Jun 242011

(I have started a new category for these posts called Amanda Marcotte’s Misandry.)

When it comes to dealing with the reality of Thomas Ball, who committed suicide by setting himself on fire due to feminist anti-family courts, feminists and their magina sycophants have been trying to find ways to avoid dealing with that reality.  Some are trying to cover up what Thomas Ball did. Amanda Marcotte used a different tactic on the manboobz blog:

I’ll point out that setting yourself on fire is an extremely effective tool if your goal is to make your ex-wife’s life a living hell, and if your anger at losing control over her overwhelms all other desires. Which is common enough with abusers, who will ruin their own lives and their own shit and turn their children against them in an effort to hurt the woman they’ve fixated on.

Words can not express my disgust with this.  It’s pure feminist evil.  A man gets severely abused by feminist anti-family courts to the point where he thinks he has no hope left and only has the choice to end his own life, but Amanda Marcotte thinks the “real victim” is his ex-wife.  A man whose life was destroyed by anti-family courts burns himself to death, but Marcotte thinks a woman is the hardest hit.

There’s so many more things I could say about this, but why?  Marcotte’s remark and its crass and feminist nature speaks for itself.

  63 Responses to “Man Burns Himself To Death; Women Hardest Hit”

  1. Amanda Marcotte is the poster girl for how feminism warps a woman’s sense of reality.

  2. We should all refer to her as Amanda Marcunt from now on.

  3. OOOH!

    You Bastard!!!!

    You stole my headline!!!

    Damn you!

  4. Hmmm. Think Mr. Ball’s life was more of a living hell than was his ex wife’s…for as long as it lasted, that is. Having lit himself aflame as he did.

    Typical of feminsts though to make a man’s suicide in protest of shabby treatment by the female-ly courts about teh wommenz instead of what it was…the most ueber protest possible at such maltreatment.

    Thomas Ball, RIP.

  5. “World Will End Tomorrow – Women and Children Affected Most!”


  6. What a fucking bitch.

  7. Bigotry from a feminist.


    You were expecting something else?

  8. Amanda Marcotte is recognized and praised as a third-wave feminist on numerous feminist websites.

    I suggest every single time a third-wave feminist claims the third wave is more friendly to men, we ask them to explain Marcotte’s hatefulness. Every single third-wave feminist has to be taken to account for their support of this demon.

    Pieces of evidence:

    1. The things she said about the Duke Lacrosse case.
    2. Her published denial that women commit domestic violence against men.
    3. Her claim that men are only nice to women because they want to sleep with them.
    4. The above hatefulness about Thomas Ball
    5. Feel free to share other Marcotte hate. There’s plenty.

  9. Marcotte is a piece of scum, may she develop some sort of cancer and die horribly.

  10. “A man gets severely abused by feminist anti-family courts to the point where he thinks he has no hope left and only has the choice to end his own life, but Amanda Marcotte thinks the “real victim” is his ex-wife.”

    Feminists don’t consider men to be fully human, so of course they don’t see them as victims, or deserving of help or sympathy in any situation.

  11. Only a truly hate-filled and vicious harpy could find enough darkness in her soul to actually voice the concept that the ex-wife was the true victim of Ball’s self-immolation, and that we should reserve our sympathy for her. What a hypocrite. If the ex-wife had been the one on the courthouse steps, Marcotte would have been shrieking for Thomas Ball to be executed for her murder.

    I don;t know about the man or what had happened. But I know when I see someone who has had their last hope of justice finally extinguished forever. And I know when I see someone driven to a desperate act because he felt it was the ONLY way he’d be heard. Because American domestic law now treats every man as a vicious because of his very gender. The law has over the last three decades been turned into a scourge to be wielded by militant women on men for that greatest of sins against feminism: possession of testicles.

  12. It’s really this simple. Amanda Marcotte is pissed of she is ugly and it’s mens fault for preferring chicks who aren’t ugly. C’mon on her best day and at my lowest drunk expectations she’s a 7. Which means she’s really a 4-5. Put a bag over her face and turn off the lights and she might be a 5-6. This is why she hates men. We judge her by her looks and not her personality. the ironic thing is if we judged her by her personality she’d be a 3

  13. “Because American domestic law now treats every man as a vicious because of his very gender.”

    I think American domestic law might’ve treated this dude as vicious because he slapped his 4-year-old across the face hard enough to bust her lip for the heinous crime of licking his hand.

    • And he was made to suffer for ten years for the heinous crime of hitting his daughter once.

      Punishment fit the crime, hm?

      • It’s pretty heinous to hit your kid so hard that they bleed for doing virtually nothing, yeah. Whether the punishment was disproportionate or whether it wasn’t (and I’d have to read more to decide), it certainly doesn’t seem that he was treated as vicious simply because he had a penis. It seems that his vicious behavior had something to do with it.

        • Mara,

          I dont know what your threshold for heinous is but i sincerely doubt he rared back and pimp slapped his kid, more likely as she attempted to lick his hand again after he verbally warned her twice to stop, he flicked his wrist to give her some negative feedback, and split her lip, which is surprisingly easy to do if your knuckle traps the lip between her teeth just right.

          I have had my lip split just by looking down at something over someone and them rising up and head butting me accidently, your teeth are shaped to tear meat, they can do the same to your lip.

          But all that aside, he did not contest that charge, the reasons for his self-immolation have to do with how the courts were treating him in post-divorce proceedings.

          So why don’t you ‘do some more reading’ before you run your mouth about things that you are obviously ignorant.

        • Maybe he shouldn’t be slapping a small child across her face, then, Man. Seeing as teeth are made for cutting, you know. I was punished physically throughout my childhood, and because my folks were decent people, they were careful about it. Now, you can tell me that you doubt the strength with which he slapped her, but you weren’t there, and neither was I. We know that he slapped her face and she bled. Those are his words.

          Aside from that, maybe you should actually read comments before running YOUR mouth. I was discussing why the courts might have looked at him as a vicious person. The claim was that the courts treat men as vicious because of their gender. I pointed out that, in this case, it’s likely that he was considered vicious because of his behavior. We weren’t discussing why he set himself on fire, but why the courts would’ve seen him as violent.

        • Mara, you and yours are why boys grow up to be thugs and girls to be sluts. You and yours are why marriage is vanishing and violence against women is becoming commonplace.


          Because there is no higher purpose for you than your own immediate feelings, and there is no mercy in you at all.

          The man, in the moment, has to make a decision about his authority over his daughter. When she is still a child at menarche, it’s the last line of guidance she has. When she is in her late teens, trying to figure out which boys are good and which are bad, her father’s authority – however much she rebels – will be her standard. When she is a young mother and wife, his authority will be the difference between the welfare of her children and a broken home.

          This man, for knowing all that years in advance, made a error. The child wasn’t permanently disfigured. She probably did it to herself once by running in a slippery hallway, like most every child does. If it happened on a playground by another child, it would have been forgotten.

          But you and yours, because you feel bad, turn to a relentless remorseless power outside your family to ‘protect’ you, a power that does not love, a power that uses no reason but only policy, a power that will never be there in the moment of your need, a power that will abandon you, a power that will turn on you when you err, a power that will do all that to your children as well.

          Tom Ball is my evidence.

        • You’ve made some amazing assumptions about me, Ecclesiastes, based on incredibly thin evidence.

          I’m interested by your description of wayward boys as thugs, and wayward girls as sluts. You assume violence in the male, and sexual promiscuity in the female (and seem to place these behaviors on a similar level). Is there a reason for that? (Also, do you think the thugs will also be sluts, and the sluts will also be thugs, or are these results mutually exclusive? Can a boy be a slut, Ecclesiastes? Can a girl be a thug?)

          I’d also like to know whether you believe that there is a place for the court system in any case of child abuse.

        • Why, Mara, I’m surprised at your intellectual honesty. Of course girls can be thugs, and as men die due to spousal abuse at the same rate as women, how could I not agree? And of course men can be sluts. Men generally, as you know, aspire to be sluts. Only the Judeo-Christian tradition and punitive adultery laws have ever held that in check.

          Yes, of course there is a place for protection of a child in the court system.

          But all this is trivia. It’s a cute dance you’re doing to distract.

          Since you offer no disagreement, it is a rational and even legal, according to established procedure, to conclude that you agree with me in every particular.

          Now, since you agree with me on everything, what were those silly questions for?

          Oh wait. We already agree on the answer for this question: because it made you feel better.

          You’re welcome.

        • That’s a strawman, Mara. Thugs and sluts are not the central issue, but a tangential one. His main focus was that you turn to a family court which has no jury of peers, no deliberation process which is fair and equitable, but rather, a kangaroo court designed to displace fathers. Most of us men here will acknowledge that if he balled up his hand into a fist and broke her jaw, then he would deserve what he got. But he slapped her and cut her lip. Keep in mind he had no prior record. And so your response is the presumption of guilt. What ever happened to good old american fairness? Is a felony charge of domestic violence warranted? For a man with no record?

    • Yes, because women never hit their children. Right?

      • Some women hit their children. Did Thomas Ball bust his child’s lip because she licked his hand?

        • Absolutely not, on either count. Child abuse should not happen, and when it does, it should be punished.

        • My question is to you Mara is, do you think the punishment matches the crime? I’m assuming you’ve read up on his case.

  14. Another example of the reality I began to see and feel as a child and that I knew at the age of 18. After three decades of denial, it is very clear. The male, being biologically expendable and a culture of shallow, stubborn, selfishness has produced a misandry that is endemic. Men are as guilty as women for allowing this. Thomas Ball will probably not matter much because he was male. There will be those who enjoy the anguish he felt and the pain he suffered in death, because he was male. Although it is to late for me maybe the memory of Thomas Ball will help keep the momentum in the MRM and my nephews will not have to live their entire life in such a (*^^%$##@#) culture.

  15. Mara , plenty of women have done worse to their kids and never got treated like that. You know it, another stupid, selfish, lying cunt.

    • “another stupid, selfish, lying cunt.”

      Stupid? Mmm, sure, if that makes you feel better. Selfish? Only inasmuch as we all are. Lying? Go read the man’s final letter. I’m pointing out that he hit his child hard enough to make her bleed. Is that a lie, or is it the truth?

      • No dodging here. You basically justified his treatment by the system because of the slap. Ignoring that a woman who did the same or worse would get a complete pass. Not a very difficult nuance to understand. If you could not you are stupid. If you decided not to see because it is inconvenient as a woman you are a selfish feminist. If you deny the outrageous double standard you are a liar.

        • No, I said that he was treated as a vicious person because of vicious behavior. I never discussed what would happen to a woman who did that to her child; if your opinion is correct, that she would not be treated as vicious (and as yet, you’ve presented no evidence to support your opinion), then one could conclude that she was treated lightly because her vag. But the court still would not be treating this man as vicious because of his penis, but because he behaved viciously.

          Not a very difficult nuance to understand, sully. And I even explained that without hurling misandrist language or general insults at you. You, of course, couldn’t manage to have a discussion without calling me a cunt. That being the case, I’m not sure why you expected anything but invective in return… oh. I see. That’s exactly what you wanted, wasn’t it? You must be so disappointed.

        • You are right about the insult my mistake. The combination of just now hearing about this and your double speak got the best of me. Stupid of me to waste any energy in a discussion with someone who needs to be presented “evidence” regarding the double standard in our court system. My apologies about the use of the “C” word.
          You can have the final words/spin.

        • We all know child abuse is wicked, Mara. No one disputes this. We have issues with his punishment, and you are not addressing that. You are presuming guilt, and not suggesting an appropriate punishment.

  16. They’ve purged him from wikipedia too:

  17. Another example of feminist Judo. They may be batshit crazy and completely illogical but they sure know how to deflect or it just a case of “I know you are but what am I? I know you are but what am I? I know you are but what am I? “

  18. This guy just posted lengthy instructions for burning down government offices, and set himself on fire, all because the government said he was violent. Well, it seems the government had a point. Considering the facts, would you want to be his child?

    I feel for his plight, and suspect there is probably some truth in what he wrote. But he obviously had issues, too. There are better examples of how the domestic dispute apparatus of the country mistreats men.

    • So your saying that this guy was going to self immolate at some point, regardless of what his interactions with the court system had been?

      If the man had been truly violent, dont you think he might have done something similar to the tyler courthouse shooter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_courthouse_shooting ?

      instead he wrote a letter, and burnt himself to death to bring attention to it. Oh yea, he is right up there with Osama …

  19. Here’s a straightforward website about Thomas James Ball –


  20. She’s a stupid cunt. Her recent bloggingheads proved that. Utterly incapable of reasonable thought, only of kneejerk reactions to everything as a male attack on women.

  21. This is a sad ending to a story, but I don’t think the guy was heroic or justified to light himself on fire. This action frames him as a deranged person, and gives every nasty thing his wife and the courts said about him all the more weight. Now they can say “A man who sets himself on fire should not have had custody of his children” or “What if he set himself and the little girl on fire?” and he cannot debate those notions because he is no longer around.

    He gave them a powerful PR tool against men by committing an act of permanent and unrecoverable self-destruction. Of course the feminists will jump all over this, and try to claim victimhood for the female in the story, because it a juicy bit of news that makes the man look like he was on the edge of greater violence – and feminists will say every man is on that edge.

    Jail or burning yourself to death – is this even a choice??? Would someone do 6 months of jail or have themselves burn to death and die painfully? I think most of us would do the time and wait until the day of freedom instead of taking a big grand exit the way this guy did. Instead of losing 6 months of his life in prison, he burned away whatever time he had left – all of it.

    This cannot be a model to follow, or refer to as a viable option for fighting back against feminism. What are men supposed to do – set ourselves on fire? Isn’t that doing the feminists work for them? However, I do believe he is the victim of the story, because in the end he had to take the power out of the hands of his victimizers – the feminist courts – and become his own victimizer/executioner.

    • “This cannot be a model to follow, or refer to as a viable option for fighting back against feminism.”

      I don’t think anyone is proposing that it is.

      Except Amanda Marcotte, apparently.

    • 6 months in prison? You ever try to get a job after spending time in prison? After that stint he would still owe the money and be unemployed. His only way out after that is suicide(lots of guys take this way out), homelessness, or more prison.

  22. The last girl I had the misfortune to meet that was even close to here spent way too much on batteries and really loved her dog……really.

  23. […] BEEN BASICALLY BLACKED OUT IN THE NEWS, but Thomas Ball’s courthouse-steps self-immolation is still big news in the blogosphere. Was that blog-comment calling his death spouse-abuse really from Amanda Marcotte? On the Internet, […]

  24. […] life a living hell . . . in an effort to hurt the woman they’re fixated on.”As one blogger observed: “It’s pure feminist evil. . . . A man whose life was destroyed by anti-family courts […]

  25. “You believe women should have lesser punishments for the same crimes, no doubt?”

    “Absolutely not, on either count.”


    At any rate no woman would get anything like what this guy got not even if she outright punched her daughter.

  26. […] one blogger observed: “It’s pure feminist evil. . . . A man whose life was destroyed by anti-family courts burns […]

  27. […] one blogger observed: “It’s pure feminist evil. . . . A man whose life was destroyed by anti-family courts burns […]

  28. There are so many retards saying he should have kept on supporting his children.
    He was to be put in jail the next day, idiots, for the heinous crime of having lost his job. How on earth can you support your children from debtor’s prison – reserved only for dads who can’t pay the bills.

  29. Hey,
    I’m glad I stumbled across this site. I hope you don’t mind, but I’m gonna link this article in my own blog.
    I’m a woman, but, I’m a woman who does actually believe in equality, not feminist control.
    This actually disturbed me. As did a comment, but I’ll refrain from calling the commenter out on her bs.
    I’ll just say this. He didn’t do it to hit out at his ex wife! Good lord, did she even read the statement? He loved his ex wife and his children very much and they were taken from him by the system. He had nothing and I don’t frankly give a flying toot whether or not people are now pointing out what led to this. What led to this is irrelivant.
    Whether he made a mistake or not is irrelivant. We’re all guilty of making mistakes, all of us. It doesn’t matter. What matters is what happened and what’s happened is that a man has been so despairing, so hurt and so badly treated that he was at the end of his rope. He took his own life for crying out loud.
    That’s where the empathy should be, for the man who was left with nothing.
    I’m sure his ex wife and children are filled with pain and will be hurt but listen lady! If you’d read the darn statement you’d know he never did what he did to lash out at his own family!
    Ok, so maybe I’m a tad irate *blushes* heh, sorry.
    Anyway, thanks for posting this.


    • Hey, Sami,

      Maybe you could read a REAL article. The guys domestic violence charge was for striking his 4 year old daughter (she was 4 at the time, she’s now 14) in the face so hard, that it drew blood.

  30. […] last post on Amanda Marcotte has generated a lot of hits.  First Snark sent it to the mens rights reddit.  Then someone else sent it to […]

  31. The title of this article is outstanding. The Onion couldn’t make this shit up. Times are fucked.

  32. Maybe if Mr. Ball hadn’t struck his 4 year old child in the face so hard that he made her bleed, he wouldn’t have had such a hard time with the courts. I notice how you are leaving out large swaths of the story. How the police responded to the domestic violence call and found the child bleeding and how the courts cut him some slack. He didn’t end up in jail. The courts only required him to attend counseling with his kids.

    Look, there are lots of people who really get hurt in these custody fights (mostly the children). But this guy self-inflicted his own pain. At anytime, he could have agreed to that counseling and regained his custody rights, but he decided to p*ss in the wind. And he didn’t really give a damn about his kids or he wouldn’t have killed himself.

    If you want to find a poster boy, go down to any court house and ask. There are better candidates then this joker. You do your point of view a disservice by promoting him.

  33. “Maybe if Mr. Ball hadn’t struck his 4 year old child in the face so hard that he made her bleed, he wouldn’t have had such a hard time with the courts. I notice how you are leaving out large swaths of the story. How the police responded to the domestic violence call and found the child bleeding and how the courts cut him some slack. He didn’t end up in jail. The courts only required him to attend counseling with his kids. ”

    New term: “Fascism apologist”

    We won’t lose our rights because of political parties. We won’t lose our rights because of conspiracies. We won’t even lose our rights because of foreign aggression.

    We’ll lose our rights one small step at a time… “for the children”.

  34. Late to this, but here goes.
    Yes, he made a mistake and split his daughters lip.
    Yes, he was offered counseling and refused it.
    But there seems to be the assumption that if he’d jumped through the correct hoops (gone to counseling, done anger management stuff) he’d then automatically get to see his daughter again.
    For those who hold this view I invite you to set aside the assumption and talk to a range of men about their experience of the domestic violence industry.
    I think you’ll come away with a very different and disturbing view of how the ‘courts’ routinely treat men by doing so and a lot of questions you’ll want answering.
    This leads me to noticing there’s also the overlooking of what the ‘family’ ‘court’ actually is.
    Again ask a range of men who’ve been there and you’ll find it isn’t a place where you are judged by a panel of peers nor given any benefit of doubt but all too often deemed guilty on hearsay only.
    The internet is awash, full of men’s stories of women in ‘family’ ‘court’ disputes falsely accusing men left right and center WITH TOTAL IMPUNITY.
    Thomas Ball as his lengthy last writing shows knew this only too well.
    He therefore knew that having made ONE solitary mistake, which he admitted to – his life as a father was over.
    He clearly knew that any and all further accusations against him even if false in the extreme would most likely result in his being increasingly institutionally alienated from his daughter.
    Therefore I disagree with any views that he somehow bailed out on his wife and daughter. He was already pushed out for 10 long distraught years. He, personally could see no reason to live in such deep anguish.
    To suggest as some have that his self destruction was designed to hurt women seems ludicrous and a view disturbingly lacking in human empathy.
    There is also the view that he was simply some kind of nut-job.
    Naive and simplistic as that is I think there is a grain of truth to that view. But what it sadly overlooks is how being systemically denied the right to participate in fathering your child and having lived for a decade in such deep anguish can lead to such a degree of emotional trauma that mental illness sets in.
    In line with that it seems to me that despite his written fantasizing about blowing up courthouses it doesn’t necessarily mean he was intent on encouraging folks to do so either.
    The internet is littered with written ‘threats’ and ‘encouragement’ to acts of destruction, but most often these are simply hurt enraged fantasies expressed in type not actual deeds.
    That part of his final writing can be seen as the rantings of a man who had reached the utmost depths of despair and preferred the horrific, short term agony of death by setting himself on fire that a lifetime of torment and anguish.

    Incidentally it was almost a year to the day since a man in Brisbane died after setting himself on fire outside the ‘family courthouse’ there.

    Thomas Ball.
    May he rest in peace.

  35. Who cares what this stupid woman thinks? I think feminism is fantastic! It makes the crazy bitches easier to spot, allowing decent men to find a decent wife/girlfriend/spouse with far less hassle. Femisists? Fuck ’em :)

  36. […] first is from Mara who commented here on the blog.  (There was some question whether Mara was Maura from this post who was obsessed with my genitalia.    I checked the IP […]

  37. What? No. This is the first time I’ve ever been here; I followed a link from Instapundit.

    Anyway, are you suggesting that this man didn’t bust his child’s lip? Or that his wife was also abusing the child, but that we just don’t hear about it?

  38. Thank you very much. It’s much appreciated, and you are right about the increase in blog hits.

  39. I think you mean that the fact that she is held as a “positive role model” is the problem. Al Capone and Billy the Kid were famous. At any time, such a person would be (in)famous. But it would be as something NOT to be.

Leave a Reply to Mara Cancel reply

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »
%d bloggers like this: