When a man resorts to violence to “defend the honor” of his wife or girlfriend from rude comments from another man, it’s worth asking if the violence really has anything to do with the woman in question.
Immediately after Will Smith whopped Chris Rock upside his head on live television Sunday night he yelled to Rock, who had made a quick joke about Jada Pinkett Smith’s shaved head, to “keep my wife’s name out of your fucking mouth.” But I don’t think the slap had much if anything to do with Rock mocking Pinkett Smiths hair — and implicitly the alopecia that led to her shaving her head in the first place.
No, I think what was really bothering Smith was the constant barrage of jokes about his admittedly complicated, and perhaps open, marriage. He was tired, I think, of being called a “cuck” because of his wife’s alleged infidelity (which may have only taken place during a time when the two were separated). After several jokes on the subject from the main stage at the Oscars, it seems he wanted to punch someone, and when Rock made his mean little joke he became that someone.
Smith wasn’t protecting his wife, who responded to the joke with an eye roll and nothing more; she didn’t tell him to do anything on her behalf. No, it looks to me like Smith was trying to assert his masculinity after having it questioned for years. Rock’s hair joke was the excuse, not the reason, for the slap. But if Smith hoped this show of “toxic masculinity” would convince people to stop calling him a “cuck” and worse, he was wrong.
Indeed, the insults flew faster than ever — especially among those who blame Pinkett Smith’s “infidelity” and Smith’s acquiescence to his alleged “cuckold” status, as the real reason for the slap. And that brings us to the Men’s Rights activists of Reddit, who came up with an explanation of events that is almost the polar opposite of mine — and in which Jada Pinkett Smith is the real villain.
Many of the commenters on the Men’s Rights subreddit took a perverse pleasure in calling Will Smith a “cuck,” a “simp” and a “punk ass bitch” who felt compelled to defend the honor of a woman who didn’t deserve either honor or a defense.
“What kind of man would try to defend his wife’s ‘honor’ when this same wife publicly cheats and humiliates him,” asked ninodelumbre.
I … think C. Rock was just trying to help W. Smith by showing him that he could do so much better then being attached to baldy the cheating wife.
“You cannot defend the honor of a woman who has none,” agreed asura227.
You accomplish nothing but making yourself look stupid. Will Smith – cuckold of the year 2022.
“I didn’t even realize they were still together,” snorted Jbr74.
I lost more respect for him staying with that sexually promiscuous, adulterating, philandering low-life piece of trash, gaslighting, narcissistic human being.
“She can take a dick but she can’t take a joke,” laughed kamenghost.
After quoting Smith, who yelled to Rock to “keep my wife’s name out of your fucking mouth,” TAPriceCTR declared “Man, keep other men’s cocks out of your wife’s damn mouth.”
Never mind that as far as we know, Jada had one relationship, with one man, during a time when she and Will were unofficially separated.
The cuck jokes never ended.
“Did Will get to fuck Jada last night, or only watch?” joked pushing-rope.
“Impotent cuckold rage was on full display,” added YourPillsAintWorkin.
Others argued that Smith was the real victim — of Pinkett Smith’s cuckolding.
After describing the two as “Hollywoods premier feminist couple” (?) , thread-starter NeoNotNeo declared that “Will proclaiming he was defending his family is BS. He hit a man because of his wife’s fragile ego.”
“I think Will Smith is pretty clearly in an abusive relationship.,” offered a DIY psychologist called Scrubadubdub82 in a comment that got nearly 300 upvotes.
I think this is what feminist abuse in a relationship looks like. Men being made to look foolish for the wife’s ego. Men feeling obligated to do their wife’s bidding. Being told you’re toxically masculine if you ever stand up for yourself, but told you’re not a real man if you ever let your wife have to deal with even the smallest slight herself.
One commenter wondered aloud why “a wealthy and successful male actor who has access to some of the most beautiful girls in the world [would] stay with an old bald female that cheats on him?”
“Don’t victim blame,” responded someone called Omz-bomz.”
There can be lots of reasons why.
Being in an abuse relationship doesn’t always allow you to take rational decitions, or to see how bad the situation really is. From what we know she is manipulative and abusive and gaslights him into thinking it’s his fault.
We know nothing of the sort. We know that their relationship is complicated, and that it has sometimes been bad. And that’s about it. But calling her all these things is classic Men’s Rights “activism” at its worst. Leave it to the MRAs to blame the only person in this triangular standoff who didn’t do anything wrong — just because she’s a woman with her own ideas how relationships should work.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
@Gaebolga:
Your what?
@Quack:
That horse is on frigging stilts. 😛
@Surplus
Sifu is a title, equivalent to “master” or “teacher,” specific to kung-fu, as sensei is to karate.
@Squack
I saw you mra types tear down your own when one of you said that a 30-year-old man shouldn’t be having sex with a 16 year old. That man found out real fast he was hanging out with pedos
Except MRAs HAVE torn down their own. Just look at AVFM.
@Squack
And if you belive that: tell us how the Moon is made of Norwegian cheese while your at it. Given that MRA’s love tearing down both other men and MRA’s for any perceived unorthodoxy, or denigrating men for either being not white, LGBT, Asexual, not toxically hyper-masculine or who “doesn’t militantly hate women” and whom actually “respect women”. Point of fact: I’d say for all you and your ilks railing creeds against women and feminists whom you both claim are “evil Misanderists”: you guys prove and affirm the observed fact that their is no bigger Misandrist: than a Misogynist.
For while it is true you guys hate women for little to no reason; often deluded reasons at that: you also hate men.
@Squack
Oh no. Oh no you do not, especially not today of all days. You can utterly fuck off using people like me as your shield. I will be a feminist until the day I die, and with some luck I might even haunt people like you for a while after.
When I was a wee small me, my extremely genteel Southern belle mother advised running away, and failing that, to kick the boy/man in the crotch as hard as possible (and then run away).
I last punched someone in the face when I was 11 (he deserved it, and I warned him first), and both of us had our parents called and apologies made.
Note that I am no longer 11, so I no longer punch people no matter the insult.
Alopecia is an auto-immune condition, so the joke was ableist (don’t know if Rock knew about it or didn’t care), and we don’t know what other health problems Jada may have to go along with the hair loss, as @Cyborgette pointed out.
I see we have another boring troll boy who knows nothing about either feminists or MRAs, but probably has a hard-on for the “manly” Putin.
@GSS ex-noob
I don’t understand why. Putin is like 5’4 apparently and shown he’s really incompetent in war. a bunch of farmers stole his tanks.
There are a few regular topics of conversation in rural Cornish pubs. Consequently, whenever my military mates see those Ukraine photos and say “Technically, that’s not a tank.” I get to say “Technically, that’s not a tractor.”
So MRA and transphobic content can get through in your comments but not a criticism of you being outside your lane with regards to race?
I’ve been financially supporting WHTM for years. Guess it’s time to put that bit of monthly money elsewhere.
@LorenF,
If this thread is the first time you’ve ever commented on the site, then your post automatically went into the moderation bin, until David F. gets a chance to review it and let it through. If your first post was the one about the Black Feminist take on the Smith/Rock stuff, then it was let through. It’s just back where it would’ve been posted if it didn’t get sent to moderation first.
And if you have some links to what the Black Feminists are saying about this, I for one would be curious to read them. I think one or two others here might be too.
Only reason the troll was let through was because the commenters here sometimes likes to bat them around for a bit before the troll has a meltdown, threatens someone, and gets banned by the Dark Lord of the Blog.
Can’t see the fuss, myself. Chris Rock broke the rule that you can and should roast the nominees but their families are verboten, and got put in his place for it. It just happened immediately, rather than after some social media backlash.
Seems right to me.
Will Smith’s actions are a sad reminder of the dismal state of freedom of speech in this time. This is where years of Hollywood leftist rhetoric about the goodness of punching conservatives has gotten us. Soon enough, it’ll escalate to an all-out brawl between various factions of ideologues and their camps. The use of animalistic violence in place of rational discussion and the people who support the former are undoing the greatness of the American Experiment. Those of you who champion such barbarism should be ashamed, but I’m well aware that you don’t have any. You are oversocialized, grievance-filled weenies who vicariously get off on watching others do to your superiors what you only wish you could.
@ squack
I’m not sure that criticism can be sustained. If you’ll allow me to demonstrate why…
Assuming you’re using the phrase in its technical sense, then you would have to identify a narrow group position that nobody dares deviate from.
So the challenge to you would be: Identify that position.
I infer from your comment that the position is meant to be ‘everyone supports Smith’s use of violence‘, but please correct me if I have misinterpreted.
But if that is your premise then it can easily be rebutted just by examining the comments here.
The range of opinions goes from Smith was completely in the wrong, through Smith’s actions were unjustified but understandable, to fair play to the bloke. And everything along that spectrum. And many people don’t even have a set opinion; recognising that there may be a range of reasonable viewpoints or at least a need for further information before coming to a firm conclusion.
I’m not entirely sure that oversocialisation is as obvious an issue in progressive spaces as some people maintain.
It is true that individual groups can gravitate to an orthodoxy. But as to progressive politics generally, I think a more legitimate observation is contrary to that. Hence the relatability of the Popular Front of Judea tendencies.
I’m also less than convinced by some of your other points; but I’ll let cleverer people than me deal with those.
I’m now half-waiting for Squack to accuse Alan of being unable to construct an argument. But only half-waiting, because I’m relaxing after a hard week of work and letting my mind wander.
@squak
I’m sorry, what kind of weak sensitive baby are you that an open handed slap is “animalistic violence” let me guess, it’s only animalistic violence because a black man did it.
Barbarism? I have a degree in history with a vast knowledge of torture methods that would tell you, that you are using that word wrong.
Seriously, if that is the worst violence you have ever seen, then my husband tortures me with just stuff he does in the bedroom.
Do I need to get you a fainting couch to collapse on while you grab your pearls? shall we get you some smelling salts? Corset a bit to tight there darling? Like seriously.
I agree we shouldn’t hit other humans but I’m tired of everyone acting like will smith open handed slap, was the same as if he just went up there and bite off Chris rock’s nose or something.
@Alan
All you have managed to do is successfully prove for me my points about progressives being extra willing to tear each other down.
I’m using oversocialized in a different manner, I’m saying that you are all overly empathetic moralizing babies that place unimaginable burdens on yourselves and others that no one can follow. You are self-hating due to your oversocialization, and so you try to find people you imagine to be worse than yourselves, or you get off on watching any superior that doesn’t share your delusions get taken down a peg for the sin of being “on the wrong side of history.” (not presumptuous at all to assume that history favors you, like the passage of time itself is some kind of moral judge).
MRAs have no institutional power, allowing you to mock them to your heart’s content. Most people haven’t even heard of them, and everything that MRA’s do seems to get a laugh out of people. It’s easy for you to mock MRAs, and yet, you also insist that MRAs are somehow a threat. You have no accurate view of reality, proportions, or anything.
@Victorious Parasol
No.
@Elaine the Witch
“Barbarism” covers more than just torture. If someone hits their kid with their fists, while another one uses a whip, most people would call both torture, even though the whip probably hurts more. There are differences in the degree between smacking someone and torturing them, but both are uncivilized and thus, barbaric. You don’t convince me.
At no point did I imply that “smacking” was torture, you made that equivalence all on your own when you decided that the threshold for what consitutes “barbarism” involved torture and nothing less serious. You only did that to plug your history degree.
Your sex life is not of my business, you’re free to leave it like that. You’re being exhibitionistic.
It’s called “having standards” I have them for the rest of society and am rightly dismayed by the lack of everyone else’s ability to live up to them. I should think that nothing I have said violates the ideal norm of basic human decency that we should all have for one another.
It will escalate; pretty soon, people will be doing this shit, mark my words,
*fills out another MRA bingo card*
@Victorious Parasol
What are you even talking about? We only recently began talking about Will Smith, Will Smith is not a permanent fixture of MRA theory or praxis, there isn’t an armada of MRAs around here talking about Will Smith. You just sound so full it right now.
@Elaine: IKR? And the Russian troops are “camouflaging” tanks and other vehicles with a few tree branches. Along with their big radar, phone, and drone jammer, which was just abandoned and is probably being torn apart and put back together by US Army geeks in DC right this minute.
We’re in the 4th or 5th week of the 72 hour war. Putin is a loser and a wimp.
@ squack
Ah right; just be aware the phrase has quite a specific meaning in academia.
Actually I would agree with you that it can be an issue with compassionate people that they put other people’s wellbeing before their own; and are well aware of advantages they have that others might not. And people can unnecessarily beat themselves up for that.
It is recognised of course; hence such axioms as ‘put your own oxygen mask on first’.
But is a surfeit of empathy such a bad thing? On an individual level it can lead to burnout; and people do need to be aware and protect themselves from that. But what about society as a whole? I personally see compassion as a worthy attribute in itself; and I admire people who demonstrate it.
But on a purely utilitarian level, altruism seems to have advantages for the group; hence why it seems to be a successful, and retained, evolutionary advantage. So we should be grateful for it, and the fact that some people will put the group’s interests before the individuals when necessary. See for example what’s happening in Ukraine.
As an aside, quite a number of non human animals exhibit altruism. Especially those species generally regarded as ‘intelligent’. So altruism is hardly an aberration. Maybe it’s a consequence of the development of a theory of mind; or maybe kindness to others is what initiates a theory of mind. I’ll leave that one for the neurobiologists.
And a lot of the infighting you find a negative attribute stems from that. An advantage the right have is the ability to form coalitions. So you can get black evangelicals and Neo-nazis supporting a common cause even if they radically differ in regards to other issues.
But it’s innate in progressive politics that that’s harder to do. Progressives tend to look at the wider picture and the law of unintended consequences. So they will assess whether a short term advantage in achieving a single goal is worth the wider harm that legitimising a normally antagonistic group might cause to those they seek to press generally. So basically a ‘black ball’ veto approach is built in. The alternative would result in throwing some people under a bus as a sacrifice to the single issue at hand.
But even here there’s no consensus. I tend to adopt the approach of “I will work with anyone to do good; and no one to do harm”. But even there, a line must be drawn somewhere; and there will be a range of opinions as to where that line should be.
So whilst progressive politics can be messy and turbulent, I would suggest that’s better than groupthink. Marketplace of ideas and all that. And fundamentally all the rows are about how best to help people rather than profit oneself. So there’s at least a common goal to produce a better society for all. Whereas I would suggest, by definition, MRAs seek at best only to benefit men; more usually though just the individual.
And the all too common examples posted on this site of all the race to the bottom comments amongst MRAs arguably demonstrate that it is in fact that group that is more prone to the narcissism of small differences than any bunch of progressives.
@ Squack
Speaking of history and the Great American Experiment, you may recall that it wasn’t exactly rational discussion that led to previous members of our government shooting each other in duels, beating one another with canes and such during debates, etc, etc. I’d say we have improved since then, though not as much as most would like.
Of course, to be fair, when our beloved Orange Man President started rousing his loyal followers with hints and threats of violence, it was the MRA types who got most worried about all of that.
Errr… wait, let me check my notes. Sorry, no, that was liberal type characters. My mistake. The constant infighting about RINOs, emphasis on kidnapping and shooting political figures, storming of government buildings, etc, confused me.
But, then, I suppose Far Right, Conservative, and MRA don’t really have much to do with each other in your book?
@ Alan Robertshaw
I rather like “You can’t pour from an empty cup” too.
.45
I like that. It’s very Bruce Lee.
And also a bit less plane-crashy.
@.45
Liberals only cried crocodile tears over the supposed insult to democracy that was done that day by antifa and other assorted paid opposition characters larping as patriots while they ransacked the building. Nobody who doesn’t drown themselves in soy-fed lookbox bullshit bought into the claim that conservatives of any stripe were responsible, this was a false flag.
@ Squack
To some degree I think people are over estimating how coordinated the whole thing was, imagining it as some sort of organized coup, when it seemed more “Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity”, but therein lies one of the parts that is is rather scary to be a member of the Far Right: They all are happy to disown each other and throw each other under the bus.
Major figures like the QAnon shaman could very well be killed by his former friends who have decided he was really Antifa. He has been involved in the Right for years, with zero evidence to indicate your false flag narrative, but you and yours will happily eat him alive.
Good thing he and others aren’t MRAs, or that would of course be ridiculous hypocrisy on your part, claiming he and others are actually deep cover enemy agents or whatever, and the only true Scotsmen MRAs are those who stand united against the fragmented Left. Say, is that why you want to believe it so much?
It does package it so nicely, absolving you of any blame, and wrapping it with a bow on top that lets you point the finger at your enemies. Best of all, as a conspiracy theory, it needs no evidence and cannot be countered by any evidence, because in its very nature the evil Left are assumed to have hidden or destroyed all of your evidence and fabricated all theirs. The all powerful enemy, who controls all the vital information, but yet need to be replaced by your preferred party because their weakness will lead to the nation’s destruction.
Well, that was a lot of rambling. Enjoy.