>
 |
| 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.
>If he actually did provide a copy of one, you people would either say he was just making it up or accuse "fraudtrelle" of sending it under a sockpuppet account.If only the message text was provided, then I would certainly have no reason to believe that it was a genuine email. As long as the full email with all header data is provided, however, it is not difficult to verify the source.Of course, if the source turns out to be some anonymous email account that can't be traced back to any real person, then I would still have good reason to think that it was a fabricated threat, but at least it would be proven that a legitimately threatening email was, in fact, received.
>I would still have good reason to think that it was a fabricated threat,That's all we needed to hear (and I'm sure you'll claim I'm ignoring the rest of your message, but the simple fact of the matter is posting header data and other identifying information, if a threat is genuine, might cost someone their job, which he probably doesn't want to do, as that would likely inflame this whole situation even worse than it already is). Honestly, somebody could videotape him getting beat up by a guy calling him a "misandrist mangina" and you would still claim he was making it all up. There's absolutely no way he could convince you people of anything, so why should he (or anybody else) even bother?
>If I showed you a video of some men dressed in what appear to be police uniforms dragging another man out of his house in the middle of the night and beating him up because they believe that he threatened his wife, would you accept that video alone as proof that the police actually did that?My standard of proof is the same as that of a court of law; I expect claims of criminal activity to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
>would you accept that video alone as proof that the police actually did that?Yes.
>A court of law has five different levels of proof:Reasonable suspicion (example: Whren v. United States)Probable Cause (for warrants and IA hearings)Preponderance of evidence (civil trials, criminal pre-trial motions)Clear and convincing evidence (example Calderon v. Thompson)Beyond a reasonable doubt (example Coffin v. United States)An internet forum such as this has no standard of proof beyond a few examples such as already been provided or in the case of a statistic claim, the study originating such a claim as it is not a court of law. The two internet postings that have been provided would be enough to hold a hearing regarding an issuance of a restraining order. During the hearing the standard would be preponderance of the evidence meaning the requirement of beyond a reasonable doubt is in itself unreasonable.Back to watching ATHF.
>Cold, woah. The guy on the spearhead compares someone who made a 30 second ad to an actual Nazi collaborator then basically suggested he should be killed after a cursory 5 minute trial, and this doesn't bother you? The idea of executing someone for making a 30 second video doesn't seem, you know, a tad harsh to you?And setting aside the issue of Nazis and post-war treatment of collaborators, what about the guy who thought Jasper should be beaten up? You don;t find that remark threatening, or troubling at all? You don't mind it when Paul Elam basically insinuates that Jasper was an abusive cop who beat people, on the basis of zero evidence at all? Wouldn't that be sort of akin to the false allegations you guys are always complaining about?You would demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before you believed that I guy who has had hundreds of hateful messages posted publicly about him actually got what you'd consider a threatening message, but Elam opining about him being an "alpha puke" doesn't require any evidence at all? Sorry, dude, but you're a hypocrite and a fanatic.
>MRA's and miggytoes would do themselves a big favor if they would lay off the Nazi hyperbole already. They forget that some of us come from families that were decimated — nay, nearly wiped out — by the REAL Nazis. Are men being loaded into cattle cars and exterminated en masse ? Are they being killed at the rate of 10000 a day, and burned in ovens ? Are they subjected to gruesome medical experiments? (Warning: graphic) Do miggytoes live in some kind of Auscwitz, sleeping on bare planks, crowded into barracks at 10 times their capacity ? How interesting they apparently have computers and high-speed Internet access there. This drivel by "oppressed" men isn't so insulting to women as it is to the REAL victims of REAL Nazis.Go to hell with your persecution complex, miggytoes. As long as you have the gall to compare yourselves to the victims of Nazi's, I won't take anything you say seriously.
>I never said it didn't bother me, I said it wasn't a direct, physical threat. If you can cite some kind of legal precedent where a court ruled that merely expressing the opinion that a currently legal action should be retroactively made a capital crime and enforced as such constituted a threat then by all means, do so.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.This is clearly pointing to the fact that men have NOT used physical violence to silence this guy, and arguing that this proves that men are not as violent as he claims. It's not a very strong argument(not being beaten up could simply mean that he was lucky or a difficult target) but only an idiot would regard that as a threat. Again, if you can cite legal precedent of such an argument being ruled as a threat then do so.As for Paul Elam, did you even read the entire post? He said:If there is dirt on this wannabe Silverback, and I think there likely is, it would benefit all of us to spread it everywhere in the universe it will stick- hopefully the first place that will happen would be on the face of his company.The first word in that paragraph is IF. How the hell is IF an accusation? He is obviously speculating, not accusing. There are documented cases of police officers brutally beating up men to defend the honor of women before they even bother investigating her claim, so it's not like this is even an outlandish speculation. Then, his very next paragraph begins with:What you come up with needs to be verifiable. I don’t want to commit a civil offense against him, no matter how deserving he is.Do you seriously think that this is comparable to when Amanda Marcotte decides that her personal opinion about whether or not a rape took place trumps the District Attorney's Office? If that's the basis for your charge of hypocrisy, then you fail miserably.I'm one of the most stubbornly moderate MRAs around; calling me a fanatic says far more about you than it ever could about me.
>would you accept that video alone as proof that the police actually did that?Yes.It's nice to know that you are so easily convinced of things just because they are shown in a video. Next you should watch this and learn the truth that it is Jews who viciously brutalize neo-nazi skinheads and not the other way around. It's clearly shown in the video so it must be true, right? No possible way those could just be actors…
>Amused, I have relatives who died in concentration camps and I don't consider the comparison to be offensive because I actually studied the events that preceded the holocaust.Before the holocaust took place there was a campaign of vicious lies and exaggerations about Jews that were designed to make the rest of the German people regard them as pure evil. Once they were in power, the Nazis proceeded to bias the entire legal system against Jews and make them into second-class citizens. It was because of the desperation that the Nazis created in Jews that Herschel Grynszpan shot Ernst vom Rath, which further played into the hands of Nazis who wanted to portray Jews as violent enemies of the state. Without the backdrop of that propaganda and social conditioning, the holocaust could not have taken place without the German people being alarmed at the number of Jews disappearing in their midst.Since the 60s, feminists have spread vicious propaganda about men that is of the very same caliber as what the Nazis spread about Jews. At the same time, they have also been biasing the legal system against men in a similar manner to the way the Nazis biased it against Jews, although at this time they have not yet brought it to the level of bias that existed in Germany in the late 30s. These legitimate comparisons are the basis for the term "feminazi". Apparently by your logic it is premature to compare any group to the Nazis until they have fully re-enacted the entire holocaust, but some of us have different standards and are capable of seeing the writing on the wall.
>It's clearly shown in the video so it must be true, right? No possible way those could just be actors… The problem is, common sense tells us that jews beating up skinheads rather than the other way around is an extremely outlandish scenario which ought not to be believed from viewing a single video. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and all that. Cops beating up innocent people for little to no reason, on the other hand, is something so unfortunately common in the US today that it's hardly an 'extraordinary claim.' If you see a video of it, more likely than not that video is accurate.By the same token, as anyone who's not an ideologically-blinded fanatic who's spent even a small degree of time around the "manosphere" can tell you, MRAs are an angry bunch and many of them are outrightly enamored with physical violence, as the valorization and justification of Sodini and Lepine proves (in b4 the NAMRALT/"No True MRA" argument). In this context, hell, you don't even need a video or even a screencap of an email. Mr. Jasper's word is more than enough to convince an unbiased observer "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he's received violent threats. Now, obviously, I would require much more proof to believe that he was actually the subject of violence. But threats alone? When dealing with people like the MRAs, his word's enough to defuse any "reasonable" doubts.I'm one of the most stubbornly moderate MRAs around; calling me a fanatic says far more about you than it ever could about me.Lol. Considering how you've admitted your true, unfiltered opinions might cost you your job, you'll have to forgive me if I'm not exactly convinced of your self-proclaimed "moderate" status.
>Yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but that has nothing to do with the fact that what you see in a video might be staged and should not simply be believed without any further analysis.I have no problem with you scouring the net to see what you can dig up on me, in fact I find it highly amusing when people try to do that. However, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to actually read what you find carefully. I was clearly stating that I don't express my true, unfiltered opinions IN REAL LIFE. What you see me say online are my true, unfiltered opinions. The fact that, despite being moderate, they could cost me my job shows how extreme our society has become in its demonization of men.
>what you see in a video might be staged and should not simply be believed without any further analysis.You would be correct if we were sitting on a jury in a court of law. Outside of one, on the other hand, we are not obligated to do much more than follow common sense, and common sense tells us that there simply aren't many people outside of crazy fanatics who'd go through the trouble of 'staging' a video. If it's neo-nazis being beaten up by Jews, then yeah, assuming they're faking it is reasonable, they're crazy enough to do so. The other way around, however, isn't really as suspicious. The same would apply to Mr. Jasper getting beat up by an MRA, or even in this case just receiving threats of physical violence.I have no problem with you scouring the net to see what you can dig up on me, in fact I find it highly amusing when people try to do that.Lol. It took me like 30 seconds to find that, Richard sent me a message on wordpress a few months ago and when I looked at some of the posts on his blog, yours was one of the comments I saw. I guess having a decent memory is considered "scouring" now. Good to know.What you see me say online are my true, unfiltered opinions.Uh-huh. And why should we believe that? For all we know your "true opinions" are considerably more extreme and you only "moderate" yourself here because you don't want to make your movement look worse than it already does.
>Mr. Cold, a video such as you described outside a court can be taken seriously by a reasonable person to be a video of real cops beating a real person up. Unless there is something to show things are off, most people will not automatically assume it is fake. In a courtroom setting however other evidence can be used to show what is really going on. For instance, the actors themselves could be brought in to testify.As for the comparison of feminists to Nazi war criminals-that is simply disgusting. Outside of the two things men have a legitimate gripe on (divorce settlements and child custody issues), what on earth shows that women are doing ANYTHING remotely like the Nazis?
>common sense tells us that there simply aren't many people outside of crazy fanatics who'd go through the trouble of 'staging' a videoWell for starters, there are an awful lot of crazy fanatics out there. We know that there are tons of feminists who are crazy fanatics, so why should I think that there is no way they could hire an actor to pretend to be an MRA and deliver a fake beating with the camera running?But really, why does one need to be a crazy fanatic to see how they can score more points for their cause by producing fake videos? It seems like a pretty obvious strategy for anyone who doesn't mind being dishonest.As for my "true opinions" please feel free to look up more things I have said on other sites and paste them here. As I said above, I don't mind it at all and even find it amusing.
>Mr. Cold, a video such as you described outside a court can be taken seriously by a reasonable person to be a video of real cops beating a real person up. Unless there is something to show things are off, most people will not automatically assume it is fake.I never said they should automatically assume it is fake, just that some effort should be made to analyze the video before declaring that it proves something, especially when there is a strong incentive to produce a staged one.Outside of the two things men have a legitimate gripe on (divorce settlements and child custody issues), what on earth shows that women are doing ANYTHING remotely like the Nazis?I didn't compare women to Nazis, I said that some FEMINISTS produce Nazi-caliber propaganda and are pushing for more anti-male bias in the legal system, and that this is the basis for the term "feminazi". Maybe you should try reading my comments more carefully before responding to them.
>why should I think that there is no way they could hire an actor to pretend to be an MRA and deliver a fake beating with the camera runningFair enough, you won't hear me arguing that many feminists aren't as bad, if not worse than, many MRAs. Mr. Jasper really doesn't seem to be one of those crazy fanatics, though. From what I've heard him say, I think he's dim-witted and utterly deluded if he believes his little ad was even remotely a good idea, but merely being dumb doesn't quite take him to the levels of crazy dishonesty required to go through the trouble of staging a video.As for my "true opinions" please feel free to look up more things I have said on other sites and paste them here. As I said above, I don't mind it at all and even find it amusing. I've got enough time to humor you on one site, but not enough to look at what you've said on a bunch of others. Even if I did, though, there would still be no reason at all to assume you're being honest about your "true opinions" on other places either. You might "moderate" your statements on the Spearhead or some MGTOW forum or wherever to keep from making those places look bad or to keep from providing "fraudtrelle" with more ammunition to put on here. "A-ha," you might say, "Look at you! There's nothing that could possibly convince of my good faith!" If so, I'm only as suspicious of you and your motives as you are of Mr. Jasper's. The evidence for your honesty and good faith is about as strong as the evidence for his claims of being threatened.
>Because you have a very weird view of what is a crazy fanatic.I am reading that second link and sorry but how is: "Women take their roles of caretakers very seriously and when they hear of someone who's taken advantage of a child, they react more strongly than men do." – Kathleen C. Faller, professor of social work at the University of Michiganhateful towards men or an example of crazy fanaticism? Or this one: "Cosmetic surgery and the ideology of self-improvement may have made women's hope for legal recourse to justice obsolete." Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 55…That one does not even MENTION men. "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience." Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52.<-so telling the truth is crazy fanaticism? "The nuclear family is a hotbed of violence and depravity." Gordon Fitch This can refer to either sex so again, how is it anti male or a crazy fanatic?————————-Most of the quotes come from the same woman-Andrea Dworkin. This is a very bad example of crazy fanaticism on the part of feminists.
>Yes you did Cold. Perhaps you should find some decent examples of actual efforts that have any remote chance for success instead of a bunch of quotes that show little evidence of crazy fanaticism or hate towards men.
>Given that this is about the zillionth time that someone has posted a list of "evil feminist quotes" that does not list the sources of these quotes, or provide links to the sources of these quotes, or a context for such quotes, I may have to declare a moratorium on the posting of such unsourced lists.
>Obviously some of those quotes do list sources, but many of them are unsourced, or have misleading sources. The "all men are rapists" quote from Marilyn French is sourced to People magazine, but I believe it is a line from a character in her novel A Woman's Room.
>That one link was only the tip of the iceberg, and I never said that every single quote in there was from a crazy fanatic(try looking up the definition of "some").Andrea Dworkin remains a popular icon among feminists; she's not just a random nut.
>The quote from French may very well be from both a fictional character in her novel AND from French herself in People. It's not like no author has ever used a character in a fiction novel as their mouthpiece(*cough*Ayn Rand*cough*).
>Well, since you don't provide a link to the source, I can't look it up and see what is the truth. From now on I will consider such lists spam, unless there is a clickable link to the original source of the quotes in question so that readers here can look up the quotes in context.
>I'm already working with other MRAs on a list with such links on all the quotes, but there's this pesky thing called copyright that makes it troublesome. See, even if I obtained a February 20, 1983 issue of People, scanned the article, posted it on a site, and then linked to it in the list, that post wouldn't be up for very long before it was taken down for copyright violation.