just went to prison for the same kind of thing that you are spouting.
I hate to say it, but you are presenting things like the typical crackpot. You don't listen to anyone else, you think you are on a higher mission and you are throwing around lots of things, left and right, that experts in each field would find very questionable.
That's really my take on it. I realize I will simply be dismissed.
Feminism: "I'm smarter than you. I'm better than you. I make more money than you. I have a career. You can't tell me what to do!"
The Male Response: "Buy you own house, bitch."
It really doesn't get any more simple than that.
I've read this thread and found most of it predictably boring. Hey, you don't like the court system? Fine. Then either change it or stay out of it.
Torching yourself on the courthouse steps to prove a point that no one will pay attention to doesn't accomplish anything.
Ultimately, the truth is this. She cannot abandon you, she cannot betray you, force you to pay for another man's child, she cannot bankrupt you if you do not marry her.
The terms and conditions of the contract are clear. Of course the court is going to favor her and disfavor him. So, don't enter into the contract and stay out of court.
We're not talking about love here. We're not talking about passion, romance, companionship, togetherness, and all of that crap.
We're talking about money. When they say it's not about money, it's about money.
She can buy her own house. Let her. And then wait to listen to her compain about it.
And she will, no doubt.
Even if you bought her a house, she'd complain about it.
The modern American girl is worthless. All she does is complain. Avoid her. Do not enter into any contract with her. Do not go into court with her, because you will lose.
A man torches himself on the courthouse steps, does anyone care? No.
What about the millions of men who are forced to pay child support for children that are not theirs? Anyone care about them? No.
This isn't about some guy who committed suicide. This is about the modern American girl and her bad attitude. This is about the marriage contract and the court system.
Ignore her. Do not marry her. Stay out of court. Or change the law. Problem solved.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"...there is a difference between submitting a correct declaration and then not being able to pay ... and tax evasion (in other words, lying to them about how much you owe)."
No doubt there is, but who gets to decide what a "correct declaration" is, or whether a lie has been told, hmm? Tax attorneys don't typically interest me but I always give them props; without them there'd be no one keeping that plague of proctologists off the doorstep.
without them there'd be no one keeping that plague of proctologists off the doorstep.
A proctologist is what you need after the IRS gets done with you...
So, when japanese samurai cut their guts to prove their Lord wrong or save their honor they were cool and strong men who would prefer death over desecration; but when the old guy did set himself on fire to bring attention over a topic no one wants to discuss he's just a suicidal lunatic, right?
If this post appears twice, I apologize, but the site seems not to have accepted it.
I meant to say "impute" of course.
But here's my last word.
Think about what this man did. We don't really know what his intentions were, because we're not inside his head, suicide note or no. So the deeper or higher meaning he meant to convey, okay, let's take it as read. But at some future date, his children are going to find out about this. He blames the court, and by extension is ex-wife acting on his children's (and her own, of course) behalf for "making him" do this. When the adults hash up their lives, they should be grown up enough to handle the consequences, however unpleasant, without palming off second-hand responsibility on their children, who are the only people involved who are actually innocent. Bearing in mind that we don't really know very much, this appears from what we do know to be a thoroughly selfish, "you'll be sorry when I'm gone" revenge-type suicide. His self-regarding and self-justifying missive to the contrary notwithstanding.
Enough said, then.
Agree with Michelle. It's a basic logical error here, repeated frequently throughout the thread. Just because some courts, even many courts, and general culture still treats men unfairly in custody and parental rights situations, does not in any way make Thomas Ball correct or justified. Each case is individual.
Unless you intend to justify every complaint just because it comes from a male, there is not much in Ball's situation which would suggest his decision makes the remotest sense. Saying that he was wrong is not equivalent to saying that all men are wrong and should shut up and have no rights. Stop taking everyone else's situation so personally.
"Stop taking everyone else's situation so personally."
--
What an absolutely bizarre comment.
It's seeing a situation and having empathy for others and a feeling of unfairness. If the family court situation is really messed up (for men OR women), everyone should just mind their own business?
If a person dies by self-immolation and gives the reason as the family law system, it's worth giving the family law system a look.
Whether the individual guy is flawed or not.
So we give it a look, and we find lots of men committing suicide when they are embroiled in family court proceedings, and we find a few who take out the judge or lawyers. We find lots of cases where the system is absolutely unfair and unfeeling. Although there is also unfairness to women, chivalry and feminism combine to really stack things against men today.
That's how it is. If one guy's suicide calls attention to this, fine.
Michelle wants to pull a tarp over this as fast as possible. No one look here.
@Michelle, @Assistant Village Idiot,
You are changing the focus. Ball committed suicide in a manner generally recognised as being typical of a political protest (see: Tunisia, Vietnam etc).
He claimed that he was on the receiving end of unfair treatment from the courts. The MSM and Wikipedia are suppressing the story, but the story has resonated with a substantial minority in the blogosphere. As has been pointed out in the comments at Wikipedia, Ball made an quasi non-violent protest, in the sense that no other person was injured. If those kinds of protests are NOT covered, then it actually incendivises genuinely violent protest as a more effective tactic.
In this context, you are focus on "right" and "sanity". Those aren't relevant any more, because the man is dead. What is left to consider is "justice" and "censorship". Can either of you answer the following questions:
1. Should men be jailed for non-payment of support, and liable for increased support while in jail?
2. Should the Ball story have been covered in the MSM, and Wikipedia?
Stop taking everyone else's situation so personally.
How dare you.
A bunch of men are planning their life around the problems in this case. Google "marriage strike".
(That's another inconvenient article that got scrubbed from Wikipedia for murky reasons. See a pattern?)
for those interested in the issue of income tax;
www.marcstevens.net
i consider him a friend.
standing up to a tyrant is a coming-of-age process that most never reconcile, and live lives of fear as a result.
Ball's death is just the focus of the anquish of millions of men who have had their children and money stolen from them. Taking children from their healthy fathers harms the children deeply. I understand that some parents are dangerous to their children, but this is a small number and cannot account for the millions of children who will grow up wounded by the family courts.
That is the issue, the injustice of harm of it all.
Trey
Post a Comment
<< Home