>
 |
| 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.
>@ AmusedShow me where I said violence in relation to your post. I never said violence. I said aggression. Aggression does not necessarily = violence. I don't know how to explain it to you any simpler. Aggression can and often is a good trait, and men should not be shamed for having it. Random Brother
>@ Treya LunaSo a woman abuses you and you STILL focus all your hate on men? Jesus.Random Brother
>Cmon people, no mother or father wants her or his son to become a rapist, that’s beyond banal. But how do you teach your son not to rape? Or broader asked, how do you teach your son to become a good person? There is tons of literature about parenting out their, which all tries to answer this question. Also, children are not growing up in vacuum with their parents. They are influenced by friends, teachers, relatives, the media, etc, etc. There is nothing new about the idea of the ad. Feminists preach for the last 40 years that traditional masculinity is, boldly expressed, the root of all evil. Up to a point I would agree with this statement, but the problem is obviously far more complex. Making such a bold statement, without offering a in depth analysis of the problem or at best offering a solution, is not helpful. Is there a working alternative for the problematic traditional masculinity? It's pretty clear that a man, who shows no masculine traits, has it worse in life, professionally and romantically. Traditional masculinity is often defined as the opposite of femininity. But raising your son like a daughter is certainly not the answer. Also, a lot of traditional masculine values are positive, but they come with a price. The positive and negative aspects can be featured in a single person. The brutal prison guard, who's abusing his power, can simultaneously be a loving husband and devoted father. Maybe this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde thing is even an inherent part of traditional masculinity. I don't know. I don't see how this ad contributes anything useful to the discussion. Maybe it's raising awareness. But the narrative that men are evil, or at least capable of committing the worst crimes is already widely accepted. Showing a baby girl and a baby boy and making the message gender neutral would have been bold. But again victims of female abusers are rendered invisible. I wonder how long it will take until they get finally acknowledged.
>@ kollegeKollege said: "No, feminists have defined rape as an act of violence, in which one person did not give (or could not give) consent to another person/other persons, who (despite the lack of consent) still performed sexual acts on them."Feminists define rape as whatever suits them to get what they want, period. Kollege continues: " So, just because back then spousal rape, female on male rape, female on female rape and male on male rape, date rape etc. were not considered rape legally, doesn't mean they didn't happen. They were just absent from the legal definition of rape. So, do you REALLY think that the change of that definition is a bad thing? Seriously?"It's bad when there isn't a clear, consistent definition. As in the scenario where a man and woman both get drunk, go to bed, wake up the next morning, she can't remember what happened so somehow he must have raped her. That little scenario played out on this very site and that the man raped the woman was the feminist side.Kollege: "People like you are exactly the reason we need such ads. Not like the ad in the post, but yeah. It's definitely needed."No. People like you hate men. Hate male traits. And will use the flimsiest of excuses to spew you misandric shit all over. Kollege: "To be quite honest, you seem really anti-men."A feminist is telling me I hate men. Fucking hilarious. I don't push for laws putting men in jail like feminists do. I don't push for laws to steal men's money like feminists do. I don't support ads that attack male children like feminsts do, yet I'm the one who's anti male. You should check a mirror.kollege: "Feminists don't consider non-feminist or anti-feminist women to be lesser of a woman, or not a woman at all."You're completely full of shit. This is a lie and you know it.Kollege: " The MRAs, however, even threaten men (like Josh Jasper) if they don't share the MRAs' views."It's not sharing the same views. He shares our enemies views. YOUR views. He's an enemey of men, period.Kollege: "You're not pro-men, just pro-misogyny."Who's the one cheering an ad claiming all males even babies are rapists? You are. You're pro misogyny. I'm pro men. Get it right.Random Brother
>@ DavidPlease. You'll defend anything your feminist masters tell you to. You only don't like the ad because it shows how extreme your feminist masters are. You don't give 2 shits about men (unless they're gay, I assume).I see you there. You and Captain Bathrobe curled up together in the oversized purse of some hariy feminist just waiting to get out and "Yip!" "Yip!" "Yip!" At some evil male and show her your value.BTW David, if as this fucked up ad says, power, aggresion, toughness, and strength are bad and are rapist traits. Then how did you remove these traits from yourself in order to stop your innate male desire to rape?Random Brother
>Richard: I don't mind if you choose to define an apple as a type of orange, but when you do, it behooves you to inform others that this is the definition you are using.Aggression does not necessarily involve physical violence, but it isn't the synonym of initiative, either, which is how you are apparently defining the word "aggression". As commonly understood, however, aggression is an unprovoked use of force for the purpose of dominating another. That use of force does not necessarily involve violence, but the very nature of the concept comes pretty close to involving violence — after all, inasmuch as it is a forceful encroachment against another, where non-violent force fails, violence is the next logical step. Conceptually, there is a strong link between aggression and violence. When we talk about cultivating and encouraging aggression in boys, I doubt the picture in most people's minds is of studious-looking children aggressively tackling advanced calculus; rather, it is of bullies terrorizing physically weaker children in the school yard.For what it's worth, I don't believe that men are natural aggressors or violent. It means that men aren't presumed to be perpetrators of violence by nature — but at the same time, aren't excused for perpetrating violence on the ground that men are "naturally" this way. I do, however, believe that we have a culture in which male violence is glorified or at least considered normative, and boys and men are indoctrinated that being violent or purposely intimidating is the only way to sustain their masculinity. By all means, encourage initiative, creativity, confidence and persistence in children of both sexes. Aggression? Maybe not so much.
>Richard, I've made very clear several times I'm not a fan of the ad, so I'm not sure why you think I'm defending it, or that I should defend the particular argument it's making. I think that the GENERAL argument that you shouldn't raise kids to be misogynistic, or to believe that violence is a good solution to their problems. But I disagree with the ad's tabula rasa take on people (I think a certain amount of aggression is inherent, and babies are certainly aggressive, and selfish, and all sorts of negative things; but they're babies and we forgive them; also they're too small to do much damage). And I disagree with the notion that all the traits it describes are inherently all bad — they're a mixture of good and bad — or likely to lead adult men to rape.
>That second paragraph should read: "I agree with the GENERAL argument that you shouldn't raise kids to be misogynistic, or to believe that violence is a good solution to their problems."
>Richard, also this: Who's the one cheering an ad claiming all males even babies are rapists?1) The ad doesn't actually say that. 2) Neither has anyone here. The ad is saying that male babies have THE POTENTIAL to BECOME rapists, if taught wrong. I disagree with a lot about the ad, but I think that's true. It's also true that female babies have THE POTENTIAL to BECOME all sorts of bad things, if taught wrong. And that both male and female babies have THE POTENTIAL to BECOME evil even if they are taught well. (That's not what the ad itself says, but it's true.)
>Richard wrote:And "male" feminist like Dave and Captain Pink Bathrobe wonder why I think them lap dogs.Actually, it's green. Since, you know, we're operating on a super-concrete conceptual level that misses the point of metaphor and allegory. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you come by it naturally. Also, if you wish to insult me, implying that I'm a girly-man really isn't going to cut it. I outgrew that hang-up a long time ago. Simply put, there's nothing wrong with being a woman, so there is, by extension, nothing wrong with comparing me to a woman. You can thank feminism for that attitude as well. Ridding myself (mostly) of anxious masculinity has been the one of the best, most liberating things I've ever done. And I have feminism to thank for it. Awesome!That's the idea that you just can't seem to grasp, Richard. I'm not a feminist for women, though it benefits them as well. I do it for me–and for my sons.
>I see you there. You and Captain Bathrobe curled up together in the oversized purse of some hariy feminist just waiting to get out and "Yip!" "Yip!" "Yip!" At some evil male and show her your value.Um…Dave, how did we get into a purse together? Who's this hairy feminist he keeps talking about? Will there be treats if we're good?I like treats.
>yip! yip! yip!
>Sorry for the triple post, but I have to amend something.And by anxious masculinity, Richard, I don't mean all masculine traits by any stretch of the imagination. I only refer to the need to defend and assert one's perceived masculinity at all costs, lest one be seen as a wimp, a pussy, or gay. In other words, it's OK to be masculine. It's the constant need to prove it, and the constant threat of losing one's status as a man if one doesn't prove it, that I reject.
>Ridding myself (mostly) of anxious masculinity has been the one of the best, most liberating things I've ever done. And I have feminism to thank for it. Awesome!Ironically enough, one hears the same refrain from MRAs and MGTOWs fairly constantly–just replace "anxious masculinity" and "feminism" with "women" and "Going My Own Way" and you get this:Ridding myself (mostly) of female companionship has been the one of the best, most liberating things I've ever done. And I have MGTOW to thank for it. Awesome!Sounds like something that wouldn't be out of place over at The Spearhead or Yohan's forums.
>*hands out bacon to the yippers*
>vagrant:Well, to each his own I suppose. The difference, I think, is that I don't perceive women's gains (as a group) to be men's loses (as a group). These guys seem to see it as a zero sum game–if women gain, they lose, the thinking seems to go. But as for their own sense of personal fulfillment in life, well, good for them. If excluding women from their lives makes them happy, and no one is being harmed, then I say follow your bliss.
>Mmm…bacon.
>Vagrant: I really don't think that "anxious masculinity" and "female companionship" are even remotely analogous. I mean, I can simply replace words in things and make them sound however I want. I mean, Hitler could have said this: "Ridding Germany (mostly) of Jews has been the one of the best, most liberating things I've ever done. And I have anti-semitism to thank for it. Awesome!"And that wouldn't really have made him much like Capt. Bathrobe or the MGTOW-ites. Well, maybe a teensy little bit like the MGTOW-ites.
>@ AmusedFrom http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=aggressive1. Meaning of AGGRESSIVEPronunciation: u'gresiv WordNet Dictionary Definition: 1.[adj] having or showing determination and energetic pursuit of your ends; "an aggressive businessman"; "an aggressive basketball player"; "he was aggressive and imperious; positive in his convictions"; "aggressive drivers" 2.[adj] marked by aggressive ambition and energy and initiative; "an aggressive young exective"; "a pushful insurance agent"; "a pushing youth intent on getting on in the world" 3.[adj] characteristic of an enemy or one eager to fight; "aggressive acts against another country"; "a belligerent tone" 4.[adj] tending to spread quickly; "an aggressive tumor" AGGRESSIVE is a 10 letter word that starts with ASynonyms: ambitious, assertive, battleful, bellicose, belligerent, combative, competitive, contentious, enterprising, fast-growing(a), hard-hitting, high-pressure, hostile, invasive, militant, obstreperous, predatory, pugnacious, pushful, pushing, pushy, rapacious, raptorial, ravening, rough, scrappy, self-asserting, self-assertive, truculent, vulturine, vulturous Your definition of aggression is tied too closely to violence for my tastes. While being aggressive can lead to violence, and can be negative, it can also be very positive, even the dictionary shows that aggressive does not equal violent. I think, if the people who are for this ad are truly for violence reduction AND actually care about men, they may want to consider focussing far more on the crime aspect of the situation rather than traits they claim lead to rape and or redefining men. Random Brother
>@ DavidYou say you don't like the ad but believe that any male poorly trained could become a rapist. You are not looking at the full content of the ad. It says far more than that. The ad claims that unless we redefine what it takes to be men, men will default to the "natural" positon of rape. How could a message be more vile than that?Lets start at the beginning. The ad said "He raped his girlfriend." I'll repeat this as feminists seem to have shitty memories.The ad starts like this.1. He's tough.2. He's strong.3. He's aggressive.4. He's powerful.5. And. . .he raped his girlfriend.6. But he wasn't always this way.(Fade in to baby)7. "What are you teaching your son? 8. Redefine what it means to be a man."The only way this ad sees to stop the rapist is to go back in time and basically take away the aforementioned traits and to essentially neuter him. Make sure that your son is not tough, nor strong, nor aggressive, nor powerful and thus by redefining his manhood, he won't rape. Spin it however you want, but that is what the ad preaches, and what all these manhaters who lurve the ad want. A bunch of neutered men. Lastly, there's no way that asshat Jaspers would have gotten away with this shit if he'd picked a black, asian or latino baby. None. The ACLU, NAACP, and every other of those sorts of organizations would be all over him as they should.Random Brother
>@ Captain BathrobeSo by following your love of this ad can I assume that you are not tough, not strong, not aggressive, not powerful, and not a rapist. Would that be correct?Well, at least you have one good characteristic in that you're not a rapist. Random Brother.
>The difference, I think, is that I don't perceive women's gains (as a group) to be men's loses (as a group). These guys seem to see it as a zero sum game–if women gain, they lose, the thinking seems to go. It's a common strain of thought among MRAs–as longtime commenter EvilWhiteMaleEmpire on said, "you can't have equality. Either we're on top, or they are. And 'male supremacy' has worked out better than female supremacy for everybody, so we might as well have that."Whether or not they're correct is also a subject of debate. As some of them might say, the conflict between men and women is inevitable–blame the blind, cruel, and unfathomably stupid forces of natural/sexual selection for making the human species separated into two genders, both of which 'require,' in a reproductive sense, mutually opposed and incompatible things (men to spread their seed to as many women as possible, women to extract as many resources from one single man as possible).To respond to our host,I mean, I can simply replace words in things and make them sound however I want. I mean, Hitler could have said this: "Ridding Germany (mostly) of Jews has been the one of the best, most liberating things I've ever done. And I have anti-semitism to thank for it. Awesome!"You're right, which means the problem lies with Cpt. Bathrobe's original statement. When you say something that can be applied to virtually anything if you just change a few words around, you haven't said anything of value–you're just mouthing empty slogans and platitudes. Thus, the accomplished Bathrobe's praise of feminism is not a particularly compelling argument for feminism or a refutation of Richard's point–it's just an empty bromide.
>Richard Random,You can assume whatever you like. Whatever I say won't make a damn bit of difference anyway, since you are determined to miss the broader point here. Feel free to picture me in a frilly pink dress drinking chamomile tea if it pleases you. That is, if I can ever get out of this bag you've put me in.Protip: being a tough guy on the internet doesn't make you tough in real life.
>Funny, you'd have to be very lucky to find that particular definition of aggressive as the first one. Or do a lot of searching until you found one that fit what you wanted it to. The first definition of aggressive in other dictionaries is:quarrelsome or belligerent ready to attack or oppose; quarrelsome characterized by or tending toward unprovoked offensives, attacks, invasions, or the like;militantly forward or menacingmarked by combative readinessaggressing or inclined to aggress; starting fights or quarrelsInclined to behave in an actively hostile fashionattacking; offensive; hostile; forceful; bold
>Thus, the accomplished Bathrobe's praise of feminism is not a particularly compelling argument for feminism or a refutation of Richard's point–it's just an empty bromide. It reflects my experience, Vagrant. Doesn't that count for something? Also, it illustrates my point that feminism works for me, even though I'm a man. Richard likes to say that I only make the comments I do in order to get a "pat on the head" from feminists. That's pure bullshit, based only on his cartoonish strawman image of a feminist male. (Actually, when it comes to commenting on this blog, I do it for the lulz. But I digress.) Feminism, in addition to the other social movements of the last half-century, has helped pave the way for men to forge a new identity without anxious masculinity. Masculinity without all the anxiety and chest pounding! Whoda thunk it? Like I said, it works for me.The rest of your comment is thoughtful and on point, however. Unlike mine, apparently. 🙂