• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

'The Red Pill' movie controversy

pharphis

Master Poster
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
2,169
So, who has seen the movie? Has kept up with the controversy and cancelled and banned screenings?

Is the movie honest? Reasonable? Misleading propaganda?

This interview provoked me into starting a thread on the topic since I hadn't seen one yet and it has been a few months of controversy by now. Feel free to share whatever clips you want for discussion. What do these interviews accomplish? Do you think they are inadvertently "red pilling" the public by being so incompetent and obviously pushing an agenda or do you think most lay people eat it up?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvLsslFEv7k

I personally haven't seen it, yet, but I hear it's on Amazon Prime now so I'll likely watch it soon.

I heard this talk by her the other day and it brought me to tears. It's hard to describe it but I was moved by how she recognized the cognitive issues she was having and overcame them. Something very few of us accomplish in our lives, I think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCgQAiy21dA
 
Anybody that offers critiques before watching the film is being disingenuous.

Cassie stated that the reason she investigated Paul's writings on voice.com was because she was offended. It appears that she is using a similar marketing technique to promote her video.

I really enjoyed Cassie owing the host(s) at 3 minutes on the first YouTube video :cool:
 
It has some good reviews here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3686998/reviews?ref_=tt_urv. Though it appears to have ignored by film critics as rotten tomatoes has no opinion on it.

A rash of those IMDB reviews are from the period when it was being screened to very limited, usually issue-oriented, audiences. I'd take them with a grain of salt. You might also note that of the first page of reviews, 80% seem to be "Member for 7 months".... In short, they joined up just to review this film. Friends of Cassie Jaye? Or just issue-driven folks from the MRA Sub-Reddit?
 
youtube; didn't watch

I only know of "redpill" in its internet slang usage: "could you please fill me in, and by the way I'm a huge dickbag."

Can someone redpill me on this redpill movie?
 
"It's about looking at issues in an honest way..."

Haha. Oh god, are people really taking these nutters seriously?

Also, her "I was totally a feminist and made this movie to evaluate them and then I talked to these brilliant men and totally changed my mind," is not at all convincing.
 
Last edited:
Apparently in the style of "atheist seeks to debunk Jesus, becomes a Christian instead." Trope worthy.

The documentary maker says she is has not become a men's right advocate.

More like a, 'I didn't make this group I used to hate look bad enough, and the feminist community told me I wasn't a feminist anymore, so who am I to argue?' Even taking your line about it, it could be a 'Christian seeks to debunk atheism, becomes agnostic instead.'

Much of the feminist activist community has become a toxic bunch of tribals with a cargo-cult understanding of feminism, so on one hand I can see where she is coming from. On the other, no, she's still a feminist but doesn't call herself one. She still advocates for equality by advancing the needs of women which makes her a feminist, even if she also advocates for equality by advancing the needs of men. Of course that also means she is a MRA, just not of the toxic bunch of tribals with a cargo-cult understanding of equality that that group tends to be as well.

The reactions to the very idea of this film have been shameful, and shows just how shut-off to thinking people advocating gender issues in general have become. The first youtube link is only a few minutes and it really, really shows the conversation in microcosm. The hosts keep blatantly straw-manning and the film maker has to keep correcting them that yes, she has done exactly as they suggest she has not done.
 
"It's about looking at issues in an honest way..."

Haha. Oh god, are people really taking these nutters seriously?

Also, her "I was totally a feminist and made this movie to evaluate them and then I talked to these brilliant men and totally changed my mind," is not at all convincing.


Except she really did make feminist movies for a decade that were celebrated, and she traveled the world promoting them and feminism. The movie itself might be propaganda (I haven't seen it), but the ad-hom that she's never been a feminist is simply wrong. Her credentials check out.

It's also a straw man, as she doesn't call all these men brilliant and in fact is highly critical of many of them and their techniques.
 
More like a, 'I didn't make this group I used to hate look bad enough, and the feminist community told me I wasn't a feminist anymore, so who am I to argue?' Even taking your line about it, it could be a 'Christian seeks to debunk atheism, becomes agnostic instead.'

Stop it, you should be able to see a clear marketing ploy when it's tossed at you.

The reactions to the very idea of this film have been shameful, and shows just how shut-off to thinking people advocating gender issues in general have become. The first youtube link is only a few minutes and it really, really shows the conversation in microcosm. The hosts keep blatantly straw-manning and the film maker has to keep correcting them that yes, she has done exactly as they suggest she has not done.

The reactions to this film are based on knowledge of the Men's Rights movement, the people involved, and the total bankruptcy of legitimate issue these misogynists have devoted their sad lives to. Your plea is no different than all of the hand-wringing over taking time to "understand" the needs of Trump voters.

Trump voters and MRA's are dismissed because we have knowledge of them and their beliefs, not because we don't know anything about them.

Find me a legitimate "Men's Rights" issue - sexual assault in prison, divorce/custody - and you'll find feminists devoting time and effort to reform long before these ******** showed up to use legitimate concerns solely for the purpose of adding a respectable guise to their misogyny.
 
Last edited:
Except she really did make feminist movies for a decade that were celebrated, and she traveled the world promoting them and feminism. The movie itself might be propaganda (I haven't seen it), but the ad-hom that she's never been a feminist is simply wrong. Her credentials check out.

It's also a straw man, as she doesn't call all these men brilliant and in fact is highly critical of many of them and their techniques.

She's marketing her movie. She needs a hook. She's trying to use her perceived credibility as a feminist to sneak this past the critics. If nothing else, the sad defense of Elam - Oh, he's just "controversial" to get people to listen - should clue you in on the plan here.

And, by the way, I'm totally against banning it, but I'm also pretty certain what we'll find: a bunch of treacly MRA's putting on their Sunday clothes and talking about the few legitimate issues they ever raise and downplaying the stuff they're actually passionate about.

The entire movement is a bait and switch: isn't sexual assault in prison bad? Yeah? See, that's proof that feminists are ruining the world...
 
Last edited:
Stop it, you should be able to see a clear marketing ploy when it's tossed at you.

This is a handwave.


The reactions to this film are based on knowledge of the Men's Rights movement, the people involved, and the total bankruptcy of legitimate issue these misogynists have devoted their sad lives to. Your plea is no different than all of the hand-wringing over taking time to "understand" the needs of Trump voters.

Trump voters and MRA's are dismissed because we have knowledge of them and their beliefs, not because we don't know anything about them.

Find me a legitimate "Men's Rights" issue - sexual assault in prison, divorce/custody - and you'll find feminists devoting time and effort to reform long before these ******** showed up to use legitimate concerns solely for the purpose of adding a respectable guise to their misogyny.


You cannot believe that both that the issues are totally illegitimate and that they are legitimate.

You're doing exactly what I was being critical of. You're lumping all the criticisms of Men's Rights issues in together to call them all valid, when many are not. You're ad-homing all their concerns and calling them invalid, when many are not. One does not need to agree with or like the MRAs overall to agree that they do indeed have some valid points, and some of the criticisms of them are invalid. Making it this black and white all encompassing when it is not. Take the arguments on their own merits or lack thereof.

Assuming this film maker is operating in bad faith simply because the film reportedly doesn't outright condemn all MRAs and their issues is poor critical thinking, and does not justify the reaction.

You're even making up arguments I haven't made, straw-manning already. Who said you don't know anything about MRAs?

Yes, many feminists thankfully do work on those issues you named, but many also belittle, dismiss, and outright attack the validity of those issues. Do you know that on pages devoted to discussing male rape survivors, we get feminists coming in accusing us of 'what about the men' arguments to marginalize the rape of women? On discussions of male rape, not on discussions of female rape or rape in general, male rape. That behavior not only fails to be called to task from the feminist community in general, it's rationalized and if a male feminist calls it out, he's pilloried and accused of mansplaining, suddenly a dirty MRA. That's probably one reason when it happens, the male survivors of rape walk on eggshells not to appear even a little harsh of the person trying to silence their discussion.

To me it no longer matters how bad this documentary might be, it might be straight up propaganda, but the reaction to it is more important. It shows how intellectually bankrupt pop feminism has become. Attack the arguments, don't just ad-hom out of it. This pisses me off because feminism is actually really important, and to see them behave as Trump supporters, to use your own well poisoning, is heartbreaking.
 
She's marketing her movie. She needs a hook. She's trying to use her perceived credibility as a feminist to sneak this past the critics. If nothing else, the sad defense of Elam - Oh, he's just "controversial" to get people to listen - should clue you in on the plan here.

And, by the way, I'm totally against banning it, but I'm also pretty certain what we'll find: a bunch of treacly MRA's putting on their Sunday clothes and talking about the few legitimate issues they ever raise and downplaying the stuff they're actually passionate about.

The entire movement is a bait and switch: isn't sexual assault in prison bad? Yeah? See, that's proof that feminists are ruining the world...


Oh for the love of..this is such stupid straw man. Show me where she makes this argument. Please.
 
You cannot believe that both that the issues are totally illegitimate and that they are legitimate.

I can believe that the issues are legitimate, but the MRA's are cynically using those specific issues to make it appear that their movement has some worth.

Sexual assault in prison is a legitimate issue, but MRA's have done jack **** to actually promote reform. They point to it as "evidence" of how hard men have it hoping that sentimentality over that horrible abuse will allow them to kick through broader whining about the general victimhood of men in our society.

And, of course, feminists have been at the forefront of prison reform since the 19th century.

You're doing exactly what I was being critical of. You're lumping all the criticisms of Men's Rights issues in together to call them all valid, when many are not. You're ad-homing all their concerns and calling them invalid, when many are not. One does not need to agree with or like the MRAs overall to agree that they do indeed have some valid points, and some of the criticisms of them are invalid. Making it this black and white all encompassing when it is not. Take the arguments on their own merits or lack thereof.

It's strange that you notice I point out legitimate issues but condemn MRA's then accuse me of not being able to distinguish legitimate issues from MRA nonsense.

To be clear: there are very legitimate issues sometimes mentioned by the Mens Rights Movement. They do this cynically and have done jack **** to actually reform those issues. For example, if they really cared about custody reform, they would note that the reason women often receive primary custody is because they have taken on the role of primary caregiver. This is a default role assigned to them by society and one that feminists generally oppose.

I worked as a family law attorney for a decade. I would conservatively estimate that I represented clients in 600+ custody cases. The only reason women received primary custody more often than men is that they had less demanding jobs and were able to take them to and from school and be available at 3:30 when school ended.

You want more evenly distributed custody, promote equality in the workplace. It's not a grand conspiracy to screw men. It's how our patriarchal society has developed rules and customs. It's hilarious to watch the very people who created and benefit from that structure whine about one of the very predictable results.

Assuming this film maker is operating in bad faith simply because the film reportedly doesn't outright condemn all MRAs and their issues is poor critical thinking, and does not justify the reaction.

Hey, give Trump a chance!

We have plenty of experience with MRA's. It's silly to pretend like all of that should be tossed out.

Hey man, here's a movie about the KKK. Assuming it's bad faith just because the movie doesn't condemn them is poor critical thinking. Just hear them out.

Sorry, I'm not a naif.

Yes, many feminists thankfully do work on those issues you named, but many also belittle, dismiss, and outright attack the validity of those issues. Do you know that on pages devoted to discussing male rape survivors, we get feminists coming in accusing us of 'what about the men' arguments to marginalize the rape of women? On discussions of male rape, not on discussions of female rape or rape in general, male rape. That behavior not only fails to be called to task from the feminist community in general, it's rationalized and if a male feminist calls it out, he's pilloried and accused of mansplaining, suddenly a dirty MRA. That's probably one reason when it happens, the male survivors of rape walk on eggshells not to appear even a little harsh of the person trying to silence their discussion.

Sounds ******. There are bad people in the world, feminists included. If you're making a broader point about the relationship between Feminism and male rape, you'll have to substantiate it. The only feminists I know and read do not dismiss male victimhood.

To me it no longer matters how bad this documentary might be, it might be straight up propaganda, but the reaction to it is more important. It shows how intellectually bankrupt pop feminism has become. Attack the arguments, don't just ad-hom out of it. This pisses me off because feminism is actually really important, and to see them behave as Trump supporters, to use your own well poisoning, is heartbreaking.

Again, we know the arguments of the MRA's. We know who Paul Elam is. In that goofy interview she is working hard to legitimize and defend him. This, again, should clue you into the goal, here.

All of the legitimate issues cynically and self-servingly raised by MRA's are being handled by better, less misogynistic people. I have no more interesting in hearing about these beautiful little snowflakes than I do participating in the PR redemption tour of David Duke.

Pretending like they're an unknown quantity is absurd.
 
Last edited:
Also, her "I was totally a feminist and made this movie to evaluate them and then I talked to these brilliant men and totally changed my mind," is not at all convincing.

Except that that's what happened, best as I can tell.

She's trying to use her perceived credibility as a feminist to sneak this past the critics.

How so? She's giving context to her claim, essentially trying to avoid accusations that she saw what she wanted to see. Saying "no, it was the opposite of what I wanted to see" _does_ lend credibility to her opinion.

The entire movement is a bait and switch: isn't sexual assault in prison bad? Yeah? See, that's proof that feminists are ruining the world...

If you're not going to bother at least representing your opposition accurately, why even bother participating in a discussion on the topic?
 
Except that that's what happened, best as I can tell.

Just like the magical atheists who suddenly become Christians on the road to Damascus, I question her initial commitment to feminism - or her research skills.

Anyone trying to legitimize Paul Elam is a waste of space.

How so? She's giving context to her claim, essentially trying to avoid accusations that she saw what she wanted to see. Saying "no, it was the opposite of what I wanted to see" _does_ lend credibility to her opinion.

Again, obvious sales tactic is obvious. Trust me, I'm the last person who would be convinced by Paul Elam. Just give him a chance....

If you're not going to bother at least representing your opposition accurately, why even bother participating in a discussion on the topic?

I have represented the Mens Rights Movement very accurately. You seem to be confusing issues relevant to men with the Mens Rights Movement. That's exactly what they want. As I said before, they raise legitimate issues cynically to gain sympathy, and that's when they dig in with the hardcore misogyny.

Do not be fooled by these slime ball hucksters.
 
Just to remind folks, this is the guy who just uses controversial language to get people to listen to his super good ideas:

I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires … And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

But are these women asking to get raped?

In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.

They are freaking begging for it.

Damn near demanding it.

And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

Do you think I am going to stop?

It’s a serious question, because the answer to that question … should inform you of what will work for you or not work for you in dealing with me.

And the answer is, of course, no, I am not going to stop. You see, I find you, as a feminist, to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of *********** your **** up gives me an erection.

More here: http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/10/18/paul-elam-of-a-voice-for-men-in-his-own-words/

Yes, just hear him out. So unfair to just dismiss him. Listen to his good ideas, won't you?
 
Just like the magical atheists who suddenly become Christians on the road to Damascus, I question her initial commitment to feminism - or her research skills.

You do understand the difference between coming to a different understanding based on conversation with people who disagree with you and the magical intervention of angels and gods, right?

Again, obvious sales tactic is obvious.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

I have represented the Mens Rights Movement very accurately.

Then you should have no problem quoting them saying as much.

Of course you can't. Nobody said that "men have issues, ergo feminists are ruining the world". From what I've seen, they say "men have issues, and they are getting ignored because feminists focus exclusively on women's issues and have made it socially unacceptable to do otherwise." Isn't that reasonable?

Your posts in this thread indicate that you are utterly uninterested in challenging your views and finding out if there's more to this, allowing you to continue to say anything you want about the opposition, safe in your ignorance.
 
You do understand the difference between coming to a different understanding based on conversation with people who disagree with you and the magical intervention of angels and gods, right?

You do understand the similarities, don't you?

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

It's fine to get people to watch her movie. Not real convincing concerning the legitimacy of her project.

Then you should have no problem quoting them saying as much.

See above.

Of course you can't. Nobody said that "men have issues, ergo feminists are ruining the world". From what I've seen, they say "men have issues, and they are getting ignored because feminists focus exclusively on women's issues and have made it socially unacceptable to do otherwise." Isn't that reasonable?

You need to look harder. The Mens Rights Movement is a collection of deviant misogynists.

Your posts in this thread indicate that you are utterly uninterested in challenging your views and finding out if there's more to this, allowing you to continue to say anything you want about the opposition, safe in your ignorance.

My posts demonstrates that I am the only one capable of understanding the difference between issues facing men and the Mens Rights Movement.

You want some quotes, here are some more:

Paul Elam, again:

In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.

I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living **** out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.

And then make them clean up the mess.

Roy Den Hollander, a lawyer and Men’s Rights activist best known for suing clubs that have “ladies nights":

The future prospect of the Men’s Movement raising enough money to exercise some influence in America is unlikely. But there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly—firearms.

Citizen Renegade:

[P]roperly owning a dog is excellent training for properly owning a woman. The behavior of dogs and women is eerily similar, and their relation to man testifies to that.

Like dogs, women need to be led. They *want* to be led. In fact, though they will never admit it, women want to be owned by their men.

Jay Hammers:

Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.

And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.

Plenty more.

If you actually care about the issues mentioned - sexual assault in prison, custody reform - you should distance yourself from the Mens Rights Movement as much as possible. The people leading and eagerly joining that movement are sick *****.

Spend your time focusing on people who are actually working on topics of legitimacy.

Maybe this will convince you: Guess which presidential candidate the MRA's LOOOOVED and guess which one they HAAAATED...
 
Last edited:
I can believe that the issues are legitimate, but the MRA's are cynically using those specific issues to make it appear that their movement has some worth.

Sexual assault in prison is a legitimate issue, but MRA's have done jack **** to actually promote reform. They point to it as "evidence" of how hard men have it hoping that sentimentality over that horrible abuse will allow them to kick through broader whining about the general victimhood of men in our society.

And, of course, feminists have been at the forefront of prison reform since the 19th century.

Yes, they were and are at the forefront of prison reform, yet today if you talk about things like sentencing disparity and prison rape today as issues that effect men, you're labeled an MRA and not a feminist by pop feminists. There is credit and blame there, not just credit. So who is right? Are the feminists working on these issues MRAs or feminists?

I'd agree that those who self-identify as MRAs have done next to nothing to actually address the problem and do just use it as a way to attack all feminists and feminism in general. However, if pop feminists are right and those other feminists are not feminists but are MRAs, then ironically MRAs are the ones at the forefront of prison reform.

And this is a problem with much of the criticisms of this movie. 'Why didn't you interview these more reasonable people?', 'we did'. It isn't just a bunch of MRA, but people who others call MRA. It doesn't follow that because MRA have in general been counterproductive, that everyone called an MRA is, let alone that this movie is.



It's strange that you notice I point out legitimate issues but condemn MRA's then accuse me of not being able to distinguish legitimate issues from MRA nonsense.

Because you outright said that, "the total bankruptcy of legitimate issue these misogynists have devoted their sad lives to." So yes, what you wrote is contradictory.

To be clear: there are very legitimate issues sometimes mentioned by the Mens Rights Movement. They do this cynically and have done jack **** to actually reform those issues. For example, if they really cared about custody reform, they would note that the reason women often receive primary custody is because they have taken on the role of primary caregiver. This is a default role assigned to them by society and one that feminists generally oppose.

I worked as a family law attorney for a decade. I would conservatively estimate that I represented clients in 600+ custody cases. The only reason women received primary custody more often than men is that they had less demanding jobs and were able to take them to and from school and be available at 3:30 when school ended.

You want more evenly distributed custody, promote equality in the workplace. It's not a grand conspiracy to screw men. It's how our patriarchal society has developed rules and customs. It's hilarious to watch the very people who created and benefit from that structure whine about one of the very predictable results.


Yes, addressing workplace equality would help this a lot (ironically some of the lowest hanging fruit there is to help men so that they can take time as primary care givers), but no, it is not the only factor. Yes, it is not some conspiracy to screw men, no, it is not just the patriarchy. Gender biases hurt us all, and they are NOT only results of those bias that are degrading to women.



Hey, give Trump a chance!

We have plenty of experience with MRA's. It's silly to pretend like all of that should be tossed out.

Hey man, here's a movie about the KKK. Assuming it's bad faith just because the movie doesn't condemn them is poor critical thinking. Just hear them out.

Sorry, I'm not a naif.

No, give a movie about them a chance, and more importantly, don't throw the film maker out without evening giving her a chance. See, this is what you can't separate. The movie isn't the MRA movement from anything I've been able to find. That it isn't straight up condemning everything around them doesn't make it 'pro-MRA'. If the maker of the movie is lying and it is pro-propaganda, then show that and we can agree. So far, that's not been the case.



Sounds ******. There are bad people in the world, feminists included. If you're making a broader point about the relationship between Feminism and male rape, you'll have to substantiate it. The only feminists I know and read do not dismiss male victimhood.


Really? It's been many years since I was able to say the same. You know what I was most recently told that I'm not a feminist and I must be an MRA over? I said that one can be a feminist and not believe that 'sexism' means power plus prejudice, and that men can experience sexism. A writer for Cosmo actually told me I was for the murder of women, because I say men can experience sexism. I got piled on for disagreeing, and because I was disagreeing with a woman, I was 'mansplaining'. How much feminism do you read?

Now think about that for a second. The arguments for the power-plus redefinition of sexism include that what men go through isn't like what women go through, because the effects are worse on women through the power structure shielding men. The idea is that the impact on men is less, therefore gender or sex based prejudice isn't really 'sexism'. That is literally marginalizing the effects of sexism on men. It's like saying a house cat isn't a cat because it's not as large as a lion. Using the redefinition for certain discussions as a stipulated definition is more than justified and useful, but there are huge drawbacks. Besides the zero-sum assumption of power, it focuses on single-source origins of the problem, and single-solutions well over any of the issues coming from interpersonal sexism. Yet no matter how bad a case of sex-based prejudice or discrimination is against a man, it's not as impactful as any of the sex-based prejudice against a woman. At the same time, they insist this isn't dismissing male-victimization. This is double-think. One cannot claim that sexism is impossible against a man because the impact is less and that they are not dismissing or marginalizing male victimization.

In theory, one should be able to differentiate when someone makes a 'what about the men' argument to dismiss valid feminist concerns or arguments from when 'this is a problem for men too' is a valid point, but in practice with pop feminism, that's not the case. Thankfully there are many, many more thoughtful feminists out there. I'm not going to condemn the more thoughtful ones as MRA without more evidence than 'not anti-MRA enough'. Perhaps I'm guilty of the same error that I'm being critical of and being overly skeptical from one too many cries of 'wolf', but I don't just trust that because people say it's pro-MRA or not a feminists, it's true. I'd rather be guilty of giving people too much benefit of the doubt than not enough.



Again, we know the arguments of the MRA's. We know who Paul Elam is. In that goofy interview she is working hard to legitimize and defend him. This, again, should clue you into the goal, here.

The interview where she specifically says she disagrees with his tactics?

All of the legitimate issues cynically and self-servingly raised by MRA's are being handled by better, less misogynistic people. I have no more interesting in hearing about these beautiful little snowflakes than I do participating in the PR redemption tour of David Duke.

Pretending like they're an unknown quantity is absurd.

No one is pretending they're an unknown quantity.
 
Yes, the essence of my position is, "Please MRA's, come up with a nicer way of threatening rape and violence."

He talked about using violence in self-defense against violence. He's saying it in an overly aggressive, angry and in-your-face manner. Now unless you think it's okay for women to hit men and to not be hit back, then you're objecting to his statement based on the way he said, not the actual content of the message, which is tone policing.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they were and are at the forefront of prison reform, yet today if you talk about things like sentencing disparity and prison rape today as issues that effect men, you're labeled an MRA and not a feminist by pop feminists. There is credit and blame there, not just credit. So who is right? Are the feminists working on these issues MRAs or feminists?

If people are doing this, they're making a mistake. Again, though, if you want to associate that behavior with feminism, broadly, I will need some evidence. Because the feminists I read write things like this:

The second most common question I hear is “What about men who are in prison for committing crimes involving sexual violence against women?” This question is complicated and incredibly challenging. My response to this question is one that most folks do not like or agree with: the criminal justice system – of which prison systems are a part of – does not exist to keep anyone safe, including survivors of sexual violence. Locking up individuals who engage in sexually violent behavior exposes them to more violence.
http://www.theradicalnotion.com/prisons-abolition/

I'd agree that those who self-identify as MRAs have done next to nothing to actually address the problem and do just use it as a way to attack all feminists and feminism in general. However, if pop feminists are right and those other feminists are not feminists but are MRAs, then ironically MRAs are the ones at the forefront of prison reform.

And this is a problem with much of the criticisms of this movie. 'Why didn't you interview these more reasonable people?', 'we did'. It isn't just a bunch of MRA, but people who others call MRA. It doesn't follow that because MRA have in general been counterproductive, that everyone called an MRA is, let alone that this movie is.

If the movie purports to be about MRA's but instead interviews a bunch of reasonable people who don't associate with the movement, surely you can see how that would be strange.

Please, find me these reasonable MRA's. I know a lot of reasonable people working on issues important to men, especially those in situations where there is a lot of social pressure to bury problems. Exactly zero of those folks would associate with a guy like Elam.


Because you outright said that, "the total bankruptcy of legitimate issue these misogynists have devoted their sad lives to." So yes, what you wrote is contradictory.

No, it is not. Again, they do not actually give a **** about the legitimate issues. Those require hard work, knowledge, and dedication. It's much more difficult to try and reform the prison industrial complex (especially when you are an eager Trump supporter) than it is to whine about whores on the internet.

They have not devoted their lives to the legitimate issues, they have cynically used them. They have devoted their lives to the humiliation of women.

Yes, addressing workplace equality would help this a lot (ironically some of the lowest hanging fruit there is to help men so that they can take time as primary care givers), but no, it is not the only factor. Yes, it is not some conspiracy to screw men, no, it is not just the patriarchy. Gender biases hurt us all, and they are NOT only results of those bias that are degrading to women.

There is no conspiracy against men in the legal system. And, amusingly, since most MRA's are also really, really racist, the actual bias in the prison system - racial bias - isn't a concern of theirs at all.

The notion that white men suffer from some conspiracy against them in the legal system is laughable.

No, give a movie about them a chance, and more importantly, don't throw the film maker out without evening giving her a chance. See, this is what you can't separate. The movie isn't the MRA movement from anything I've been able to find. That it isn't straight up condemning everything around them doesn't make it 'pro-MRA'. If the maker of the movie is lying and it is pro-propaganda, then show that and we can agree. So far, that's not been the case.

I gave her a chance. I watched the interview. I watched her try to dismiss the horrible **** Elam says just like Kellyanne would dismiss Trump's horrible statements, "Oh, don't take it literally. It's just for attention. Set aside the racism and misogyny and just listen to his super good ideas."

Again, anyone trying to legitimize Paul Elam is not coming from a reasonable, rational position.

Really? It's been many years since I was able to say the same. You know what I was most recently told that I'm not a feminist and I must be an MRA over? I said that one can be a feminist and not believe that 'sexism' means power plus prejudice, and that men can experience sexism. A writer for Cosmo actually told me I was for the murder of women, because I say men can experience sexism. I got piled on for disagreeing, and because I was disagreeing with a woman, I was 'mansplaining'. How much feminism do you read?

I have no way of evaluating this claim. Feel free to link to the discussion.

Now think about that for a second. The arguments for the power-plus redefinition of sexism include that what men go through isn't like what women go through, because the effects are worse on women through the power structure shielding men. The idea is that the impact on men is less, therefore gender or sex based prejudice isn't really 'sexism'. That is literally marginalizing the effects of sexism on men. It's like saying a house cat isn't a cat because it's not as large as a lion. Using the redefinition for certain discussions as a stipulated definition is more than justified and useful, but there are huge drawbacks. Besides the zero-sum assumption of power, it focuses on single-source origins of the problem, and single-solutions well over any of the issues coming from interpersonal sexism. Yet no matter how bad a case of sex-based prejudice or discrimination is against a man, it's not as impactful as any of the sex-based prejudice against a woman. At the same time, they insist this isn't dismissing male-victimization. This is double-think. One cannot claim that sexism is impossible against a man because the impact is less and that they are not dismissing or marginalizing male victimization.

Most feminists I am aware of recognize that the sexist beliefs of the patriarchy - like the scorn and humiliation suffered by male victims of sexual abuse - are both sexist and can effect men. You are referring to very specific conversations you've had with individuals making any discussion on this point impossible.

In theory, one should be able to differentiate when someone makes a 'what about the men' argument to dismiss valid feminist concerns or arguments from when 'this is a problem for men too' is a valid point, but in practice with pop feminism, that's not the case. Thankfully there are many, many more thoughtful feminists out there. I'm not going to condemn the more thoughtful ones as MRA without more evidence than 'not anti-MRA enough'. Perhaps I'm guilty of the same error that I'm being critical of and being overly skeptical from one too many cries of 'wolf', but I don't just trust that because people say it's pro-MRA or not a feminists, it's true. I'd rather be guilty of giving people too much benefit of the doubt than not enough.

Again, find me a "thoughtful" self-professed MRA and I bet you I'm one google search from something insanely racist or sexist.

At some point you have to draw a conclusion. These idiots seem to publish every deviant thought that pops into their heads. You have ample fuel to make a decision.

Also, you shouldn't be fooled by someone putting on their best face for a short interview in a film that is clearly some PR effort on their part.

The interview where she specifically says she disagrees with his tactics?

Calling what he does "tactics" implies that he doesn't mean what he says. This is dangerous, dismissive, and an attempt to legitimize him.
 
You do understand the similarities, don't you?

Why the plural? The only similarity is the conversion.

Not real convincing concerning the legitimacy of her project.

Why not?

You need to look harder. The Mens Rights Movement is a collection of deviant misogynists.

:rolleyes:

Do you really think that the above is a reasonable and considered opinion? It sounds a lot like logger's "lefists are X" nonsense. If I said that "feminism is a collection of violent men-haters" would that sound reasonable to you?

You want some quotes, here are some more:

Any idiot can find quotes supporting any idea. I'm asking you to show that what you've said is representative of them as a whole. So far you've simply insisted that it is so.

The people leading and eagerly joining that movement are sick *****.

More quality evidence!
 
He talked about using violence in self-defense against violence. He's saying it in an overly aggressive, angry and in-your-face manner. Now unless you think it's okay for women to hit men and to not be hit back, then you're objecting to his statement based on the way he said, not the actual content of the message, which is tone policing.

So, you find that to be a reasonable response, substantively? It was only the phrasing that was a problem?

Please, rephrase that in a sensible way for me.

Domestic abuse aimed at males is a problem. The answer is not more domestic violence.
 
Why the plural? The only similarity is the conversion.

No, it's the manner in which the product is sought to be sold:

"Hey, I was a skeptic, the LAAAAAST one who would ever believe this. Then I used Magic Strudel Maker and now I say that all of you should buy three of them!!!!"

Maybe you're convinced by that sort of glib nonsense, but it just makes me suspect there isn't much substance.


Because I live in the world and am accustomed to that type of sales tactic.

:rolleyes:

Do you really think that the above is a reasonable and considered opinion? It sounds a lot like logger's "lefists are X" nonsense. If I said that "feminism is a collection of violent men-haters" would that sound reasonable to you?

The MRA movement is a discreet collection of people. I think you are speaking out of pure ignorance, here. The MRA movement is the alt-right. They are eager Trump supporters:

https://www.thecut.com/2016/12/mens-rights-activists-are-flocking-to-the-alt-right.html

You are conflating issues of concern to men with the (capital letters) Mens Rights Movement. It is not me making a sloppy generalization, they are very clear on self-identifying and defining themselves in those terms.

Any idiot can find quotes supporting any idea. I'm asking you to show that what you've said is representative of them as a whole. So far you've simply insisted that it is so.

I quoted you the words of their leaders. Feel free to peruse this website:

http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/

There are years and years of posts collecting the vile **** said and done by those people.

More quality evidence!

You don't know what the Mens Rights Movement is, that's clear. I find it odd that you are going to bat for avid Trump supporters.

I have given you a ton of links. What, exactly, are you looking for? I'm quoting from their leaders, their eager participants. I'm happy to provide you evidence, but you're going to have to tell me what you're looking for.
 
You do understand the similarities, don't you?

Beyond the superficial, there are none. This is a poor parallel.


One is someone indulging in magical thinking the other has at least the possibility of being based on logic and evidence.

To compare the one to the other is to intimate heavily that the possibility of the men's rights movement having a point is equivalent to the possibility of there being a god.
 
Beyond the superficial, there are none. This is a poor parallel.


One is someone indulging in magical thinking the other has at least the possibility of being based on logic and evidence.

To compare the one to the other is to intimate heavily that the possibility of the men's rights movement having a point is equivalent to the possibility of there being a god.

This is bad work.

It's a tactic, as I pointed out. Any time you have the hard skeptic who was won over, you see the process.

"I used to be a hardcore Democrat/Republican and now I'm a hardcore Republican/Democrat. It was because my new side is good and the old side is bad."

"I didn't believe Detergent X could get my clothes clean, I've used Detergent Y my whole life. Now I'm a convert!!!!!"

It's the same stupid tactic: "Trust me, I'm the last person to buy in, therefore my conversion is all the more convincing!!!"

It's a cheap way of building credibility.
 
Last edited:
"Hey, I was a skeptic, the LAAAAAST one who would ever believe this. Then I used Magic Strudel Maker and now I say that all of you should buy three of them!!!!"

Except that the last part didn't happen. I've already explained it to you, so it's hard to believe that you didn't ignore it deliberately. It's more like "Hey, I was a skeptic, the LAST one who would ever believe this, so I wasn't biased towards this conclusion, and you should give this a fair reading".

Maybe you're convinced by that sort of glib nonsense

Yeah that would certainly make me an idiot, right?

The MRA movement is a discreet collection of people. I think you are speaking out of pure ignorance, here. The MRA movement is the alt-right. They are eager Trump supporters:

Well, gee whiz. If they support Trump then I guess there's no reason to be reasonable or objective about them!

You are conflating issues of concern to men with the (capital letters) Mens Rights Movement.

That's like saying that the United States of America have nothing to do with american issues.

I quoted you the words of their leaders.

"Leaders"? The movement has leaders, now?

You don't know what the Mens Rights Movement is, that's clear. I find it odd that you are going to bat for avid Trump supporters.

Ah, there we have it! I was wondering when you'd just come out and accuse me of supporting them. Because of course, asking you to be reasonable in your assessment means I must support the other side! That's totally logical and it makes complete sense.

On a more serious note, you are absolutely irrational about this topic, if you think me calling you on your fallacies means I'm on the MRA side.
 
Back
Top Bottom