>
 |
| 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.
>So the ad is basically saying: "raise your sons to say 'no' to sexual violence." Sounds terribly controversial. Seriously, though, I agree that using a baby involves cheap emotional manipulation, but the basic point seems really quite inoffensive. I mean, raising your sons to not commit rape should be right up there with being in favor of cute puppies and rainbows in terms of a universally acceptable sentiment. Or am I just being naive?(Cue the usual, "of course you're being naive, because feminists…blah, blah, blah…hate babies…blah, blah, blah…what about all the female rapists?…men are oppressed…false accusations…blah, blah, blah" comments from the usual suspects.)Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go pop popcorn, as this thread promises to be epic.
>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.
>Random question, but why'd you take him and the Anglobitch guy off your 'enemies list?'
>But, the point is that the baby is being used to manipulate emotions because everyone loves babies. The add is obviously not trying to insight hatred against the baby and anyone who thinks it is, or that it is even possible to incite hatred against babies, is far off from reality.
>Of for fuck sake. Any moron can understand the point of this ad. These fucking misogynists will lose their minds over anything, won't they? Meanwhile our almost entirely white male government is trying to pass laws that let women die instead of having a life-saving abortion. These guys should take their head out of their ass and pay attention to what's happening in the real world. Not the one they made up on their hate-foaming forums. Typical misogynistic behavior. Missing the point entirely and making it all about them. Then proceeding to whine incessantly over a scraped knee.
>The ad is a bit hamfisted but wow, they got "hatred of male babies" from a simple message about raising male children with healthy attitudes towards sex (which would mean you don't rape your girlfriend or any woman).Rape is an issue that really enrages the MRA guys; basically, it would seem they just don't want to admit it even happens. I've seen some ridiculous figures on the number of "false rapes," the old "she was asking for it" excuse (apparently if you're drunk/passed out that's a yes to any and all takers), if she didn't fight hard enough (broken bones, stab wounds?) she actually wanted it, and of course, if you're married to her, rape is impossible — what kind of man even wants to force sex on his wife? WTF!Is rape a holy sacrament to these freaks; should it just be legalized?
>Ok, I was all ready to see a horrible ad. I was ready to criticize the add and skip over the rest, because I haven't digested all the boobz remarks. But that ad brought to mind HUMAN DEVELOPMENT.My concern was the real child. I don't see actors as cardboard cut outs or cartoons. But when the baby was shown it was humanity, not HERE HE IS AS A CHILD. Also, seeing people that commit crimes as once innocent, which is what the baby represents, is not bad. So this ad is FINE. Ok how about an ad of a drug addict mother, or… insert your version of fail and threat to society here, and then showing them as a young girl, even an infant? Come on. This is not that bad. Now on to read the boobz responses.
>You know, I should have let this one sit a bit before putting it up. I went through and made a bunch of changes. I found the ad irritating, but I don't want to give the impression that the boobz "critique" of it makes any real sense. That should be clearer now.
>Ok, what really disturbs me is that if this were an ad for murder… the men may not have blinked an eye. They get really upset over rape topics. People are not born with a rape gene and rape rates wildly fluctuate depending on culture. From places in Africa where it's pandemic to the United States where there is huge stigma attached to it. Clearly culture is a huge influence on whether men yes men will commit one of the most horrible acts one can perpetrate on another human being, or not. I do believe that women rape much more than we know. I have known THREE men in my personal life who have been raped BY WOMEN. And I find that to be a lot. However, there is a huge difference here, I mean men have included rape in their acts of terrorizing people in war since forever. Also the meme we had to get over as a culture that a woman could be partially at fault speaks to how inherent MEN feel that is to men. Men were not the ones speaking out against the "but what was she wearing" bullshit. I'm sure some men did…but on the whole didn't you fucking jackasses support that line of thinking? That means YOU think men are rapists. People that point out that NO one does not violate and terrorize another person's boundaries in the most degrading way possible due to another's actions are the ones saying that is NOT inherent to men.
>Men aren't violent! We shall prove this by threatening violence!
>Men were not the ones speaking out against the "but what was she wearing" bullshit. I'm sure some men did…but on the whole didn't you fucking jackasses support that line of thinking?In all the 23 years I've been alive, yours was the first time I've ever seen a woman admitting that women can indeed rape men. Hurp hurp, men "on the whole" may have supported the "but she was asking for it!" line of thinking, but by the same token, as far as I can tell women "on the whole" supported the "men can't be raped!" line of thinking. "Fucking jackasses," as you would say.
>but thevagrant… I don't think people talk about it. I mean in my case three men who were definitely not lying, who I know personally, one very close to me shared it with me. That's THREE. So I'm interested in this topic.
>If it was a baby girl and the add was about false rape accusations, you and the rest of femicow nation would be up in arms. But you despise men so deeply and reflexively that you can't even see this. You incredibly repulsive "people." And just to be clear, if the ad showed a cute baby, went through the progressions:She's cute.She's smart.And one day, she'll murder her kids.Teach your daughter not to kill.(Or some other nonsense)that would be okay, right? Jessica Vanlenti, Amanda Hess, Amanda Marcotte and the rest of those nutjobs would have nothing negative to say about it, right? Right?You've demonized men to such a point that even this "ad" causes no basic emotional response in you "people" because it is targeted towards males who you have no connection with. It's just one big vagina fest for you degenerate freaks. Yes, yes, I know you you don't hate men you love (input name of your pet male here), but watching you all with your misandrist oozing justifications is sickening. Basically what you cows are saying is, eh, it's just men. Fucking disgusting, the lot of you.Enjoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqQciz0WGyQ&feature=player_embeddedRandom Brother
>There's also a line in there which I forgot to mention which I despise, which is 'redefine what it means to be a man.' Uh, why? For who's fucking benefit? And what do we get out of it? Will women have to also redefine themselves to meet some male standard or are they perfect princesses who need no changing? And who are these mangina's and man haters to demand we change to suit them? Ridiculous. I ain't redefining shit.Random Brother
>I'm not surprised. Here in California, there was a print PSA campaign a few years ago with a message along the lines of, "Don't beat your wife in front of your son or he'll grow up thinking it's okay." (It's like a grimmer version of that classic corny anti-pot PSA from the '80s. "I learned it from YOU, Dad!") MRAs bitch about those ads *all the time*. As soon as I heard there was a TV commercial with the same concept, I knew they'd be apoplectic.It may be worth pointing out that the idea of not modeling bad behavior to children is extremely common in feminist rhetoric, and it's never misinterpreted as a knock on children. If I say, for example, "Women who get breast implants might send the message to their daughters that it's okay to be obsessed with looks and spend ridiculous amounts of money on unhealthy beauty treatments," many (though not all) feminists are likely to agree. No feminists are likely to say, "OMG YOU JUST SAID LITTLE GIRLS ARE POTENTIAL UNHEALTHY LOOKS-OBSESSED SPENDTHRIFTS WHY DO YOU HATE LITTLE GIRLS AND WANT THEM ALL TO DIE???"
>There's also a line in there which I forgot to mention which I despise, which is 'redefine what it means to be a man.' Uh, why? For who's fucking benefit? And what do we get out of it?Ironically enough, as I mentioned elsewhere, a lot of MRAs (such as Paul Elam) are big on "redefining what it means to be a man," since according to them, traditionalist "patriarchal" conceptions of masculinity were almost as bad or just as bad as what we've got with feminism. So to answer the question of "for whose benefit?" A lot of MRAs would say "yours," even if they wouldn't redefine masculinity the way folks here (or the makers of the original ad) might like…
>Richard,What part of "teach your son that rape is bad" do you have a problem with?
>Also, I predicted the "false accusation" false equivalence ploy in the very first post on this thread. Good to see that you're so predictable.
>Richard, there is nothing about the way we are raising girls that makes them more likely to murder children. Women are more likely to kill their children only so far as they are more likely to be custodial parents. Remove that factor and they are not more likley to kill children.Men, on the other hand are more likely to rape, and more likely to murder.Is this because they are inherently evil? No. Then it must be something we are doing wrong when we raise our boys.This is actually a pro male message. It says that there is nothing inherent in maleness that makes men rape more, it is something they are being taught.
>Women are more likely to kill their children only so far as they are more likely to be custodial parents. Remove that factor and they are not more likley to kill children.Genuinely not trolling, but may I have a citation for that? I'm seriously, it would be very interesting. I've seen bunches of studies and statistics which place female murderers of children much higher than male ones on some accounts, but not any which controlled for differing rates of custodial parenthood.
>Also, women have already redefiend what it means to be a woman. They left the home, got jobs, gave themselves permission to display traits that were traditionally masculine. From it they got personal freedom, the same thing men can get from redefining what it means to be a man. The freedom to be who you want. If you want to display traditional masculinity, you can. If you want to act traditionally feminine, you can. If you want to fall in the middle, you can.
>Well put, Sandy.
>"There's also a line in there which I forgot to mention which I despise, which is 'redefine what it means to be a man.' Uh, why? For who's fucking benefit? And what do we get out of it? Will women have to also redefine themselves to meet some male standard or are they perfect princesses who need no changing?"HOLY CRAP IT'S THE PERFECT PRINCESSES THING AGAIN. Like, two MRA posts in, and we get "perfect princesses."You know a lot of women have been big on redefining themselves for a while now, right? It's called the feminist movement. I admit, though, it's not about meeting some male standard. It's about meeting a human standard. That is super corny but I'm saying it anyway.
>@vagrantsvoiceCan't find it right now, but here's one that shows when you include stepparents mothers and fathers are equally likely to kill. Of course MRAs blame mothers when stepfathers kill.http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/35/1/74"Although some studies have noted that mothers commit filicide more often than fathers,5,9,21,29–32 other research has shown that paternal filicide is as common or more common than maternal filicide.12,17,27,33–39 Reports of a higher proportion of maternal filicides most likely reflect the inclusion of neonaticides in some studies.17""Filicide is a relatively rare event. In Canada in 2004, 27 children were killed by their parents.4 Mothers and fathers (including stepparents) were equally responsible for killing their children. The parent subsequently committed suicide in over one-fifth (22%) of these incidents."It's also worth noting that fillicide in general is rare, much rarer than rape, and is most often linked to psychosis.
>Hmm…thank you very much, Sandy. Though I suppose most MRAs would claim that the "true number" of filicides for women is much higher because women don't get caught, for whatever reasons. Still, IMO that seems more like tinfoil-hattery to me than anything else.