>
 |
| How the hell did I get mixed up in all this? |
The manosphere is in an uproar about a public service TV ad from an anti-violence group that portrays a baby boy as a future rapist. Some MRAs are attempting to refute the ad’s implication that improperly socialized men are prone to violence by posting and upvoting … violent comments and veiled threats online. And apparently some non-veiled death threats as well.
A few days ago, you see, W.F. Price, head honcho at The Spearhead, wrote a critical piece about the endeavors of one Josh Jasper to draw attention to sexism in Super Bowl commercials; Price also pointed out that Jasper, CEO of the Riverview Center, a nonprofit serving domestic violence and sexual assault victims in Illinois and Iowa, had put out an earlier commercial that, in Price’s words, “impl[ied] that baby boys are all potential rapists.”
Despite the source, that’s actually a more or less accurate description of the ad, which depicts a happy little baby boy as a future rapist. I’m just not quite sure why that’s so objectionable; after all, every baby, male or female, is a bundle of possibilities, some good, some bad. (Hitler was once a happy, gurgling baby.) The point of the ad is that parents can have an effect on how their kids turn out; if you raise your son to be a violent, misogynist asshole, he may well end up a rapist.
As much as I agree with this basic sentiment, I’m not going to defend the ad. It’s terrible. Generally, I’m not a fan of using babies to make political points — it’s trite and manipulative, to begin with. And in this case, it’s worse than that: portraying a baby as a future rapist seems rather hamfisted, given that babies are often victims of abuse themselves.
Judge for yourself; here’s the ad.
All this said, the flaws of the “rapist baby” ad in no way excuse the response it’s gotten from some of the more hotheaded in the Men’s Rights Movement and the manosphere in general. On his website, Peter Nolan declares that the ad “promote[s] hatred of male babies”; on The Spearhead, Poester99 goes even further, accusing Riverview Center of “promoting violence against baby boys.” Which is, of course, completely absurd. (Even besides that, as Jasper has pointed out on his blog, the Riverview Center serves male victims as well as female ones.) It’s hard to know if the people spouting this nonsense honestly believe it, or if they are using the baby in the ad even more cynically and opportunistically than Jasper is.
Unfortunately, the MRA reaction has gone well beyond simple rhetorical overkill. A number of comments on The Spearhead, many of them with dozens of upvotes, are essentially threats — some vague, some not-so-vague — against Jasper himself. duke writes that:
Mangina creeps like Josh Jasper should suffer the same fate as Nazi sympathizers after WWII-taken out and shot after a five minute trial.
Avenger adds:
If men really were as violent as he claims they would have shut him up long ago. One good beating and this mangina would never open his mouth again.
Firepower, meanwhile, goes after Jasper’s … first name:
So long as males tolerate sissified males named “Josh” – pissing even on our SuperBowl – these gender traitors will only feel encouraged to increase their anti-male slurs.
Over on A Voice For Men, meanwhile, MRA elder Paul Elam insinuates that Jasper, far from being a sissy, is a violent “alpha puke” — and calls on his fans to dig up dirt on him:
This man deserves consequences for his actions.
Some history on Josh is known. We know he was a marine and we also know that he was a Los Angeles police officer. Two areas for sure where the capacity for violence is a plus. Add to that the fact that he was on a Domestic Violence task force and this bad apple starts to stink a little more. …
Anyone want to take any bets on whether this alpha puke ever busted heads as a cop, simply because he could? It leaves one to wonder – especially given the intellectual violence he is so obviously willing to inflict on male children – just what sort of skeletons are in this douche bag’s closet.
If they are there, I would love to get my hands on them and rattle them together for the world to hear.
And on Men-Factor, antifeminist blogger ScareCrow (who used to regularly post comments here) posts the email addresses of The Riverview Center’s mostly female board of directors, urging readers to “vent your anger” on this “bitch-hive,” adding “I aim to destroy it.”
I don’t have the patience or the stomach to sort through the comments on the YouTube page for the ad to see what other vile shit has been posted there.
I can only hope that most of this violent language is just standard internet tough guy talk, and won’t result in real violence in the real world. Even if you believe that Jasper’s ad commits a sort of rhetorical violence against male babies — which I think is a ridiculous reading of the admittedly idiotic ad — it does not justify actual violence against anybody.
EDIT: I should have let this one sit a little before putting it up. I’ve made various changes to strengthen and clarify my argument.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>"I've also heard MRAs say that Erin Pizzey received death threats over her advocacy on behalf of abused men and women, though I'm not familiar with the source of that quote…perhaps they're making it up."Well, it's on wikipedia, but I tend to go with more common news sources. Just do a word search for threat to jump to the relevant parts, or read the entire things.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197550,00.htmlhttp://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=a41532d6-d4df-46a2-a784-f6499938f3b0&k=49786http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-430702/How-feminists-tried-destroy-family.htmlThere is also a video interview with Erin Pizzey where she acknowledges the threats, It's one of the manwomanmyth video's on youtube, but I'm not sure which. If you're truly interested (which I suspect you aren't), you can look it up.
>"Apparently people in office are supposed to only serve men. If they figure out the obvious (women having less access to health care for instance) and help women, this hurts men because it does not devote 100% attention to men. It also shows that men who are in power are at the mercy of their evil women overladies since they do not focus 100% on men, sometimes even giving women rights! Obviously women control things."Who said anything about %100 percent focus on men? many just want equal attention. Men don't have a minister who's responsability is to look at issues in a biased way, to ensure they aren't being discriminated against, and every time I even mention it, I get called a woman hater and misogynist. Woman only cancers get more funding then gender neutral ones, and men's cancers get the least… You'd think the government would be interested in putting the most money into researching the cancers that affect everyone… but no, women only cancers come first (that doesn't include funding for awareness campaigns.). There is no government funding for male domestic violence refuges, and any attempt to get funding (in Ontario Canada) needs to go through the Ontario women's directory and out of their budget (see a conflict of interest there?). men aren't demanding 100% attention from government, we are just asking for more then what we're getting.
>Kratch-you think you are being discriminated against because women have organized to get their needs addressed by those in power? Why?
>I think men are being discriminated against because when women organized, they did so under the pretense that it was for equality, and as such, got a lot of backing from men. Men (and women) that may have left feminists to their own accord had they realized that equality was only for women (which is an oxymoron, if it's only for women, it's not equal). But now that men speak out looking to get some of that equality where we need it (such as equal parenting in divorce), those organizations, often backed by men, under the pretense of equality, are actively opposing efforts to bring men some of the benefits women had/have (men in the UK get only 2 weeks paternity leave. There has been attempts to allow men to share parental leave with their wives, (thus allowing ether parent to stay home with the baby, IE, women no longer forced to be the child caregiver, sacrificing their career) much like it is done in Canada, but that has gotten quite a bit of opposition, including from Harman, the feminist minister for women and equality.). I repeat, every time I even mention a minister for the status of men, an egalitarian counterpart to the existing minister for status of women… I am told by feminists that I hate women… because I call for something women have, and equality laws demand men should too. Would a men's minister in any way hinder what the women's minister could do?would the women's minister no longer be able to function with a male counterpart? why is this seen as such a hateful idea?
>Amusing blog posting. Amusing incident.Men aren't violent and I'll kill you if you disagree
>I actually can see why the women are worried about letting go and working on equality in some cases.It was a very hard struggle to get things like domestic violence recognized as a problem for women. So when men start agitating for their own shelters and what not, it scares the women because they worry they will lose their own hard won places like shelters. It is about trust and most of these women have little of it for these things. Yes they know it is a problem but they do not want to have what always seems to happen-men bring up a problem and women get shafted…again. Now you may not see it that way but I can see why they would be concerned over it.
>The one-dimensional reasoning of those defending the use of such imagery, claiming it to be merely innocent educational advertising, are knowingly(sometimes unknowingly)simply issuing free license to the bigotry of those who have been exploiting the now hackneyed left wing message of the toxic white male for many years.You all know damn well that if that baby had been female, black, Asian, Chinese, Jewish etc. – no matter what the intended social premise of the message – if there was to involve so much as a momentary flicker of direct or indirect negative reflection – nobody would have dared use it.You are lying to yourselves – as well as betraying half of humanity (to which some of you even belong). Weak, shameful and very sad indeed.Peter. (UK)
>@Elizabeth: 1: That is no excuse for actively opposing efforts by men to gain equality (not supremacy). Regardless of whether it is based on fear or selfishness or both, it is still an example of discrimination, and it is being perpetrated by MANY women (and men on behalf of women) in political influence.2: Equality is (generally) not a zero sum equation. There is nothing about men getting shelters that will result in women losing theirs (granted, there may be a backlash for the decades of deception in keeping male victims down). There is nothing about having a men's minister in government that will in any way diminish women's ministers. Granted, the UK parental leave happens to be, but that is actually beneficial for feminists, as it mean's they aren't forced, by government, to be the one sacrificing career for family. and yet, it is feminists, not patriarchy, that is opposing this. why?3: many men have gone along with feminists and the drive for equality, the claim has always been equality for all. Claiming now that they are afraid and don't trust men, which includes the men who have been supporting you all along, is a hateful thing to say. Why can't these women trust men? have they spent so much time hating them, they don't know how to see them as real? Doesn't that in and of itself tell you something about these people?4: it is this resistance, that you can't even deny but instead choose to excuse, and this fear of men, which you openly admit, that causes many people, men and women, to see feminists (not women, feminists, IE those of both genders that follow the ideology.) for the hateful and dishonest people they are. people not truly interested in equality, but simply self service
>Elizabeth said… "Reading the rest of his blog post-apparently his evidence comprises of women having more jobs in fields like teacher or social worker (ignoring the fact that women were generally shoved into those careers by men.)"Elizabeth, could you explain real-life situations in which men "shoved" women into being a teacher or social worker? I don't know of any. Unfortunately, women CHOOSE those positions. Just like women chose to be a housewife. There is NO LAW saying that they must. And my kindergarten teachers sucked, so I take it personally.
>Springer-since the second wave feminist movement, the shoving has disappeared. Prior to that, women were definitely rarely accorded the ability to be more than a teacher or some type of social worker if they were going to have a degree. Kratch-Why are you claiming that women who want to protect their own gender from harm as being hateful? They are trying to prevent men (and/or the institutional sexism that still is very prevalent in society) from taking away the gains they have. In one of the cited websites by Cold, the author was complaining about women having the right to vote. In the year 2011, he is against our having the right to vote.Taking an abuse shelter for the example we use-those dollars are scarce to begin with and it took years to get recognition that it happened at all while at the same time organizing the access to the powers that be. The powers that be that tend to be male and already have their systems in place to do things like create funding for programs like a male domestic violence shelter. Things like that are changing as more women run for offices (and in the case of that one county supervisor, misusing that power) but the problem persists. So it is a legitimate concern that once we open a shelter for men, women get shafted once again.It is not dishonest or hateful to be concerned that something like that does not happen.Also, I am pretty sure I have not called you misogynistic for fighting for men's equal rights but if you are going to persist in saying I, a feminist, am dishonest and hateful because I am such, then I am going to have a problem.
>“Why are you claiming that women who want to protect their own gender from harm as being hateful?”Because they have to have a pretty hateful view of men, including all those politician’s who have been supporting them for the last 30+ years, to believe that anyone would allow things to backtrack, especially to the point of denying women the vote.“They are trying to prevent men (and/or the institutional sexism that still is very prevalent in society) from taking away the gains they have.”I don’t see any men’s rights issues as taking anything away from women. List me one issue, a legitimate issue, which denies anything to women?“Taking an abuse shelter for the example we use-those dollars are scarce to begin with and it took years to get recognition that it happened at all while at the same time organizing the access to the powers that be.” And the intent to exclude men, despite claims of equality, began shortly after Erin Pizzey first started her work, and despite her insistent that abuse was not a gender issue. Right from the very start, feminists actually denied men access to shelters. At that point, it wasn’t an issue of only having limited dollars, as then, there were no dollars. “The powers that be that tend to be male and already have their systems in place to do things like create funding for programs like a male domestic violence shelter. “That’s a crock! Those men in power are largely men like David, who would rather attack people speaking up for men, than acknowledge the problems. And given Domestic abuse is the purview of the women’s ministers, and no men ministers exist, the system in place does not actually exist for men.”It is not dishonest or hateful to be concerned that something like that does not happen.”It is dishonest and hateful to believe that men as a whole would want, or even allow that to happen. Equal parenting is not a step back, it’s a step forward (IE, further breaking down the gender role that insist women must be the caregiver and men the provider). A men’s minister, with their own budget to put into men’s abuse shelters, is not denying women of anything. Both these idea’s are routinely resisted by feminists.”Also, I am pretty sure I have not called you misogynistic for fighting for men's equal rights but if you are going to persist in saying I, a feminist, am dishonest and hateful because I am such, then I am going to have a problem.”You personally may not have, but I’m not quite certain you are a feminist as I define it (IE, based on the actions of those who are prominent and influence politics and industry), and as there is no truly set definition of a feminist that works for all that claim to be a feminists, my subjective definition is all I have to go on. I have regularly been called a misogynist and woman hater, even when I was simply asking why there was a Canadian minister for the status of women and not one for men, when there are ample issues that a men’s minister could address (workplace death’s, suicide rate, homeless rate, boys falling behind in education, family court issues, etc. none of which (except family courts), have anything to do with women) and point out the effects of a gender bias in government. Simply speaking up for men makes me a misogynist in many people’s eyes.
>List me one issue, a legitimate issue, which denies anything to women?Well, this just happened:http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/19/planned-parenthood-defunding-family-plannings-not-a-gop-family/
>The planned parenting program isn't/wasn't on any list of men's rights issues I'm aware of. Given the flack I've recently gotten here for taking a sentence without what came before, you should be careful about doing the same. As the sentence you quoted had one before it, one that specifically spoke of men's rights issues.Secondly, answer me this, in your opinion, is planned parenting a gender neutral program (in which case, it is a dishonest attempt to attribute the loss of a gender neutral program as denying something to women, as it denies to "people") or is it a sexist policy privileging women which needed to be changed/cut for the sake of equality?
>Point taken, but the driving forces behind this legislation are conservative, antifeminist politicians and activists who want to control women's sexuality. There are numerous MRAs/MGTOWs who are either stridently anti-abortion or who talk a lot about the necessity to "control" women and women's sexuality. Also, uh, what about the OP here? It's no wonder that feminists and others who are involved in DV prevention and shelters are wary of MRAs. Instead of simply pushing for more money for DV shelters for men, many MRAs have specifically ATTACKED DV shelters for women — GLenn SAcks bascially encouraged his supporters to harass donors to one shelter when he didn't like its ads, and if anything the reaction to the so-called "rapist baby" ad was even more extreme.
>On your other question: Planned Parenthood offers assistance to both women and men. Because of the biological differences between men and women — you know, women are the ones who actually get pregnant and all that — most of their services are provided to women. Men don't need a lot of prenatal care, for example. So the answer to you question is neither: it's not a gender-neutral thing, nor is it something that's unfairly sexist against men.
>“ but the driving forces behind this legislation are conservative, antifeminist politicians and activists who want to control women's sexuality.”Opposing abortion is not the same as wanting to control women’s sexuality (and if you consider that it is, then what is your stand on male reproductive right’s?). Nor is demanding equal options to prevent post conception parenthood (there are some, I’ll admit, that actually want to be able to force a woman to carry to term if they want the baby, but those few are rare. Most just bring that up to point out how unfair it is to do similar to guys).As the very article you linked states, it is against even the Hyde Amendment to provide federal funding for abortion except in very specific circumstances, and that was not being followed, so the funding got cut. If abortion wasn’t provided by planned parenting centers, I am confidant that this cut would not have happen so easily. So long as Feminists keep telling men “if you don’t want to be a parent, keep your pants on”, I will have no sympathy for the loss of abortion funding for anyone not covered specifically under the specific circumstances exempted. “Also, uh, what about the OP here?”Objecting to hateful commercials about DV is not the same as denying women assistance. As I said earlier and effectively got dismissed cause my objection was contradictory to some other guys comment, this ad is stating that rape in an inherent attribute of manhood that needs to be trained out from birth. That it is the current definition of manhood, and not some deviant behaviour, that causes men to rape women. And objecting to such ads should be natural for anyone, and to equate objecting to such an ad to be the same as denying women’s shelters and domestic violence in general, is a huge leap that requires a very negative opinion of those objecting.“Planned Parenthood offers assistance to both women and men. “But it violates the Hyde Amendment (funding general abortions), and that alone is reason to cut it. Other than abortion, most of their services are provided equally for men and women, yes, women’s issues are sometimes more expensive (the pill costs more then a condom), but in general, with the exception of abortion, this cut affects men as much as it does women, and so calling it a denial to women is once again ignoring the impact on men (just like every other aspect of life). It is dishonest to attribute this cut as an attempt by men’s rights activists to deny women their gains over the last few decades in order to provide men privilege, traditional or otherwise. After all, my question was in response to Elizabeth justifying feminists putting up opposition to men seeking equality because it means taking away women’s gains. This cut in no way fits hat description, as it is not taking away from women, it is taking away from everyone. And it is only taking funding away, not any rights. Abortion remains legal, it’s just not government funded, and if that mean’s women can’t afford it, well, they can keep their pants on right along side the men who want reproductive rights (and if/when men get reproduction rights, you can be sure they'll want access to cheap abortions too, as most say that if they choose not to parent, they should be willing to pay for the abortion if that choice results in the women terminating).
>"I just really hate it when babies are made into political footballs, as it were. I probably should have noted in the piece that this is exactly what the MRAs reacting to the ad are doing as well.I wish there were a Godwin's Law for mentions of babies in political arguments."David: I'm in 100% AGREEMENT WITH YOU. Didn't watch the video, the concept is **disgusting** to me. Nonetheless, veiled threats towards Jaspers or the Riverside Center are out of line.Whatever happened to the good old protest with signs? MRAs, GO PROTEST! I'd agree with you on this, so why not??
>Watched the video. Ugh, left a **sour** taste in my mouth; the message could have been handled a lot better. Riverside dropped the ball on this one, blatantly unfair.