 |
| How the hell did I get mixed up in all this? |
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.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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?'
ReplyDeleteBut, 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.
ReplyDeleteOf for fuck sake. Any moron can understand the point of this ad. These fucking misogynists will lose their minds over anything, won't they?
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile 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).
ReplyDeleteRape 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.
ReplyDeleteMy 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.
ReplyDeleteOk, 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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!
ReplyDeleteMen 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?
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
ReplyDeleteIf 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.
ReplyDeleteBut 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_embedded
Random 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.
ReplyDeleteRandom 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.
ReplyDeleteIt 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?
ReplyDeleteIronically 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,
ReplyDeleteWhat 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.
ReplyDeleteRichard, 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.
ReplyDeleteMen, 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.
ReplyDeleteGenuinely 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.
ReplyDeleteFrom 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.
ReplyDelete"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?"
ReplyDeleteHOLY 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.
@vagrantsvoice
ReplyDeleteCan'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.
ReplyDeleteNo problem. Also, the only people I've ever heard deny that men can be raped are men.
ReplyDeleteTo add a second instance to your personal experience: men can be raped. Obviously.
This is why it is notable that men commit most rapes. If women could not rape this would not mean much.
What it tells us is that something is going wrong with the way we raise our boys. The fact that rape has been declining in the last decades also tells us we are doing better.
Hmm. That commerical was obnoxious. NO parent should be looking at their son or daughter and thinking, "Hmm I hope Jenny doesn't become a drug-addict" or, "I hope Johnny doesn't end up in prison for being a rapist". WTF? Parenting is hard enough without trying to see into the damned future. Hitler was an adorable baby, do you think his parents saw that shit coming? Frick! Allow a child to be a damned child and eff all of this crystal-ball crappola. I pity the children who actually grow up with their parents already treating them like damned criminals for "thought crimes". UGH!
ReplyDeletePlease let's not spread misinformation about the fatalities. Child DEATHS and the FATALATIES I have always read, are at the hands of men more often, but this thread made me go brush up, and sure enough I found this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm#perps
From this site:
"Who Are the Perpetrators?
No matter how the fatal abuse occurs, one fact of great concern is that the perpetrators are, by definition, individuals responsible for the care and supervision of their victims. In 2008, parents, acting alone or with another person, were responsible for 71.0 percent of child abuse or neglect fatalities. More than one-quarter (26.6 percent) of these fatalities were perpetrated by the mother acting alone. Child fatalities with unknown or missing perpetrator relationship data accounted for 17.3 percent of the total.
There is no single profile of a perpetrator of fatal child abuse, although certain characteristics reappear in many studies. Frequently, the perpetrator is a young adult in his or her mid-20s, without a high school diploma, living at or below the poverty level, depressed, and who may have difficulty coping with stressful situations. In many instances, the perpetrator has experienced violence firsthand (Cavanagh, Dobash R. E.; Dobash, R. P.; 2007). Fathers and mothers' boyfriends are most often the perpetrators in abuse deaths; mothers are more often at fault in neglect fatalities.2"
--------------------
So again, if you want to say women abuse children more, I don't even argue the point, don't look it up...I take it as a given. To me that makes logical sense. But I KNOW unless all the stats have recently changed that MEN kill the kids by and large, so knock it off. This is the same bait and switch jerks try to pull with the domestic violence issue and the shelters.
The only reason SHELTERS were needed is due to MURDER, you know DEAD BODIES. And because the men would track down the women, then anywhere the women went they were jeopardizing whoever helped them. Also they needed a decent amount of help to leave the person they were dependent on, however, shelters cannot provide that much service. The stay is 30 days, and there is not much offered beyond a roof and some people to talk to.
It will be interesting to see if men have to A) run for their lives...B) cannot run to family or friends because of being tracked down C) Cannot be financially independent of the partner.
Again, shelters have secret locations, and in my town, even the police could not know where they were (their partners were in there, too), and the shelters to not provide the women with financial independence.
Anyway, when it comes down to gauging the BRUTALITY and the DEATHS and the CONTROL and sense of entitlement to hunt someone down in perpetuity, men win hands down.
Sorry MRAs that victim card you keep trying to play is getting trumped. Stop blaming feminists for all your personal failings.
@ Captain Bathrobe
ReplyDeleteAre you so deranged that you think toddlers in diapers need training to stop them from raping someone?
Random Brother
Booboo: The info I've found suggests you are correct when it comes to the murder of young children.
ReplyDeleteFrom an earlier post of mine:
How about the particularly awful crime of child murder? Looking at all children under the age of five who were murdered from 1976-2005, we discover that 54% were killed by fathers or male acquaintances, and 29% by mothers. (Most of the rest were also killed by men.)
Source:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/children.cfm
Richard, Are you so deranged that you think Bathrobe thinks that toddlers in diapers need training to stop them from raping someone?
ReplyDeleteSeriously richard, you can't seriously be missing the point that no one thinks the baby is going to rape anyone.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that the way we raise our children effects who they grow up to be. If we raise our boys to be aggressive, they will comitt more violent crimes.
Richard, do you think men commit more violent crimes because they are inherently violent? That is pretty anti-man.
But I KNOW unless all the stats have recently changed that MEN kill the kids by and large, so knock it off.
ReplyDeleteI dunno, according to this:
Fathers and mothers' boyfriends are most often the perpetrators in abuse deaths; mothers are more often at fault in neglect fatalities.
it's hard to put much more blame on men. Killing a child via abuse is horrible, but a slow, miserable death via starvation or something is not really much better.
It will be interesting to see if men have to A) run for their lives...B) cannot run to family or friends because of being tracked down C) Cannot be financially independent of the partner.
I dunno, maybe some of the men shot or poisoned by their wives might have been able to make use of such services. 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. Perhaps not, though. It may well be you folks aren't *quite* the victims you make yourselves out to be either, at least not much more than the MRAs.
Thevagrantsvoice, that's where custody comes in. You cannot neglect a child to death if you are not the child's custodial parent.
ReplyDelete@ Sandy:
ReplyDeleteSandy said: "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."
I'll need some evidence on that. Preferable from non feminists sources.
Sandy said: "Men, on the other hand are more likely to rape, and more likely to murder."
Men, not toddlers in diapers. Also, men are more likely to rape because of the way feminist have defined rape as pretty much any sex a woman doens't like.
Sandy said: "Is this because they are inherently evil? No. Then it must be something we are doing wrong when we raise our boys."
1. We who? Most criminals come from single mother backgrounds. So by extension single mothers raise criminals. How many PSA have you seen demanding women not be single mothers in order to help their sons not become a criminal and or rapist?
2. This has very little to do with helping boys, it is the elevation of women in all things. Another demand that we teach out boys to respect women without any regard to girls respecting boys or taking into account girls behavior in this supposedly deserved female respect.
Sandy said: "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."
No it is not a pro male message. It insinuates that all males even as small as new borns need training to stop them from becoming rapists. That the desire to rape is either so innate in men or so entrenched in society that men need training to control themselves is feminist bullshit.
Random Brother
@ Shaenon
ReplyDeleteThe point is men are being told to redefine themselves to be better men FOR WOMEN'S BENEFIT. Women redefined themselves FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT. Get the difference?
Random Brother
Richard, I posted a study above.
ReplyDeleteRichard, also "we" means humanity, men and women. Also most criminals come from poverty, it is poverty that leads to crime, not having one parent, male or female.
ReplyDeleteYou are seeing this message in a certain way because you are extremely biased. It is saying we (men and women) are encouraging boys to be aggressive, not that they are inherently aggressive and need training to be otherwise. It is saying "stop encouraging boys to be aggressive."
It insinuates that all males even as small as new borns need training to stop them from becoming rapists.
ReplyDeleteI think this is true, but then again, I also think it's true that all females, including newborns, need training to stop them from becoming rapists (of children, or other women, or whoever) as well. Virtue must be assiduously ingrained into all children from their earliest youth--you won't find a surfeit of it in human nature.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere shouldn't be a baby in the video because it is a cheap ploy at emotions.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that the baby is completely innocent, not inclined towards aggression towards anyone, and we should not fill his head with images of manliness that demand he be aggressive.
(Note, the post above was in response to the comment "then there shouldn't be a baby in the video, should there?")
ReplyDelete@ David
ReplyDeleteClearly Captain Bathrobe and you do think this baby is a menace or you'd have a problem with him being in the video. Clearly you 2 feminist "men" are so deranged that using a child for this end is okay as long at the child is male. Nothing is beneath a fucking filthy feminist. I guess I shouldn't expect much from a bunch of late term abortion loving, child abuse excusing (only for moms though) man hating feminist nutjobs and their lap dogs.
Random Brother.
I like this blog because the comedy continues in the comments.
ReplyDelete@ Sandy,
ReplyDeleteTry and get a clue. If no one believes the child is a threat to rape, then there is no purpose for him being in the video. None. Zip. Nada. Feminuts are following the old, all males are potential rapists, even this little baby, which your kind has spewed millions of times.
The same message about teaching people not to rape can be done without stooping to this level, but I guess for feminists it's not stooping at all.
Random Brother
Richard, maybe if we say this slower:
ReplyDeletethe point is the child is innocent. Note the video even says "but he wasn't always this way." The shock is that an innocent child with no inclination towards aggression would grow up to be a rapist, because we teach him to be aggressive.
The point of the baby is to tug at your heart strings, not to incite hatred towards male babies.
@ Sandy
ReplyDelete1. I missed your post about the baby not being in the video.
2. Please note that aggressiveness does not equal rapist. Boys tend to be aggressive and being aggressive is not a bad trait.
3. The study combines fathers with step fathers which skews the numbers.
Random Brother
I know aggressive does not equal rapist, but that is the videos point. The author of the video believes that encouraging children to be aggressive, strong, etc. encourages a rapist mentality. Whether or not this is true, the point is:
ReplyDeleteno one is saying male babies are dangerous or trying to incite hatred against them. In fact, the message is that more men are rapists because of the way they are raised, and we should do better by them.
Also, if you look at the study it breaks down the numbers in numerous ways.
ReplyDelete(and also, more importantly, shows that feticide is usually do to psychosis, i.e. not societal messages about killing children).
ReplyDeleteFine, then. We'll do this a step at a time. The video begins with the following words:
ReplyDelete"He's tough. He's strong. He's aggressive. He's powerful. And he raped is girlfriend."
All this does is tie traditionally masculine traits that are good with rape. None of those traits are negative. They are useful traits that when properly focused help soceity. But since feminist are against men having any power they hate the traits that give them power.
" But he wasn't always this way."
They then show baby.
"What are you teaching your son? Redefine what it means to be a man. Because ending sexual violence begins with him."
So, this baby at the outset is said to have grown up to become a rapist. What makes him a rapist? Well, apparently being strong, aggressive, powerful, and tough. But if we can go back in time and remove those traits, in essence making him pussy and redefining his manhood, well them women will be safe.
And you think that's a good message.
And "male" feminist like Dave and Captain Pink Bathrobe wonder why I think them lap dogs.
Random Brother
Yes, you got it, that's what the video is about.
ReplyDeleteNot about hating male babies.
I'll have to take some time and look at the study at a later date, esp with regard to how it was done.
ReplyDeleteRandom Brother
Although, I would tweak what you're saying slightly and go with the constant messages to be strong, aggressive, powerful, and tough caused him to become overly so in an effort to prove his manhood, leading to violent aggression.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that people should be able to choose to be strong,aggressive, powerful and tough (all good things) or not. Men should not be pressured to prove they are these things.
@ Sandy
ReplyDeleteSandy said: "Yes, you got it, that's what the video is about.
Not about hating male babies. "
If someone believed this ad and belived that male babies were more prone by nature to aggression and being powerful, wouldn't the next step be to equate all males even babies with being potential rapists?
Random Brother
We just went through this, the point of the ad is the baby is NOT prone by nature to being aggressive. The point is we are teaching them to be that way.
ReplyDeleteWhether you believe this or not, that is the videos point. "He wasn't always this way."
If you believe the video, you believe all men are born innocent, that men (even though they statistically commit rapes in higher numbers) are not inherently rapists. The video would therefore make you less likely to judge a man as violent based solely on the fact that he is a man.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that men and women are different on a fundamental level and that includes when they are babies, right?
ReplyDeleteThe male baby can be prone to aggression and not be a rapists is the point. Kindly stop conflating aggression with rape.
Random Brother
That is not the message of the video. We are talking about the message of the video.
ReplyDeleteYou are now suggesting male babies may be prone to aggression, but the video does not.
@ Sandy,
ReplyDeleteNo. If you believe the video the only way for men not to be rapists is to remove the traits of toughness, aggression, power, and strength.
Also Josh Jaspers was a marine and a cop. Somehow I don't see him doing his job without the aforementioned traits.
This video is about telling males due to their aggresion they are defective by design and the only way to fix it is to remove the traits that were previously mentioned.
Random Brother.
And asserting that men are inherently prone to aggression smacks of sexism, if not misandry. Men, like all people, are perfectly capable of moderating themselves and behaving as they wish, be it aggressive or passive.
ReplyDeleteLike I said above, I think the point is not the traits, the traits are all well and good by themsleves. The point is the immense pressure for men to display these traits and prove they possess them. This is what can lead to a violent mindset or behavior.
ReplyDelete@Richard, it is worth noting that none of those traits are associated with all police across cultures. The US has an intensely violent and authoritarian police force as compared to other developed nations. There are countries where most cops do not carry guns. In Japan, for example, police officers staff police boxes, where they give directions and help lost kids get home. Associating police with violence is part of the US's serious problem with, well, police violence. As to the military thing, if being against encouraging these traits is being against militarism, than that is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteYou are the one suggesting that these traits are inherant to maleness, not the makers of the video or the feminists posting here. It is worth noting, however, that your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premises. Encouraging violence in people already pre-disposed to it would actually only be aggravating the problem of violence, rather than fixing it. If males were violent by nature, it would follow that the should be more heavily disciplined against it, more heavily policed, and kept out of important social positions. The logical conclusion for your beliefs is that men, the violent should be blamed and kept away from women, the peaceful. The only way to work a 'males are naturally just violent' system where you are not perfectly okay with them perpetrating their violence against the peaceful women would be a rad-fem seperatist system. If I actually agreed with your notion that men are born prone to violence (which I do not) then rad-fem seperatism would be the way to go.
This idea that men are entitled to sex with women ("I did x/y/z and she didn't even put out!" "She sleeps with that guy/all those guys but not me, what gives?" "A man has needs") aren't kept far away from children's eyes and only revealed to them when they turn 18. Children are exposed to those ideas early. At what point is it too cheap to suggest children are aware of their surroundings and how women are treated in popular culture and by the people around them? Yes, I would think parents SHOULD be aware that even the tiniest children are exposed to rape culture's messages and plan accordingly.
ReplyDeletePlus, a reason the MRAs are going to screaming about this ad that I haven't seen addressed: this ad is focused on rapists not raping. May sound like an entirely alien concept, but so many of these PSAs regarding sexual assault or intimate partner violence are either directed at the victim to prevent it or at the public to step in/raise awareness... It doesn't hurt to have a few ads aimed at the fact maybe directing efforts at parents raising children not to do these things or at the rapists themselves not to do so may be helpful.
And additionally, as a victim of childhood sexual assault from a female, that the tactic of "but what about women? Why isn't anyone targeting when women do this??" is not directed as raising awareness about another dynamic of violence, it is trying to minimize the vast numbers of women victims. Right after "but what about men victims??" will be the protests about false accusations - what is the end goal? To erase all women as survivors of male-directed assault/violence, not to acknowledge a different set of survivors at all.
" . . . the point is the child is innocent. Note the video even says "but he wasn't always this way." The shock is that an innocent child with no inclination towards aggression would grow up to be a rapist, because we teach him to be aggressive."---Sandy
ReplyDeleteActually, Richard is right---the video is (by implication) stating all men are potential rapists in the future and even hints at guilt by association.
Bigotry. Simply put.
"The point of the baby is to tug at your heart strings . . . "
Which is manipulative, btw.
"How about the particularly awful crime of child murder?"---David
ReplyDeleteHow about this:
http://fathersforlife.org/articles/report/resptojw.htm
"StatCan's very broad definitions of "mother" and "father" deliberately mislead. A "spouse" could mean just about anyone in the presence of a woman or man, no matter the duration or quality of the presence. "Mother" is likely to be a natural mother, whereas "father" is most likely any man but a natural father. Thereby it is made to appear that we can safely ignore the far superior safety of families headed by married biological parents. However, in their care, as Patrick Fagan from the Heritage Foundation identified, children are 33 times less likely to be seriously abused and 73 times less likely to be killed than in single-mother "families."[2]
American government agencies report numbers that are more objective, not as subjective as those Jeff White selected. In the US in 1999, 70.3 percent of perpetrators of child abuse were female parents acting alone or with others. Out of an estimated 826,000 victims of child maltreatment, nation-wide, 1,100 were fatalities. Their perpetrators break down as follows:
PERPETRATOR RELATIONSHIP [3]
31.5% Female Parent Only
10.7% Male Parent Only *
21.3% Both Parents *
16.3% Female Parent and Other
1.1% Male Parent and Other *
4.5% Family Relative
6.1% Substitute Care Provider(s)
5.7% Other
2.7% Unknown
* "Male parent" in that context most likely is just about anything but a natural father.
That means that, acting alone or with others, female parents were responsible in 69.1 percent, and male parents in 33.1 percent of cases of fatal child maltreatment."
Also . . .
"1.) "Family Violence in Canada 2000 — An Alternative Approach," by Eeva Sodhi, a letter to Statistics Canada, posted 2000 08 31, at http://fathersforlife.org/Sodhi/fvcans1.htm, a critique pointing out flaws in the method of presentation and in the statistics contained in: Statistics Canada pub. "Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2000" Cat. No. 85-224 (Note: Interestingly, in her commentary, Eeva Sodhi identifies and analyses precisely those statistics by which StatCan misleads the uninformed in exactly the manner in which Jeff White got mislead.)
2.) A compelling status report and useful suggestions for solutions are provided in the report by the Heritage Foundation "Marriage: The Safest Place for Women and Children", by Patrick F. Fagan and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., Backgrounder #1535.
3.) Child Maltreatment 1999, Fig. 4-3 http://www.calib.com/nccanch/chma99.pdf
4.) Studies by Archer, Fiebert and others can be accessed or are listed at http://fathersforlife.org/family_violence_main_page.htm
5.) "Why They Kill Their Newborns," by Steven Pinker, New York Times, November 2, 1997, Sunday, Section: Magazine Desk, http://www.gargaro.com/pinker.html"
You know what I don't like about this ad? It wimps out.
ReplyDeleteThe voice of traditional masculinity is just some offscreen narrator over white title cards. The baby is the only image to latch onto, so naturally people who are angry about the ad will think it's about babies.
Better by far to have a boy of 3 or 4 playing innocently and then have some broad cartoonish authority figure (fat coach or drunk dad) come up and start cussing him out. Put the blame where it belongs - on stereotypical men.
Hm, I also think the ad is pretty cheesy, even though the intent is a good one.
ReplyDeleteRichard
Also, men are more likely to rape because of the way feminist have defined rape as pretty much any sex a woman doens't like
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.
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?
People like you are exactly the reason we need such ads. Not like the ad in the post, but yeah. It's definitely needed.
To be quite honest, you seem really anti-men.
Feminists don't consider non-feminist or anti-feminist women to be lesser of a woman, or not a woman at all.
The MRAs, however, even threaten men (like Josh Jasper) if they don't share the MRAs' views.
You're not pro-men, just pro-misogyny.
"Actually, Richard is right---the video is (by implication) stating all men are potential rapists"
ReplyDeleteBut all men are potentially rapists. Just like all men could potentially be soldiers, doctors, etc.
That's the point. With a baby you have a tabula rasa - and you should be careful what you do with it. What's wrong with that?
Here is an opinion on "natural" male aggression written in what the MRA's believe are the good old days when everyone supposedly agreed that being a real man involved hitting stuff and killing something. I love this passage for its simple eloquence. Enjoy:
ReplyDelete"..old Osborne was highly delighted, when Georgy “whopped” ... a boy (a young gentleman a year older than Georgy, and by chance home for the holidays from Dr. Tickleus’s at Ealing School) in Russell Square. George’s grandfather gave the boy a couple of sovereigns for that feat, and promised to reward him further for every boy above his own size and age whom he whopped in a similar manner. It is difficult to say what good the old man saw in these combats; he had a vague notion that quarrelling made boys hardy, and that tyranny was a useful accomplishment for them to learn. English youth have been so educated time out of mind, and we have hundreds of thousands of apologists and admirers of injustice, misery, and brutality, as perpetrated among children."
~ William Makepeace Thackeray, "Vanity Fair" (1848). (Richard, take note: That's "Vanity Fair" the NOVEL. The title doesn't refer to a later women's magazine, nor is the women's magazine inspired by the novel.)
Thackeray was a man, not a feminist, not a hippie, not a "Berkley librul". But as that passage above demonstrates, I think he would have gotten a kick out of MRA's talking out of both sides of their collective mouth: Men are "naturally" prone to violence and aggression, and those characteristics should be cultivated and encouraged, but OMG (pearl clutch), how dare you suggest that men are "naturally" prone to violence and aggression against women! And while we are at it, let's define rape so narrowly as to legalize it in pretty much every case except maybe one where a Middle-Eastern terrorist kidnaps, beats and sodomizes a Christian virgin, you know, something like the definition of rape that Bill Napoli uses.
"But all men are potentially rapists. Just like all men could potentially be soldiers, doctors, etc.
ReplyDeleteThat's the point. With a baby you have a tabula rasa - and you should be careful what you do with it. What's wrong with that?"---Joe
The ability to be damned, labeled, stigmatized, and treated as such---THAT's what is wrong with it. How you liked to be convicted of a crime you didn't commit? Or be at the hands of a vindictive person or mob despite your innocence?
What is wrong with that premise? Holy shit, you are dense.
Richard -- Clearly Captain Bathrobe and you do think this baby is a menace or you'd have a problem with him being in the video.
ReplyDeleteThis is a perfect example of why trying to discuss anything with you. BAthrobe didn't say teh baby was a menace, neither did I.
Also, I do have a problem with having the baby in the ad, and stated that very clearly in my piece:
"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."
Oops. It should have been "why trying to discuss anything with you is so frustrating,
ReplyDelete> "That's the point. With a baby you have a tabula rasa - and you should be careful what you do with it. What's wrong with that?"---Joe
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you thinking of me, wytch, but that wasn't me, it was Johnny.
Leaving aside the issue of the baby image being manipulative (all advertising is manipulative by nature) -
ReplyDeleteI'm absolutely amazed at the inability of the MRA bunch to comprehend basic English.
What part of "He wasn't always this way. ... What are you teaching your son?" don't you understand?????
@ Darksidecat:
ReplyDeleteDarksidecat states: "@Richard, it is worth noting that none of those traits are associated with all police across cultures. The US has an intensely violent and authoritarian police force as compared to other developed nations. There are countries where most cops do not carry guns. In Japan, for example, police officers staff police boxes, where they give directions and help lost kids get home. Associating police with violence is part of the US's serious problem with, well, police violence. As to the military thing, if being against encouraging these traits is being against militarism, than that is a good thing."
I don't know all that much about Japan nor police work in other cultures, so I won't get into that too much, but I have to ask, how in these cultures do they stop violent crime, if it is not by using men who have are tough, powerful, etc?
Darksidecat said: "You are the one suggesting that these traits are inherant to maleness, not the makers of the video or the feminists posting here."
I believe men TEND to have these traits (specifically aggression, toughness, power, etc) more than women. Not always, but usually.
Darksidecat: "It is worth noting, however, that your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premises. Encouraging violence in people already pre-disposed to it would actually only be aggravating the problem of violence, rather than fixing it. If males were violent by nature, it would follow that the should be more heavily disciplined against it, more heavily policed, and kept out of important social positions. The logical conclusion for your beliefs is that men, the violent should be blamed and kept away from women, the peaceful. The only way to work a 'males are naturally just violent' system where you are not perfectly okay with them perpetrating their violence against the peaceful women would be a rad-fem seperatist system. If I actually agreed with your notion that men are born prone to violence (which I do not) then rad-fem seperatism would be the way to go."
That whole argument was based upon your flawed premise that aggressiveness = violence. It does not. A person can aggressively pursue their goals and dreams without being violent. This video is merely a hit job on men, male traits, and the creators are so vile they used a baby and the fact that it doesn't bother feminists is extremely telling in how they truly feel about men.
Random Brother
@ Amused
ReplyDeleteShow 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 Luna
ReplyDeleteSo 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.
ReplyDeleteThere 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.
@ kollege
ReplyDeleteKollege 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
@ David
ReplyDeletePlease. 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.
ReplyDeleteAggression 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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."
ReplyDeleteRichard, also this: Who's the one cheering an ad claiming all males even babies are rapists?
ReplyDelete1) 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:
ReplyDeleteAnd "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.
ReplyDeleteUm...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!
ReplyDeleteSorry for the triple post, but I have to amend something.
ReplyDeleteAnd 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!
ReplyDeleteIronically 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*
ReplyDeletevagrant:
ReplyDeleteWell, 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.
ReplyDeleteVagrant: I really don't think that "anxious masculinity" and "female companionship" are even remotely analogous.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
@ Amused
ReplyDeleteFrom http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=aggressive
1. Meaning of AGGRESSIVE
Pronunciation: 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 A
Synonyms: 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
@ David
ReplyDeleteYou 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 Bathrobe
ReplyDeleteSo 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.
ReplyDeleteIt'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,
ReplyDeleteYou 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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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 menacing
marked by combative readiness
aggressing or inclined to aggress; starting fights or quarrels
Inclined to behave in an actively hostile fashion
attacking; 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.
ReplyDeleteIt 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. :)
Richard: What part of "I'm not going to defend the ad. It's terrible." do you not understand?
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the ad in the GENERAL sense that how a baby (male or female) is raised makes a difference, and that raising a kid to be misogynistic is bad. I agree that if we changed the way we raised boys and encouraged more respect for women and less tolerance of violence there would probably be less rape.
BUT: I don't like the particular way the ad has framed that issue. As I think I've already said at least once, I don't think that toughness, or strength or aggression are inherently bad; all of these traits are pretty much inborn, and have many good as well as some bad aspects to them.
Still, I don't think the ad is saying it wants to "neuter" all men.
vagrant: 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
That's ridiculous. You can take ANY statement and completely change the meaning by changing a few words.
Instead of saying to a waiter "I would like you to bring me a pizza," you could say "I would like you to fart on a giraffe." I just changed a couple of words, and the meaning was changed completely.
Here, let's take your last sentence and change a couple of words:
Original:
"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. "
New version:
"Thus, the accomplished Bathrobe's praise of warthogs is not a particularly compelling argument for warthogs or a refutation of Richard's point--it's just an empty sandwich."
That's ridiculous. You can take ANY statement and completely change the meaning by changing a few words.
ReplyDeleteWell, I won't argue semantics with you. All I'll say is that Cpt. Bathrobe's point is still fundamentally vapid. Feminism works "for him (and ostensibly, for you as well)?" Someone like Richard might argue--cogently--for that to be a resoundingly effective advertisement for anti-feminism. For the rest of the guys--and there are many--who really, *really* don't want to end up like you, you might want to provide other arguments in defense of feminism that aren't reliant on personal preference.
"Thus, the accomplished Bathrobe's praise of warthogs is not a particularly compelling argument for warthogs or a refutation of Richard's point--it's just an empty sandwich."
ReplyDeleteShould I ever become published, Dave, may I use this quote for my book jacket?
vagrant, well that makes a lot more sense than the word-changing thing. I do think a person's experience is relevant, FWIW, though obviously that's not the only reason feminism is a good thing. There are about a zillion other arguments for that.
ReplyDeletecapt. bathrobe, of course. Or should I say, of pudding.
Vagrant, my only point is that I'm not some feminist lapdog, which is what Richard was saying. I do what I do for my own reasons. I don't really care if that's a particularly effective advertisement for feminism or not.
ReplyDeleteAnd, what, my points aren't supposed to be vapid? Jeez, you guys keep raising the bar...
Also, looking back at my own comments, I also was indicating to Richard that calling me a girly-man wasn't a terribly effective way to get my goat. Because I'm helpful like that.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to our good Random Brother, though, I would say this--you do realize that many MRAs would take issue with calling men "tough," "aggressive," or "strong," and insist that nobody else has a right to define masculinity, right? A good example of this is Paul Elam's recent spat with Jack Donovan, which I assume you've heard about. Mr. Donovan wrote things like "men who kill themselves are "weak" and deserve what they got for letting themselves be put in that position." Mr. Elam, quite rightly in my view, called him out on it. Thus, when folks like that hear other people--whether feminists or MRAs like you or Mr. Donovan--claim men are or ought to be "strong" or "aggressive" or "tough," they may very well ask, "who are you to tell men what they are or what they should be? Who's defining "strong" or "tough" or whatever? Why should we listen to you?"
ReplyDeleteThat little spat was indicative of a few more things, IMO. But still, for the purposes of this current post, that's all I'll comment on.
CB-you do it for the bacon. Be honest.
ReplyDeleteCB-you do it for the bacon. Be honest.
ReplyDeleteYou mean there's more? (Tail wags furiously)
I must say that I have been taken aback by the international firestorm that has ensued over a commercial we have been running for more than a year on cable television. The feedback for this commercial has been quite positive. Some people have noted like David that the baby was a poor choice, which I can understand. Having now received more than a thousand threatening e-mails, blog posts, and YouTube comments about this commercial has certainly reinforced why I have a job!
ReplyDeleteYes, nice and crispy for you CB since David has not indicated he wants any.
ReplyDeleteJosh, my criticism of the ad aside, you don't deserve any of this craziness.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth, I will gladly eat your bacon.
That sounds wrong.
But funny.
ReplyDeleteHaving now received more than a thousand threatening e-mails, blog posts, and YouTube comments about this commercial has certainly reinforced why I have a job!
ReplyDeleteJosh, you are either a liar, have a ridiculously broad idea of what "threatening" means, or both. I see zero evidence of any direct, physical threats against you. If there was any justice in this world then your organization would be de-funded and your only job would be flipping burgers or bagging groceries.
@joshjasper
ReplyDelete"...Having now received more than a thousand threatening e-mails, blog posts, and YouTube comments about this commercial has certainly reinforced why I have a job!"
You should lose your job.
vagrantsvoice said:
ReplyDeleteYou'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.
Myself said:
A little harsh, I feel. Take Martin Luther King's "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Change two little words and you have
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their bank accounts."
or even, by changing four words:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character, but by the colour of their skin."
Clearly an empty slogan, then. Silly old fool.
"Having now received more than a thousand threatening e-mails, blog posts, and YouTube comments about this commercial has certainly reinforced why I have a job!"
ReplyDelete"Josh, you are either a liar, have a ridiculously broad idea of what "threatening" means, or both. I see zero evidence of any direct, physical threats against you."
You read his emails? O.o That sounds threatening to me.
@ Thomas:
ReplyDelete"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."
Strawman (with frilly panties on.)
No one's proposing raising your kid with NO masculine traits.
But we need to consider the whole child when raising a boy. Don't force a rigid model of gender on him just because of tradition, or because of your narrow views that the real world is a jungle for the mean and hard. He'll turn out mean and hard and you'll be to blame - not the world.
Besides, if you believe (as many do) that gender is part evolutionary, it'll come out naturally anyway.
There are all kinds of boys: your tinkerer, your nerd, your scientist, your outdoorsy type, your jock, your artist, your writer, your soldier. They will not all have an equal chance in the world, but they all have to have as equal a shot as we can give them starting out. They are going to build the real world to be - not us.
"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 think it's traditional all right, but it's socialized. Look up "compartmentalization." That's how we deal with having to embrace moral or ethical contradictions - having to be 2 different people, say, at work and at home. It's an essential survival tactic for combat military and law enforcement. But at the same time, it can backfire and lead to suffering and violence toward those you care about most.
We don't study it enough, we don't learn from our mistakes and we pass on too much of the technique tacitly, as What A Man's Gotta Do. That is what makes it dangerous - no critical questioning. Instead, Real Men fall back and close ranks.
How about a new vocabulary, while we're at it.
ReplyDelete(No apologies for multi-syllable namby-pamby-isms; learn some new words now and then, you won't melt.)
1. He's tough. => He's resilient.
2. He's strong. => He's confident.
3. He's aggressive. => He's proactive.
4. He's powerful. => He's effective.
Too close to ideal human traits for you? Not manly-man enough? Then you just may be part of the problem, fella.
I won't touch the question of how many Men Giving Tired Old Whines feel resilient, confident, proactive and effective.
Pwlsax, I don't get it. All eight are human traits.
ReplyDelete(also their not synonyms. Seriously what are you trying to say?)
ReplyDeleteYou read his emails? O.o That sounds threatening to me.
ReplyDeleteNo, but I read the YouTube comments and saw no direct, physical threats. If one claims to have received legitimately threatening emails but cannot be bothered to provide even a single copy of a single email for analysis, then that person is almost certainly lying.
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.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read his emails either, but certainly someone saying that he should be shot like a Nazi collaborator is a threatening comment, if not not a direct personal threat. I havent' looked at youtube, but certainly there are many similarly threatening comments on the spearhead.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, Elam and pals are raising money to hire a private investigator to dig up dirt on him.
Cold, do you think these are appropriate reactions to the ad?
Nazi collaborators were executed under due process of law, although admittedly it was ex post facto law in many cases. I'm universally opposed to the idea of retroactive law, but saying that it should be applied against someone is not a direct threat anymore than when feminists call for men convicted of rape to be castrated. Expressing such opinions certainly doesn't meet the legal definition of a threat.
ReplyDeleteI think hiring a private investigator to dig up dirt on people like Josh is a perfectly appropriate method of retaliating against their misandry and victim profiteering. In fact, I consider every legal avenue of combating such scum to be appropriate.
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.
ReplyDeleteIf 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,
ReplyDeleteThat'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?
ReplyDeleteMy 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?
ReplyDeleteYes.
A court of law has five different levels of proof:
ReplyDeleteReasonable 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?
ReplyDeleteAnd 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.
ReplyDeleteGo 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.
ReplyDeleteIf 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?
ReplyDeleteYes.
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.
ReplyDeleteBefore 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...
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteYou 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.
ReplyDeleteIn 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 video
ReplyDeleteWell 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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 running
ReplyDeleteFair 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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 Michigan
hateful 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.
ReplyDeleteGiven 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.
ReplyDeleteObviously 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.
ReplyDeleteThat 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").
ReplyDeleteAndrea 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*).
ReplyDeleteWell, since you don't provide a link to the source, I can't look it up and see what is the truth.
ReplyDeleteFrom 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.
ReplyDeleteJust put it as a .zip or .rar on Megaupload or something. People violate copyrights all the time (posting .zip files of scanned books, comics, etc) and the MU people usually don't care enough to take such things down. If they do, just re-upload it. It's not really very hard.
ReplyDeleteShould I manage to obtain the magazine, I will have no trouble keeping the scan in circulation among MRAs. However, I fully expect that when/if a link is added to the list, feminists will contact the source of that link and tell them that copyright is being violated, at which point the link will become broken and then David will declare the list to be "spam".
ReplyDeleteReupload it on mediafire or wherever, then--every time they take it down, it'll take you less than a minute to put it back up.
ReplyDeleteStill, though, even if you did provide the scans, there's still the question of whether or not they were doctored with photoshop or some other editing program...you could easily score more points for your cause by producing fake scans, after all. It seems like a pretty obvious strategy for anyone who doesn't mind being dishonest.
Well I do mind being dishonest, but I suppose there's no way I can really prove that to you and I'm not going to whine about it. Anyone with an actual copy that that magazine can verify the accuracy of the scan, but I doubt that there are very many copies of that magazine that aren't in a landfill by now. Perhaps the truth was lost for eternity.*
ReplyDelete*That was an Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth reference.
@ Sandy, 2/11/11:
ReplyDelete"Pwlsax, I don't get it. All eight are human traits."
Yes, but my 4 are less wedded to a certain male body type (which not all males possess). They're more about character than big muscles or instinct.
They're also harder to spin negatively than the 4 listed in the ad. I hope they give boys good ideals to shoot for whether or not they're going to be huge warriors.
Cold, I love that you're worked out this whole complicated thing about who it would be pointless to try to verify the quote because of copryright, I'd say it didn't count, bla bla bla.
ReplyDeleteI did ONE search on Google, and, ta da! Mystery solved. First, the entry on the book in Wikipedia notes that quote in question is that of a character, but that's it's often attributed to her.
Following the rape of Val's daughter Chris, Val states (over Mira's protests), "Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relationships with women, all men are rapists, and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes" (p. 433). Critics have sometimes quoted Val's dialogue as evidence of French's misandry without noting that the passage is only spoken by one of many characters in the novel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Women%27s_Room
I also found, yes, the actual People magazine article in question. It's from Feb 20 1979, not from Feb 20, 1983 as claimed.
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20070233,00.html
It does quote that line, but in a misleading way that does suggest she said it herself.
In the article, French notes that the book is partly based on her experience, and that the character who utters the line has some of her personality in her. The character utters the line after her daughter is raped; French's daughter was also raped. After that happened, French told People:
"Sometimes I felt so violent about it and how the courts treated her," French admits, "that there seemed no recourse but to go out, buy a gun and shoot the kid who did it, and the lawyers too. I couldn't help my own child." Plenty of that rage made its way into The Women's Room. "I'm less angry now. Being too deep in anger corrodes your interior."
In other words, the quote in question is supposed to reflect the rage a character felt shortly after her daughter was raped, a rage French herself felt in the same situation; it is not a ideological statement of misandry; moreover, she's specifically saying that such anger is not healthy in the long run.
So yeah, in the future these sorts of things will have to have sources if you want to post them here.
I'm well-aware of the use of that line in her novel, but obviously I was rather lazy in not checking to see if People had a publicly available archive going that far back. Still, I can't help but think that if an MRA whose son was falsely convicted of rape were to say the following, it would be the subject of a scornful post here in which you would call him an misogynist:
ReplyDeleteSometimes I felt so violent about it and how the courts treated him that there seemed no recourse but to go out, buy a gun and shoot the girl who did it, and the lawyers too. I couldn't help my own child.
I have no problem whatsoever with the sourcing requirement; unsourced claims annoy me at least as much as they annoy you. That's precisely why I am working on a better list of quotes. Since you dug up the link to the People article, would you like some honorable mention as a contributor?
So you know that the quote is from her novel, and is not a statement of her beliefs, and you're STILL going to use it in your list of quotes? If so, that's really pretty dishonest.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I like that when you quote her now, you leave out the part about her not being so angry now, and realizing that anger is corrosive.
And, no, I don't want to be mentioned as a contributor.
Before reading the People Magazine source I didn't know if it was quoting from her novel or if she also said it in her own words. Again, it's not unheard of for an novelist *cough* Rand *cough* to use a fictional character as a personal mouthpiece and to also say some of the same things in their own words. Now that I know that the magazine simply took that from the book I won't be using that quote, but I'm pretty sure the author of that list just made an honest mistake. I may make use of the shooting quote from the same article, however, to illustrate the double standard between how men and women are treated when they express rage that way.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that if a man said that he wanted to shoot is son's false accuser and the lawyers, but doesn't anymore because he realized the anger is corrosive, then he would be exempt form any scorn? I also find it ironic that you complain about me leaving that part out when you quoted Paul Elam speculating about Josh Jasper being an abusive police officer and left out the part where he says:
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.
Cold-no one would have a problem with a man who expressed that kind of sentiment since he is expressing something that is an understandable anger over his son being harmed by a system that is not supposed to harm him but did. And best of all, he would have gained something from the experience...learned that anger should never been kept as it does nothing to help and much to harm.
ReplyDeleteDuh
Do women who are raped also gain something from the experience?
ReplyDeleteCold, when someone is the victim of a violent crime, or close to someone who has been the victim of a violent crime, they frequently feel and express rage. Sometimes they fantasize about violence.
ReplyDeleteI really have no problem if someone in this situation honestly says, yes, in this particular circumstance I felt this sort of murderous rage, but I realize that this rage is corrosive and I should move beyond it.
And in some cases it's understandable if this rage persists. Do I blame Fred Goldman for still hating OJ? No I don't.
Have you seen the documentary Dear Zachary? I don't want to reveal too many of the details of it, because it's better for viewers to go into it without knowing the details, but at one point in the film a father angrily says he wished he had killed the woman who killed his son. I think almost anyone watching the documentary would find this sentiment completely justified. I certainly did.
I'm pretty sure the author of that list just made an honest mistake.
I don't share that belief.
I also don't think you made an "honest mistake" in posting that list. You posted that list knowing that many of the alleged quotes in it were unsourced; you clearly didn't bother to check if any of them were in fact, to borrow the language of Mr. Elam here, verifiable.
Yes they do Cold.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me? Every single quote in that list is sourced, they just aren't hyperlinked because it's an old list from the 90s, back when there wasn't nearly as much information available online as there is today. Again it's outdated, that's why some of us are working on a better one. I checked as many of the quotes as I could and gave the author the benefit of the doubt on the ones where I couldn't obtain the source. As you have proven, however, the source DOES check out and its text DOES give the impression at first glance that Marilyn French said this in her own words. That's why I think it was an honest mistake on the part of the author.
ReplyDeleteI do find your selectivity in when rage is and is not understandable to be rather biased. It has been several years since I lost my capacity to feel strong emotion, but I remember the rage that I felt when I found how stacked the deck was against me on account of my gender and you constantly mock MRAs for expressing that.
Yes they do Cold.
ReplyDeleteWell in that case why don't we make rapists exempt from prosecution the same way we do for women who falsely accuse men of rape? After all, they are just doing women a favor by building their character, right?
NOTE: The above is sarcstic.
This has probably already been said, but I'll repeat it anyways. the problem with this add is the line "redefine what it means to be a man"... What does the current definition of being a man (including the attributes given at the start of the ad) have to do with rape? unless it's being suggested that the current definition of being a man includes being a rapist...and as most men are adamantly against rape, that is an unfair accusation.
ReplyDeleteThe implication of this ad is that your son is going to grow up to be a rapist unless you teach him not to. But why is this? the only way this could be true is if rape was an inherent part of the male instinct, an instinct that needs to be suppressed and controlled or else he will break into a sexual rampage.
I really was hoping you wouldn’t go there, Cold, into that whole “men are like Jews in Nazi Germany and feminists are Nazis and should be executed” drivel, but it’s clear now I was giving you too much credit. So now that you have gone there – okay, why not, I’ll play.
ReplyDeleteJews were a historically oppressed group in Europe – like women. While some men were oppressed by virtue of their socio-economic status, what Jews and women had in common was that they were oppressed across ALL socio-economic strata. Both Jews and women spent thousands of years living under severe legal and civil disabilities; they could not own property, didn’t have access to courts, were barred from universities and public and political life. Deprived of civil rights, Jews lived at the mercy of the local feudal lord. Some lords were benevolent and protected “their” Jews from harm. But plenty of lords used the threat of pogroms (and indeed, pogroms themselves), to take advantage of Jews or to satisfy their own bloodlust. That’s not too dissimilar from women’s dependency on their fathers and husbands – and just like Jews had virtually no recourse under the law against abusive lords or neighbors, so women had virtually no recourse under the law against abusive male relatives. Oh, and if that wasn’t enough of a parallel for you, it would interest you to know that one of the most enduring themes in antisemitism involves emasculating Jewish men by claiming them to be effeminate and week; medieval propaganda went as far as to insinuate that Jewish men menstruate. And how amusing it is that even today, to call someone “such a Jew” or “such a woman” both still make sense as insults (as opposed to “such a Christian” or “such a man”).
cont'd below
continued from above
ReplyDeleteWhen legal restrictions on Jews were lifted in the 19th century , some people got their longjohns all in a wad over the fact that Jews were going to “take over” the entire society and pollute university scholarship and political discourse with their alien “Jewish” thinking – very similar to how your ilk claim that the supposed “vast differences” between men’s and women’s thinking make women dangerous to the academia and politics, and women should therefore be shut out of public life. Antisemites claimed simultaneously, that Jews were crafty and intelligent enough to take over the world, but incompetent and unqualified to occupy important and well-paid positions. The fact that these claims were mutually exclusive never dawned on them – just like it never dawns on you and your ilk that the claims of women taking over the world and at the same time, women being dumb broads with three brain cells are mutually exclusive. Despite the fact that Germans in the late 19th and early 20th century thoroughly dominated politics, the academia and business, and that most Jews were actually small-time tradesmen barely making ends meet, every Jewish scholar, politician, businessman, professional or artist was seen as “evidence” of supposed Jewish encroachment on things that should belong exclusively to “real” Germans. This is very much the way that MRA’s treat women’s participation in public life, politics, the academia and the arts.
Then there was the Blood Libel – you know, spurious claims that Jews constantly schemed to torture and kill Gentiles because fuck Gentiles. Promoters of this horrendous accusation went so far as to fabricate a text in which Jews supposedly discuss how they are going to take over the world and hurt Gentiles in various ways. You know, not unlike you MRA’s claim that feminists are all in a plot to kill and maim men because fuck men, using fiction and staged photos as “evidence”.
continued from above
ReplyDeleteAnd as for that pre-Holocaust propaganda: the Nazis accused Jews of planning to exterminate “real” Germans and of living at “real” Germans’ expense. Jews were accused of making Germany lose World War I and of overconsuming public resources. The Final Solution was sold as an act of self-defense against perfidious Jews who had to be struck first, before “real” Germans all perished. This bears more similarity to MRA propaganda against women, than to feminist claims against the patriarchy. In this propaganda, hardcore antisemites were joined by “soft” antisemites who claimed they liked Jewish comedians and ruggelach, and that they were on the side of Jews, as long as Jews acted as nature intended: remaining perpetual victims and objects of history, their existence contingent on the benevolence of their Gentile masters. Soft antisemites are similar to “good” MRA’s who claim they “respect” women, as long as women remain in their “natural” place as lackeys and accessories to men. (Incidentally: treating a group of people as objects of history, who exist solely “for” someone else, to be acted upon and never to act – that’s what the term “objectification” really means. It doesn’t mean looking at someone’s boobs with lust or wanting to marry a doctor. In other words, the complaint about women supposedly treating men as “success objects” is drivel because it misconstrues the very concept of objectification. If anything, women who see themselves as having vicarious value by virtue of being married to successful men, are objectifying themselves – but certainly not their husbands. End of digression.)
concluded below
concluded from above
ReplyDeleteDuring this period, if a Jew killed a Gentile, this was held up as “evidence” of the supposed Jewish campaign of murdering Christians. If a Gentile went on a rampage killing Jews, this was portrayed as, at worst, an understandable reaction to “oppression” by Jews. You know, this reminds me of MRA’s who laud Marc Lepine as a revolutionary and George Sodini as a “hero”.
So it seems to me, women have more in common with Jews and MRA’s with Nazi’s than vice versa, and that women are in greater danger of extermination than men. History clearly isn’t on the side of your argument, Cold.
Disclaimer: I am not claiming that I live in Nazi Germany, and I, unlike Cold, don’t have fantasies of a violent gender war. Rather, the above was meant solely to elucidate the obvious fact that Cold’s claim to the effect that men today live like Jews in Nazi German is full of shit. As I said before: a crude and self-serving (ahem) hyperbole, that’s insulting to victims of Nazism.
@Kratch: "The implication of this ad is that your son is going to grow up to be a rapist unless you teach him not to. But why is this? the only way this could be true is if rape was an inherent part of the male instinct, an instinct that needs to be suppressed and controlled or else he will break into a sexual rampage."
ReplyDeleteI don't know, Kratch, MRA's have been talking out of both sides of their mouths on that one. On the one hand, men supposedly "can't stop" from penetrating a woman once they see a bit of cleavage, on the other hand, how dare anyone suggest that men are dumb animals with poor impulse control. On the one hand, sex for men is a "need" that must be fulfilled at all costs, on the other, men have intellect and willpower (unlike women, presumably). On the one hand, rape is a "natural" response to seeing an attractive woman, on the other, don't you dare presume that men are natural rapists. On the one hand, rape is about sex (and violence is just a tool, not the purpose), and on the other, how dare you presume that most men are rapists, even though most men are very much into sex. On the one hand, a female rape victim is always somehow responsible for her own rape because she failed to divine the true nature of her attacker before it was too late, and on the other OMG, women who presume that all men are rapists until proven otherwise are detestable man-haters, OMG!! So which is it?
That was such an amusingly bad and blinkered comparison that I have copied the whole thing to share with other MRAs as we have a good laugh about it. You should change your name from Amused to Amusing.
ReplyDeleteCold: Every single quote in that list is sourced
ReplyDeleteNo they aren't. They list who allegedly said each quote, but they don't always say when or where, making many of the quotes basically impossible to fact check.
If I posted this quote:
"I eat my boogers." --Cold
That would not be a properly sourced quote, even though I gave your name. It would be impossible for anyone to determine whether or not I was quoting you accurately. Anyone assembling a list of quotes by Cold would be wrong to include it.
Many of the quotes on the list are similarly impossible to fact check, which again makes it clear to me that you have not seriously tried to fact check the list.
I've just gone through the list in detail. A number of quotes are simply imaginary, a few are taken completely out of context and are wildly misleading (they don't actually reflect the views of the person being quoted), some are from people who may not actually be feminists, many of them are impossible to track down at all.
I will post a detailed rundown sometime in the next couple of days.
You've said at least once that you checked out a bunch of these quotes. Aside from the Hillary Clinton one, which ones did you check out?
Cold, I forgot to address this:
ReplyDeleteI checked as many of the quotes as I could and gave the author the benefit of the doubt on the ones where I couldn't obtain the source.
That is basically the complete opposite of what it means to fact check something. When you can't verify something, you are supposed to NOT PUBLISH it.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I run the site that hosts that list or had something to do with its creation. Neither is the case. It should go without saying that if I was satisfied with that list as a complete compendium of feminist bigotry then I wouldn't be contributing my effort to developed a new list now, would I?
ReplyDeleteI checked the quotes from Andrea Dworkin, Hillary Clinton, Robin Morgan, and Catherine Comins. The quote attributed to Comins is actually an extrapolation of her words, but it is an accurate one and can be read here.
If it is so bad Cold, it should be super easy for you to refute what Amused said. Who I must compliment as putting what I was thinking is such better terms.
ReplyDeleteNow back to my reading on Rule 609(a).
Disclaimer: I am not claiming that I live in Nazi Germany, and I, unlike Cold, don’t have fantasies of a violent gender war.
ReplyDeleteIf this vicious libel isn't a gratuitous personal attack against me, then I don't know what is.
Cold, either you are a liar or you are the world's worst fact checker, or both. I'm thinking "both."
ReplyDeleteI actually did check the Dworkin quotes. Several are unsourced, and when I put the text of the quotes into google I found only other iterations of the list in question (you can't fact check something with itself) or from unreliable quote sites.
One quote from her was simply imaginary, actually taken from a character in a satirical novel that contained a Dworkin-ish character, one was a example of her summarizing the views of other people she violently disagrees with, and many of the rest were sloppily transcribed, full of errors.
I realize that you didn't write the list. But you chose to post it, you chose to defend it, and you chose to say that you fact checked it.
Again, if you did check the Dworkin quotes, please provide links to the sources for the quotes from her that don't list where they're from. Or just one link for any one of her quotes.
I'm not interested in devoting hours to a point-by-point refutation of a blinkered screed with no citations whatsoever from someone who thinks it's ok to libel me and other MRAs. I will, however, briefly summarize by saying that in order to frame women as having more in common with Jews and MRAs as having more in common with Nazis, Amusing had to lie and exaggerate about MRAs while ignoring the fact that men today, just like Jews during that era, are described in feminazi propaganda as being the ones with the power and privilege when in fact the reverse is true.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Cold, that "quote" from Comins is not a quote at all; it's someone else's summary of what she said.
ReplyDeleteYou really are a terrible fact checker.
Really? Here at work, 21 of the 25 judges are males. Pretty sure that means they have power.
ReplyDeleteI look at the number of men in the state lege: 59 are males, 31 are females. Pretty sure that means that the men have power.
I look at the top leadership in the state-out of the five, one is held by a woman. Pretty sure that means men have power.
I look at the number of female CEOs of top companies...15.7% out of the 500. 75 or so are women. Hmmm...guess that means men have power.
So to claim that men are shut out of the halls and byways of power is inaccurate to put it politely. Instead it seems that men are firmly, as ever, entrenched on the top of the power structure.
So please, show us where women have shoved men out the door to take over everything. Because outside of some issues with family courts-your vaunted claims of lack of power are as paper thin as your credibility on fact-checking.
Oh wait! *smacks forehead* I forgot-since those men are not you obviously it means men have no power. I totally forgot.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOops. Responded to a comment not directed at me.
ReplyDeleteI checked some of the Dworkin quotes in the actual, printed books from which they were taken. I didn't mean to imply that I checked every single one, but I can see how the way I worded it suggests that. I looked up most of the quotes from Letters from a Warzone in the actual book a little over a year ago and the ones I looked up checked out. Obviously the book is copyrighted and not linkable, but you know that. Actually, I think you know perfectly well that they check out but want to use the fact that I can't link into a copyrighted work that isn't (legally) available online to make me look bad as per your modus operandi. After all, you have made a big point of harping on this list while simply ignoring many of my other points.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Cold, that "quote" from Comins is not a quote at all; it's someone else's summary of what she said.
ReplyDeleteYou really are a terrible fact checker.
You are either a terrible reader or incredibly dishonest or both because I clearly said "The quote attributed to Comins is actually an extrapolation of her words". Scroll back up and see for yourself.
David-showing that there are 188 comments but only 185 are showing. Are any being held up?
ReplyDeleteElizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI'm not about to spend hours of time rehashing the case for why women have the power and privilege for your personal benefit, but since you committed the frontman fallacy in your last comment you might as well begin your research into the MRA position by learning about it from the source I linked, assuming that you're actually willing to research MRA arguments in detail.
Incidentally the entire book from which that bit on the frontman fallacy is excerpted is a good place to start for one who is actually willing to hear the real MRA arguments instead of David's hit pieces.
ReplyDeleteSo, Cold, I guess by citing that book you are saying that Zohrab is a good source of "real MRA arguments."
ReplyDeleteInteresting.
Just because I link to a book doesn't mean I endorse every single word printed in it. I think it's a good place for an intellectually honest newcomer to being learning about our movement, that's all.
ReplyDeleteCold,
ReplyDeleteFair enough.
On the Comins "quote" I just meant that if the quote is not actually a quote, and it isn't, that you shouldn't consider it "accurate." It should be corrected or removed from the list.
Elizabeth --
Not sure about the comment count. There's nothing from this thread in the spam folder. I deleted one of my own comments, but that's it.
Cold, I'll take your word that you checked the Letters from a War Zone quotes. But you clearly didn't check them very carefully, or you would have noted lots of little errors. And I guess you didn't check the quote that is not an assertion of her POV but a summary of the views of people she violently disagreed with.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm more interested in is trying to track down the Dworkin quotes that are unsourced.
You assume that since men are in power, they are under the control of women. Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteLet us look at the first link:
"mainly male governments have enacted legislation giving women the vote, according women equal pay with men, liberalising abortion laws, increasing penalties for rape, and so forth, all without protecting men's interests in family, mating rituals, work-place behaviours or educational institutions."
Here is something funny about these whole assumptions you guys make about the legislative process...that women or anti-male men are the only ones allowed to testify about anything or to have any views expressed and accepted.
How to Testify Before Congress
So the idea that all of these women forcing the male legislatures to do their bidding flies in the face of the reality of what actually happens. Men had input right from the get go and can do what women did.
By the way, one of the most dramatic things I ever saw in congressional testimony was women breaking into a hearing on the birth control pill because the all male congressional panel had asked only male doctors to come testify and the women were angry and upset that their experiences were not allowed to be heard despite their repeated requests. If women have so much power, why were they forced to resort to such tactics?
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.) Or more hits on a websearch...Oh and some guy makes a rude remark about men being stupid. He should have been called on it but the rest of the post is just as generalized and not very well reasoned as the two complaints about women's jobs and search hits. *rolls eyes*
ReplyDelete“I don't know, Kratch, MRA's have been talking out of both sides of their mouths on that one. On the one hand, men supposedly "can't stop" from penetrating a woman once they see a bit of cleavage, “
ReplyDeletethis seems awfully close to accusing MRA’s of actually advocating rape. Are you prepared to back that up?
“on the other hand, how dare anyone suggest that men are dumb animals with poor impulse control.”
So you acknowledge that suggestion exists within the advertisement… and yet, you still don’t seem to see anything wrong with it. That’s called misandry. And it’s as hateful to men as you claim the MRA is to women.
“On the one hand, sex for men is a "need" that must be fulfilled at all costs,”
It is no more a need for men then for women. Men just don’t feel the need to deny they have that need. And since the sexual revolution, many women don’t ether.
“on the other, men have intellect and willpower (unlike women, presumably). “
where did that come from? Nether I, nor the commercial, have even mentioned women, let alone their intellect or lack thereof, up until now. I have no idea why you are assuming such a thing, and I certainly hope you’re not accusing me of suggesting such a thing. But the fact you even mentioned it makes me believe you have no intention of reading anything but what you want to read, IE, a hateful man attacking women, even when there is absolutely nothing to even insinuate such a claim.
“On the one hand, rape is a "natural" response to seeing an attractive woman, “
If that were true, rape would be far more common. Most men abhor rape. I’m curious David, how do you feel about this comment? After all, you’re a man too, meaning, according to amused, you have this “natural” response to want to rape an attractive woman too. Do you regularly need to suppress this natural urge to rape? Or are you prepared to speak up against a stupid comment made by one of your posters?
“on the other, don't you dare presume that men are natural rapists.”
Oh, but David, if you speak up against Amused, and claim you aren’t a natural rapist, you will be falling into her trap, becoming indignant for challenging the accusation. This is typical feminist tactics, if you dare t speak up for yourself, you are being indignant and unreasonable, but if you don’t stand up for yourself, well, then the accusation stands unchallenged, and becomes accepted, like it has been for amuzed/
“On the one hand, rape is about sex (and violence is just a tool, not the purpose),”
Sometimes it is. It is not always about domination. That said, that does not mean men in general, including MRA’s, find it acceptable. If you can’t see the difference, that’s your problem.
“and on the other, how dare you presume that most men are rapists, even though most men are very much into sex.”
Sodomy is also a form of sex. Are you suggesting all men want that too? Just because a man wants sex, doesn’t mean he wants that type of sex (sodomy or rape).
And all this is irrelevant. Your personal bias against the MRA doesn’t change the fact that this PSA suggests that the very definition of manhood is responsible for rape. That this instinct need to be “trained out of our sons, right from the cradle. And that it is messages like this that make people like you, who think all men have an innate, natural instinct to rape women that needs to be constantly suppressed.
I think Amused is in part referring to this post, quoting from one MGTOW type who suggests:
ReplyDeleteI cannot on a primal level get passed my sexual urges when looking at sluts. ... [t]he only thing I want to do to a slut is rape them. ... If I extrapolate this observation to society, I think it's easy to see why in a slut society women will be more prey to rape. ... Simply put, dressing like sluts brings out murders, rapists and sadists in men
http://www.manboobz.com/2010/11/ladies-stop-assaulting-us-by-dressing.html
She's not asserting that men are natural rapists. She's summing up various contradictory claims made by various MRA/MGTOW people.
I've already said that I think everyone has a certain amount of natural aggression, but that how they are raised makes a big difference; it's a mix of nature and nurture.
"She's not asserting that men are natural rapists."---David
ReplyDeleteGood job of being dishonest there.
You assume that since men are in power, they are under the control of women. Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteYou're *gasp* correct that the above argument, stated as such, makes no sense whatsoever. It's also a strawman, and if that's what you got from reading the excerpt then you are either too stupid to read or you are completely intellectually dishonest. No wonder you work in the judicial system.
Based on the fact you cannot even admit that a list you recommended and has been proven thoroughly to be absolute crap was a mea culpa moment, I do not think I am the one being intellectually dishonest here.
ReplyDeleteI read it and it makes this argument: men have power and those men who have power have occasionally passed legislation or policies that benefit women (and men but cannot admit that now can we?), therefore men are powerless and helpless and women are evil overladies forcing these men into doing their evil bidding.
As I said-makes no sense whatsoever.