UPDATE 10/25/16: If you’ve come here after reading about a petition to cancel screenings of The Red Pill, I ask you to NOT sign any such petitions. It’s just free publicity for them. Read more of my thoughts on the matter here.
Dear Cassie Jaye,
Congratulations. You surpassed your Kickstarter fundraising goal yesterday, more than two weeks before the Kickstarter campaign was scheduled to come to a close. You’ve funded the postproduction work on your long-delayed documentary on Men’s Rights activists, and then some.
But I’m not sure that the person I should be congratulating is you. Last night Paul Elam of A Voice for Men – the central subject of your film – was doing his own victory lap online. And no wonder, because he seems to be the real victor here.
In a post on his site that managed to be giddy and vindictive at once, he offered his congratulations to you, then, well, to himself. “Even though the victory goes to Ms. Jaye,” he wrote, in an awkward attempt at modesty, “I have the need to offer up some thanks.”
And then he spelled out why he thinks your “victory” is really a victory for him.
For the past six years AVFM has had mud kicked in its face by a corrupt, left-wing media. Bottom feeders like Adam Serwer, Jeff Sharlet and Mariah Blake have performed endless unscrupulous acts, directly lying to their readers in order to attack AVFM, this movement and me personally.
Their work was not just to harm me, or to damage a website but to make sure if they could that the message we carry never found its way to the larger public. Their intent was and is to paint an indelible stain on all of us so hideous that we would never be taken seriously by enough people to matter.
They have failed, and I can now predict that they have failed miserably.
In other words, Paul Elam thinks he and his friends in what he ludicrously calls the “Men’s Human Rights Movement” have bought and paid for a feature-length advertisement for them.
And it’s not hard to see why Elam – and the other manospherians who’ve rallied around your film in recent days — think this. After all, they are the ones who have rescued your film from oblivion by pouring tens of thousands of dollars into your Kickstarter.
And all it took for you to unleash this torrent of money was an interview with one of the sleaziest figures in right-wing journalism, Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart.
In the interview, posted on Monday, you complained that “I won’t be getting support from feminists. They want a hit piece and I won’t do that.”
There was more than a little bit of irony in the fact that you were saying this to a man infamous for his many hit pieces on so-called “Social Justice Warriors.”
You also complained about an intern on your film who, you said, “had a lot of crying attacks and emotional experiences. She claimed everything I was showing her was triggering her.”
A young feminist “triggered” and crying. This is red meat to the Breitbart crowd, and I have to assume you knew this when you told Milo this story.
To an outside observer like me, this shameful pandering looks a lot like a Hail Mary play on your part. Having failed to convince most potential funders of the film that you would present anything close to an accurate picture of the Men’s Rights movement, you told Breitbart what its readers – and the broader manosphere – wanted to hear.
And it worked. Men’s Rights activists, self-professed “Red Pillers” and other assorted antifeminists rallied around your film, and the money started flowing.
On Reddit, the moderators of the Men’s Rights subreddit “stickied” an appeal to donate to your Kickstarter to the top of their front page, urging MRAs to open their wallets in order to show skeptics that “we can take part in some actual activism and not just post stuff in here.”
Even the regulars in the violently misogynistic Red Pill subreddit agreed to help bankroll your film.
And it wasn’t just Men’s Rights and “Red Pill” Redditors who organized support for your film. One right-wing Red Pill blogger, notorious for his harassment of ideological enemies, pledged to match donations up to $10,000, describing your documentary as “the Movie SJWs Do Not Want You to See.”
Meanwhile, on her blog, AVFM’s “social media director” Andrea Hardie (an internet bully better known under her pseudonyms Janet Bloomfield and “Judgy Bitch”) not only rallied her readers around your Kickstarter but also set up a gofundme of her own, raising money in hopes that it would buy Breitbart’s Yiannopoulos a producer credit in your film. (I hope that is out of the question, even if she raises more than the paltry amount she’s raised for this purpose so far.)
And then there was Elam himself, on Twitter, calling on his followers to, in his words, “Help fund #RedPillMovie because fuck feminists!”
https://twitter.com/AVoiceForMen/status/658700057311506432
Accepting money from these people would seem to be a pretty clear violation of the principles you set forth in your own Kickstarter video, in which you declared that
in order to keep this film non-partisan, and respectfully show all sides to this debate, we won’t accept funding from organizations that inevitably have biased agendas.
Instead, you have chosen to take money from people who see your film as a chance to say “fuck you” to feminists. You have chosen to take money from the actual subjects of your film.
You are making a film about Men’s Rights Activists, funded to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars by Men’s Rights Activists. You are making a film about A Voice for Men funded in part by A Voice for Men.
Does that not trouble you at all? It should. In your interview with Breitbart, you noted that “films that support one side and act as propaganda do better than those that try to have an honest look.”
You said this, presumably, to set yourself apart from such propagandists. Now you seem to have cast your lot in with them.
Which I suppose makes sense, since the clips of your film that you’ve posted online so far look a lot more like propaganda than they do like any sort of honest look at the Men’s Rights movement,
I felt uneasy about your project from the start, concerned that you had been pulled in by the soothing but misleading rhetoric that MRAs spout when they are trying to sound more respectable than they really are, rather than on what MRAs actually say and do when the cameras are off of them.
But I knew you had a good reputation as a filmmaker, and heard good things from several feminists who knew you better than I did. So I held my tongue and tried my best to give you the benefit of the doubt, even when you posted clips from your film that portrayed AVFMers as heroic underdogs rather than the misogynists and malicious harassers that they really are.
When I wrote you a little over a week ago with some of my concerns, you assured me in the phone call that followed that the clips you had posted were only part of the story, that you were well aware that the MRAs you had interviewed were on their best behavior when talking to you, and that the real story of the Men’s Rights movement is far less rosy-hued. Against my better judgement, I continued to hold on to some kind of hope that you would live up to your reputation in the end.
And now, frankly, I feel like I’ve been played.
Unfortunately, it looks like you have been played too, much more spectacularly than I have. I suspect you are doing far more damage to your reputation than you even know.
One thing I have learned in five years of watching, and writing about, and dealing with, the Men’s Rights movement, is that if Paul Elam is happy about something, that thing is almost certainly terrible.
I suspect, sadly, that you will ultimately learn this lesson yourself, the hard way.
PS: In our phone conversation, you suggested that if you were able to fund your film, you might be able to finally film the interview with me that we originally had planned to do, but which fell through due to financial and other practical obstacles during the original filming of The Red Pill. At this point, I am sorry to say, that is completely out of the question.
@Fiyah Pokémon
Weird that you want my take, but I’m game.
Here are the facts, as I understand them:
– A group of people rented a theater for a private showing of the documentary.
– That showing was publicly advertised.
– Someone started a petition to get the theater to cancel the showing.
– The theater got wind and since it was no longer private as per the agreement, had been made to look like it was the theater who decided to show the film, and they didn’t want their name and reputation attached to the film, they cancelled it.
I think it was wrong of the group to publicly advertise what they had signed on as a private showing. I think people should be allowed to complain to a theater if they’re offended by the content the theater decides to show. I think the theater probably had no choice other than to cancel it, as different licensing rules apply to private and public showings.
Eren,
Would you be interested in the take of an Australian?I
Good news for you! Because (PRATT) this film has not been banned in Australia, so if you are here, you will still be able to legally watch it here.
Not in a public session in a commercial cinema, true. Because no cinema chain has exercised the commercial option to buy rights to screen that movie to the general public. The cancelled Melbourne showing was a private screening for a group hiring the cinema for that screening only. If you live anywhere in Australia other than inner city Melbourne, you are not affected by that cancellation.
Because it is not on the list of films that have been denied classification en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_banned_in_Australia ), you are completely free to stream it, download it, or buy a DVD copy of it, as long as you pay the copyright owner/s. You are even entitled to hire a commercial cinema to screen it for you, as long as you are willing to abide by the terms of your agreement with them. Legitimate cinema buff groups do this all the time.
I wanted to see “Serenity” when it came out. I wanted to see “Four Lions” when it came out. No cinema in my non metropolitan town showed them. SF movie by an Academy Award winner; BAFTA Award winning film. Neither was banned here. Neither was commercially distributed locally to me either. Both became available to me digitally a while after cinema release. Neither was banned here.
I know how to do it, and have been for over a year now. The ‘blockquote mammoth’ is just annoying, is all.
mea culpa! It is an obnoxious beastie, isn’t it? I do a lot of HTML and markup and stuff so it’s sort of unconscious for me to just type it in myself, but I’ve had to go back and edit a couple of times, too
@nparker
Nah, it’s not just them. Every kind of authoritarian jackass pulls this routine about ‘formal debates’, because that format allows for easy Gish Galloping* and later claims of victory.
*A debate tactic named for the late creationist Duane Gish, in which the debater spews out a huge number of falsitys, such that their opponent is left stumbling over which one to debunk first, and never has time to debunk them all. Thus, and the end, the galloper will say ‘ah, but you never addressed claims x, y, and z, so I win’. The older phrasing goes ‘If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit’. Obviously a useful tactic for people whose positions are based entirely in bullshit.
A very good point.
Interesting fact about Gish Galloping. I had no idea that was where it got its name.
The thing is, those tactics are transparent to people outside the debate, so it surely doesn’t have much of a benefit outside of the person using it seeming smug.
@nparker
It bolsters their partisans, who will then go around proclaiming that their side ‘won’ a debate with so and so, and thus our position’s right and yours is wrong hahaha.
I really don’t understand the vitriol here. To my mind, a genuine look at the upsides and downsides of both gender roles seems entirely in order if you are motivated by genuine gender liberation, as opposed to zero sum advocacy for one sex or another.
I wish I could say that I have a hard time understanding why feminists did not want to help fund the film, but they seem to be a bit less than sympathetic with any discussion of uniquely male problems (prostate cancer, higher suicide rate, etc). Similarly with very close-minded MRAs who won’t hear about domestic violence or sexual assault against women with any attention or sympathy, and just rattle on about their own problems.
In any case, if Cassie wanted produce and even-handed film (it seems to me she did), and received no help at all from feminists who suspected her motives in even mentioning male issues, is it really so surprising that she would gather funding from the only other people interested in exploring this topic? Is it really so surprising that, after just showing curiosity about men’s issues and receiving nothing but vitriol from feminists, that Cassie might wonder if MRAs had a point?? Finally, is it really surprising that Cassie might react against all the hate she got from feminists, and ultimately tilt her piece against that point of view?
I don’t see any of this as particularly surprising, and I have a hard time understanding why we can’t just speak calmly about the upsides and downsides of the two gender roles, and figure out how we might help each other out. To me, I think we should listen to each other and find collaborative ways to help each other out.
Is it really so surprising that people keep necroing this thread?
There are more than two genders.
False equivalency. Feminists work on feminist issues. If men feel that they have issues they need to work on, coming into feminist spaces and whining about their own problems is unlikely to be received well. MRAs do not any actual activism. They expect feminists to do it for them and when we don’t, they use that as an excuse for their misogyny. You can’t compare an actual movement that has accomplished real things with a bunch of dudes (and a smattering of women) who whine constantly about how terrible women are. Also, MRAs do more than not devote time to advocacy against IPV or rape. They actively promote violence against women. That’s really different than feminists talking about FGM and shooing away men who charge in to whine about circumcision and how that’s totally the same thing.
Again, why is it the job of feminists to fun documentaries about the manosphere in the first place? Do you go to sites where men complain about Anita Sarkeesian to ask them why they’re complaining when they aren’t even the ones who donate to Feminist Frequency? Even this isn’t equivalent though because Sarkeesian doesn’t make videos about men being horrible. Paul Elam, Matt Forney et al on the other hand, are openly misogynistic. Why would feminists want to give money to a filmmaker who intends to treat them like they’re actually serious people?
There are indeed more than two genders, but maybe only two gender roles in America? Or am I mistaken.
It’s not a genuine look, Brian. That’s easy to see.
I took him as conflating gender roles with gender identity because that’s the only way his paragraph made sense.
I would also argue that there are more than one male gender role and more than one female gender role in the US depending on the community one is in. As an example; a woman from an upper class and highly educated family and community might feel pressured to both have a very successful career and be a perfect helicopter mom. A woman from a quiverfull family will feel pressured to be a modest and submissive housewife. But that’s kind of off topic because I think Brian was just trying to say that feminists are man haters.
I felt that Brian was trying to pull a golden mean, but then kind of gave away the game away in the 3rd paragraph.
Hi Brian,
I’ve been around the feminist and feminist-adjacent activist community a few years now. There’s three things that I’ve picked up in the process which I think you may be overlooking.
(I’m male, if it matters.)
Firstly, most feminists that I’ve met are very sympathetic to the discussion of these problems, especially when they’re handled as things that directly affect the people involved rather than abstract ideas which affect abstract people. For example, I’ve spoken about my own issues with suicidal ideation during my youth, and received an extremely sympathetic ear – far more sympathetic than I have ever received in non-feminist circles, regardless of gender. I am very fortunate that I have not suffered from prostate cancer but this is something which I have heard discussed, and nobody was dismissive about it. Even if the feminists in question did not have prostates, they did have fathers, sons, husbands, lovers and friends with prostates, and cared about them. Nobody tried to talk over it and steer the conversation back to women’s medical problems.
However, when the discussion moved to (say) breast cancer, then we did likewise: we discussed that and did not attempt to shift the conversation back to men’s problems. Anyone who came along and shouted “BUT WHAT ABOUT MEN’S PROBLEMS?” would have been ejected. This is difficult for a lot of men to understand, because we are socialised to believe that we’re entitled to talk over other people’s time and to steer their conversations; and so it gives rise to attitudes like yours where feminists are seen as not caring about men’s problems. We do care. Of course we care. But there are other things we care about just as much.
Secondly, society as a whole cares much more about men’s problems than women’s. A good example of this is viagra: most women know that it exists and know of the existence of the male condition that it treats. Some women may be sympathetic to this condition, others may think that it is hilarious (there are assholes in every gender) but there is no social taboo against learning about it. By contrast, discussion of female sexual and reproductive issues is shrouded in taboo. Many men do not know the names of the medicines which are prescribed to treat female sexual issues. If women discuss their issues publicly, they’re chided for it because ick.
Viagra also has beneficial effects for women – extremely beneficial, in fact. The reason I mentioned viagra earlier is because society as a whole does not acknowledge this: the little blue pill exists in popular discourse as an erection-creator and nothing else. The fact that half the human race would use viagra for a purpose other than allowing sexual performance is basically invisible.
This is called privileging the male, and feminists try not to do it. This can be difficult for people to get used to if they’re used to the way mainstream society talks – and especially if, like you, they think of the way mainstream society talks as the “balanced” way of talking rather than an inherently unbalanced way that has to be corrected.
Thirdly, when feminist men try to get a discussion going with non-feminist men, we will often discuss things such as suicide risk and prostate cancer, as well as the wider factors that aggravate them. For example, one of the things that makes prostate cancer far more deadly is that men don’t tend to go to the doctor often enough. If men felt comfortable with admitting to themselves that they aren’t supermen and just went to see a doctor regularly, problems like this would be caught early and would be less deadly.
This is part of the larger social issue about men feeling as though they have to pretend to be stronger and more masculine than they actually feel, or risk ridicule. Breaking down this social conditioning is a big part of modern feminism, and something which we take very seriously. It will have enormous benefits to both genders, of which getting men to go to the doctor is only one.
However, when I try to have this discussion with men, they dislike it. They really, really dislike it. I have been verbally attacked many times. I have been called a beta, a mangina, a cuck, a f*ggot, a sissy and many other terms which attempt to suggest that my compassion makes me less manly. People have attempted to verbally intimidate and humiliate me when I try to talk to them about their feelings. I’m a big guy but I have encountered people who I think would have attempted to physically intimidate me if I were I under six foot tall. For this reason, many feminist men have given up trying to have this discussion with non-feminist men, and I don’t blame them.
To sum up: I am aware that you feel that we don’t do much to raise awareness of male issues. This is a common opinion to hold. However, for the reasons I’ve given, it is held in error.
Postscript:
I’ve just spent half an hour writing this; I imagine that it took you a similar length of time to write your piece. If you’re going to respond to this, I would be very grateful if you could link me to some places on the internet where you’ve attempted to discuss men’s health issues with non-feminist audiences. After all, if you’re willing to spend half an hour chiding feminists for not raising awareness of men’s health issues, you are presumably willing to spend much longer on actually raising awareness.
Yeah, he was using golden mean to accuse of misandry. Same old BS.
Alright, I’m gonna come clean and say I’ve not read your statements since I’ve declared I was leaving. I’m migrating to Europe and I simply did not have the time to do so. Now, my experience here has been one of dealing with lots of prejudice. However, beneath the statements attacking me, you guys raise lots of valid points and I’ve come to respect you. Then again, don’t you think 30% of the points this guy raises are also valid? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIl9R1Yw5ls
I’m saying 30% because he indulges in a lot of pity politics which does not resonate with me. Possibly it’s around 40%. Now I’m a male, I’m from a Muslim country, in all honesty, I’ve had nothing but the advantages of being a male. However, assuming all he says is true, isn’t some of what he says is valid?
HAH HAH HAH did you even read what you wrote before you hit post?
@ Eren Can Sinecan
“I haven’t bothered to answer any of you so instead I’m giving you homework by giving this mra some views. I don’t believe that he’s saying is right, just the parts that matter.”
I really hate it when people link to a YouTube video without even giving some idea what it’s going to be. Unless it’s on a post about cute animal videos or music or something. Arguing with YouTube videos however, is just a big no. Find something written that makes your point. Nobody is going to listen to rambling MRA whine. Ick.
It’s a video from “An Ear for Men”, starring our favourite, Paul Elam. I heard “The Red Pill Movie is” before my eyes rolled into the back of my head and I closed the window.
@Eren Can Sinecan, I haven’t got the time to make a full reply at the moment, so here’s a taste.
a) Feminist theory agrees that men have gender-based issues, and does an excellent job in outlining those issues as well as providing channels for addressing those issues;
b) Cassie Jaye took funding from men’s rights movement supporters and only interviewed men’s rights supporters, making her conclusions suspect. Trying to squirm out of this is denying reality – the premises are objectively true, making the conclusion valid.
I’ll reply more later if there’s more to say. I hope that you move went well, and I encourage you to actually read your replies!
This comment is for argumentative purposes. Censor me if you like, I’ve said my piece and at least someone read through it. If this does make it here, I may come off as crass, but really I’m just irritated by how disingenuous and apologetic EJ is being in his comment.
Hello!
I am so sorry for your loss.
Doesn’t matter, drivel is drivel, no matter who says it.
Firstly, arguments from personal experience are not very convincing since your narrow slice won’t cut it, but if that is what we are using here, then sure, let’s go with that. Just that your last paragraph becomes all the funnier when you realize that you have not sourced anything at all. Also, did they tell you that the very essence of your being is toxic and that you and what you are is the cause of all society’s ills? Probably not. That is the cornerstone of the Patriarchy theory, which you do promote in your comment later on, and that is why most of your arguments (well, they’re more or less baseless claims) can be refuted with reductio ad absurdum.
And since you wrote your last paragraph they way you did, I am going to assume this is propaganda, since you did not link anything. Do you think these men’s rights people have no sisters, lovers, mothers, or other female friends and relatives? If you don’t, then bringing up the point is irrelevant since it applies to both sides. Doesn’t make you think about both sides as equal, though.
Right, totally. And after the fact everyone listening raised from their seats and started giving a standing ovation to you lot. Look, you can be a self hating, guilt driven adult if you want to. I don’t really care. The moment when you vouch for me and other men is when you really struck a chord. You are not one to tell people how men in general feel or are socialized. I am not socialized to be entitled. You may be, I do not know for sure, but I grew up in a household with two sisters, a younger and an older one, my father (well, for 13 years until he decided to fuck off) who was a drug dealer and my mother, who was mentally unstable and jobless. I have only ever lived with one guy who was my father and from this I can already tell that what you’re saying is complete horseshit, since we are not interchangeable. You’re treating men as a class of people. Men are a genetical group, they are not a social class.
No citation and a claim that is rejected by reality. Got it. It’s not like the world wars ever happened. “Women and children first” isn’t a thing. Women apparently don’t have more legal rights and quotas, AKA positive discrimination set up in this system for them. Let’s see some initiatives and women’s interest groups: the UN Women’s committee, the VAWA, the Duluth domestic violence model, the NOW, etc. All of these do the opposite of what you just described. Reductio ad absurdum. Your argument may as well be “I am virtue signaling in these comments. Don’t mind me, just passing through”.
Funny how when some women are being arseholes you say “there are assholes in every gender”, but apparently because I am a man I am by default entitled. A round of applause for you.
I have never heard about anyone who talked about their reproductive issues publicly and weren’t either pitied or ridiculed by people. Reproductive issues are not pleasant no matter what set you have. They mean you are defective. They mean you are not optimal, that there is something wrong with you. Anything defective like this is bad for the person and people around them who may engage in sexual intercourse. This is not hard to get. What is hard to understand, for me at least, is how you can say that men are sometimes shamed by women in your very own comment, even in the same paragraph and then go on to say that it’s an issue when female reproductive issues are taboo subjects. You would not make sense even if this was a reality created by you. You cannot call it an issue when women are being chided and then say that it’s not an issue, just some bad apples when men are having the same treatment. This is the problem I have with this crap, it’s always “we are not taking anything away from men, we are giving some to women” and then you jump through these mental hoops of yours to arrive at “women have it worse here even though both sexes have the exact same issue”. Disgusting. You are doing exactly what you told men not to do: you’re pretending like anything bad said to and about you is just done by a few bad apples, you’re pretending like you’re superman. This is why I said I think you loathe your existence.
And this is due to sexism? This is such a non-issue. It’s like the “pink tax”. If you think it is going to help you: use it. If men’s products cost less, then why don’t you buy them instead? If you think Viagra is going to be your savior, then why not have one? Non-issue.
As stated above, it is not privileging the male and what you’re doing in this very comment is privileging women. Anything they go through is to be believed and responded to, but when men face the same shit, they are to be silent. Reductio ad absurdum. You’ll be hearing a lot of this since your points are either self refuting, are refuted by a simple Google search or are nonsensical. You also failed to demonstrate anything you claim and unluckily for you, you’re not a woman and I am not a feminist so I’ll be needing evidence for the way “society” (definition please) talks about women and men in “an inherently unbalanced way”. This is also absurd to me, seeing how the media is largely ran by feminists. Of course you don’t need citations for that, you didn’t provide any so we’ll just go with what feels right, correct?
Men also get a part of their dick sliced off at birth, which has been shown to correlate with distrusting doctors. That’s a great factor you should maybe sometime take a look at.
I think that breaking down the social “conditioning” won’t help anyone, because you’re just going to be replacing it with one of your own. I am not sure if it’ll be any better, but I’ll take my chances with the current one. If someone tells me I am not following the norms, I just tell them to fuck off. I am quite a tall guy myself so most people won’t blab for too long. When I was quite young I did get beat up over my views. Views such as “evolution is real” and “god cannot be demonstrated and as such he should have no impact on our daily decisions” got my bones broken and snow into my clothes, but I didn’t conform. We do not need a movement to tell people not to be sheep. A movement that tells people not to be sheep is a paradox, because they’ll be buying into an ideology, which would make them sheep. So just be what you want to be, it’s simple enough. If you have any legal rights you are after, contact me. Any “social rights” advocates can shut up. You deal with your social life, I am only interested in what the government mandates. I don’t care if you are laughed at. Millions of people are laughed at. If the government arrests you for, let’s say holding the wrong opinion, then I am going to help you, sure.
Not your compassion, but your self loathing. You believe that you’ve been conditioned to enjoy privilege and subjugation of women. People usually do get rather upset when they are called the worst possible name: “misogynist”. Here’s the deal: ingroup bias does not exist within men. Men prefer women over men, women prefer women over men. Anyone who would suggest that there is a “brotherhood” or a Patriarchy would have to explain this away. Doesn’t matter where in the western world you go, people love women. What you people cannot seem to grasp is that you’re called these names because you insulted them by saying they don’t love women enough. You’re both insulting each other. These men would actually attack you (a supposed man) for suggesting that they hate women (supposedly what they think is infrior), yet you still think we live in a Patriarchy? Reductio ad absurdum.
Why would you talk to other people about their feelings? That sounds more or less like you insulting these people. I would too get quite pissed off if some random, pardon my French, person like yourself would approach me and start talking to me about my feelings. My feelings are my business. Do I feel things? Yes. We all do. Is what I feel relevant in any way shape or form ever? No, and suggesting what I feel is important is to be irrational.
You do not raise awareness. Every feminist organisation ever has only taken down men’s rights and added more privileges to women. Categorically. Every single one. And the issues you raise are always solved by having more women and less masculinity. Because women are the solution and men are the problem. That is why when feminists are shown suicide statistics they offer help and tell the depressed men that the reason they are suicidal is because they don’t love women enough and because they were born wrong. You can sugarcoat it any way you like, that is what you’re saying when you explain that with “Patriarchy makes men kill themselves”.
You first. I do my activism everywhere. I do it at my campus (shall go unnamed since the feminists are ruthless), I do it online, I do it for groups and I do it for single people. I have strong opinions, sure, but I can tell why I believe what I believe without resorting to propaganda and then demanding evidence when I presented none, you sophist.
Well, aren’t you precious? You have said nothing we haven’t heard again and again from people like you. And if you’re bothered more by being called a misogynist than by actually being one, you are one of the people that will be mocked here. Your attitude towards women is just paternalistic bullshit that is just as harmful as outright hatred. You’re not dispelling or refuting anything so far.
Shorter Ramen:
“Anecdotes aren’t proof!” “Men aren’t a hivemind group! My father and I are nothing alike!”
“You’re saying things without citations!” “In group bias doesn’t exist in men!”
“When you vouched for me and other men, you struck a chord!” “You’re self loathing!”
“Breaking down the social ‘conditioning’ won’t help!” “I do my activism everywhere!”
Somebody’s salty. So is this Brian with an alt or a completely new asshat?
Anyway, Ramos, buddy, learn what a reductio ad absurdum is. Cos you keep using that term…
So much bullshit, but my favorite is how he continues the long tradition of doubting that men exist on a feminist blog. Everytime with these guys…