Categories
"ethics" $MONEY$ a voice for men antifeminism evil SJWs harassment men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men paul elam red pill reddit

An Open Letter to Cassie Jaye, director of The Red Pill

Paul Elam: Subject of, and fundraiser for, Cassie Jaye's The Red Pill, in a shot from a preview of the film
Paul Elam: Subject of, and fundraiser for, Cassie Jaye’s The Red Pill, in a shot from a preview of the documentary

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.

1.9K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
8 years ago

comment image

Mm.

I’m debating with myself as to whether I should break down Brian’s/Ramen’s post and reply to it. I’m in a terse mood, but at the same time, this is when patience and compassion ought to be practiced. Anyone have any opinions on whether it’s worth replying?

I’ll say this, in the interim. @Brian / @Ramen, three things.

(also, as a note – if you’re reading sarcasm into my words, don’t! I mean these things sincerely.)

First – you have repeatedly accused EJ of saying things without citation, but at the same time haven’t provided citations yourself while at the same time making contentious claims. This suggests to me that your problem isn’t that EJ isn’t providing citations (otherwise you’d do it yourself), but because saying “you have no evidence!” is a good way to avoid taking the claim seriously. It’s a self-protection artifact common amongst the well-educated.

Second – reductio ad absurdum isn’t a fancy-pants way to say “that’s ridiculous”. It’s a fancy-pants way to say “your position is self-defeating”, or more generally, “your position leads to absurd or impossible conclusions.” You have to show the path from the premises to the absurd conclusion if you’re going to use it.

Third – perhaps maybe it isn’t such a good idea to call someone a sophist after disgorging a 1700 word diatribe against their position? Just a thought.

May have more later for you. Have a nice night otherwise, my atheistic friend!

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

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?

You want a source? Here’s your fucking source.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/attachments/5173/pwq2009.pdf

I don’t know why the URL says Psychology Today. The study is from the University of Houston.

Despite the popular belief that feminists dislike men, few studies have actually examined the empirical accuracy of this
stereotype. The present study examined self-identified feminists’ and nonfeminists’ attitudes toward men. An ethnically
diverse sample (N = 488) of college students responded to statements from the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory
(AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999). Contrary to popular beliefs, feminists reported lower levels of hostility toward men than
did nonfeminists. The persistence of the myth of the man-hating feminist is explored.

It is hilarious that you’re the one demanding sources because MRAs are constantly asserting that feminists hate men without providing a shred of evidence that doesn’t come from the University of Assfaxia.

So cough it up, bro. Where’s your source?

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
8 years ago

Thank you for that link, wwth! hadn’t seen that one before. Looks pretty robust, though it only focused on university students. Still, a good start, and there’s not much reason to assume that it’d be different outside of that demographic. Still, I hope they continue their work!

As for the URL – a lot of labs have their own websites and repositories outside of the parent university – my own does this too. It’s mostly a prestige thing. Might be that U of H also does its own publishing. Either way, not uncommon.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Also, if Brian/Ramon hadn’t gotten himself worked up into such a tizzy, he might have noticed that EJ’s point was merely that if you approach feminists in a hostile or entitled manner, you won’t get a nice response. If you speak respectfully to us, as you would with any other group of people, you’ll be treated respectfully back. We’re not annoyed with MRAs and other manospherians because they’re men, we’re annoyed with them because they act like jerks in here. Misandry is a self fufilling prophecy with them.

Too bad Brian/Ramon is so emotional. It’s hard to talk to him when he’s all irrational like this!

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
8 years ago

Now now, wwth, it’s well known that testosterone increases aggression and decreases the ability to apply rational forethought. He can’t help the fact that he’s irrational sometimes.

(I am literally eating bonbons right now, too. Going for the Strawman Feminist Trifecta)

Ooglyboggles
Ooglyboggles
8 years ago

@Ramon Ortiz aka not the actual Ramon Ortiz who helped the Angels win the world championship in 2002

Well I guess I can’t do anything about it, the poor thing has worked himself up a tizzy, I can’t possibly engage with someone who is not in the right state of mind. Then again someone who doesn’t provide sources after saying that the other hasn’t provided any sources to his claims while also doing the exact same things EJ said that people like Ramon would do tends to not be the best of company.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

I am literally eating bonbons right now

I’m sadly bonbonless right now but I am playing a casual girly match 3 game on my phone. Will the misandry never end?

Paradoxical Intention - Resident Cheeseburger Slut

I hope EJ doesn’t mind me taking a crack at the troll before he gets to bat at it. (And here’s hoping I don’t get ninja’d by him in the half-hour it took me to write this shit.)

Anyone else find it odd that the troll only responded to the one person who identified as male in this conversation? No?

I’m just going to dot that on my Anti-Feminist Bingo Card.

Ramon Ortiz | November 7, 2016 at 6:47 pm
This comment is for argumentative purposes. Censor me if you like, I’ve said my piece and at least someone read through it.

David is not the government, he can’t censor you (He’s the only one with the power to moderate comments at the moment). You’re free to say whatever you wish on the rest of the internet, therefore you’re not being “censored”. David cannot stop you from saying this same stuff anywhere else. He only has power on his own blog.

Just because you’re not getting a soapbox wherever you want, it doesn’t mean you’re being “censored”. Please learn the definition of words before you thoughtlessly toss them about in a very lame attempt at self-martyrdom.

(Dotting “I’m being censored!” on my Anti-Feminist Bingo Card)

I’ve been around the feminist and feminist-adjacent activist community a few years now.

I am so sorry for your loss.

Aaaand, right in we jump with the insults! I can tell where this is going.

(For the sake of the audience: Obviously, our friend here isn’t here to listen or to have a discussion, despite what they say. They just want to shout a bit and hope we capitulate and “see the error of our ways”. I’m just here to provide a bit of reading for you, rather than for our friend.)

Doesn’t matter, drivel is drivel, no matter who says it.

Though I couldn’t have said it better myself, I find it rather odd that you’re jumping right in with “It’s all drivel!” and not even really addressing anything EJ actually said.

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.

Well, it is just EJ’s experience, but I’m sure there are plenty of other men in this comments section who would like to verify that that’s their experience as well.

If you asked, I’m sure many of them would speak up.

But, call it a hunch, I don’t think you’re actually interested in that. You just want to dismiss EJ’s experiences.

(Dotting “Anecdotes aren’t evidence” on my Anti-Feminist Bingo Card)

Just that your last paragraph becomes all the funnier when you realize that you have not sourced anything at all.

How does one source anecdotes? I mean, I can source EJ’s anecdote, but how would he source his own?

Other than that, what else would you like him to source? Or, better yet, what claims would you like to see sources for? I’m sure our little community can find some for you if you’d like some reading.

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.

No, because that’s not how feminism works. That’s how Straw Feminism works, which many anti-feminists, such as yourself, like to talk about.

I’m sure if you actually talked to some actual feminists (and didn’t just mindlessly parrot anti-feminist talking points), you could learn something.

But, again, you’re not here to talk or to discuss anything. You just want to shout and feel smug.

Not because you’re a man, mind you, but just because you’re that kind of person. There are plenty of women just like you, a lot of them are anti-feminist as well. You might look up one named JudgyBitch, or Karen Straughn. Very similar to you in attitude.

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.

Of course, you won’t do it, because reasons. Also, nice anecdote of your own there. I’m sure that’s totally okay to provide as proof, but EJ’s isn’t because you said so, right?

But allow me to interject here: You’re completely wrong about “Patriarchy Theory”. First of all, because that’s not what it’s called, it’s simply referred to in feminist circles as “The Patriarchy”, and second of all, feminism as a whole doesn’t describe patriarchy as “all men are evil because men”. I’m sure there are some self-proclaimed feminists who do do that, but they don’t run in the same circles I do, and most feminists I know don’t agree with that.

But I suppose you’ll ignore all that because it’s personal experience, and I didn’t use MLA format citations.

But, I never pass up an opportunity to teach. So, for the benefit of the lurkers: Patriarchy is the system of power put in place by men for the benefit of men, but it is also rigid enough to hurt the men who have to uphold toxic, outdated, and highly unrealistic expectations of men.

Believe it or not, men are hurt by patriarchy every day and most feminists recognize this, even if feminism isn’t exclusively or primarily for the benefit of men.

Men commit suicide more often because men are told (by other men) to “man up” and not talk about their problems or to express emotion because that’s “girly stuff”, and instead are taught to bottle it up until it explodes.

Men suffer from domestic violence, and this is just as much a problem as the violence suffered by women, but men don’t get as much attention because other men tell them that getting hit by their significant other or another family member is mockable if it was a woman doing the hitting, and “weak” if it was a man.

I could go on, but I think that’s enough for now.

This is the kind of shit feminists of all genders talk about all the time that anti-feminists won’t even address or acknowledge coming from feminists. Because it undermines their straw narrative of “feminists hate men!”.

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.

Then so is your entire post. Propaganda, I say! You provide no evidence (but I won’t ask for any because that means that I would actually want a discussion and not just to yell over you or in your general direction about the Evils of Feminism)! [/sarcasm]

What is it with you and not wanting to just ask for links or sources on specific comments you feel are suspect? EJ (and others here) would be more than willing to provide. All you have to do is fucking ask.

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.

They do, but they also treat them like shit.

Paul Elam, who was interviewed by Cassie Jaye and runs A Voice for Men and An Ear for Men, is a wonderful example. He lives off of his girlfriend’s money, he talks shit about his ex wife, and he abandoned and denied his daughter for years (because he tried to claim that his ex wife cheated on him) before his daughter tried to let him back into her life.

He tried to beat her child for touching his fridge, and Elam got mad that his daughter wouldn’t have any of it.

Here’s a GQ article on the subject.

There are plenty of examples of misogynists who claim to “love women” who are also sexist assholes.

Hell, there’s plenty of men who claim to be feminists who are also sexist assholes.

However, even if these people have families and wives and daughters and mothers and whatever, it doesn’t matter if they still treat women they don’t know like shit. Sexism still counts if you do it to women who aren’t related to you.

You can love your mother all you want, if you still say shit like “I don’t think women should be able to vote because they’re all too emotional to think like a man does”, then you’re still a sexist asshole.

inb4: “But feminists say they hate men toooooo!”: Usually when a feminist says “I hate men” it’s usually a stand in for a man’s shitty behavior that patriarchy says he should be able to get away with.

However, if a feminist hates men period, regardless of context, then yeah, she’s very likely a shitty person.

(Dotting “I have a mother!” on my Anti-Feminist Bingo Card)

Doesn’t make you think about both sides as equal, though.

Considering that most feminists don’t advocate for doxxing of men, harassment of men, or for men to not be allowed to vote or do anything than make sandwiches, I’m going to say “no”.

(Dotting “Both sides are bad!” on my Anti-Feminist Bingo Card)

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.

And you are?

I am not socialized to be entitled.

Says the man who marches in here to demand that we provide him sourced anecdotes.

See, here’s the thing about entitlement (or privilege): People aren’t born knowing they have it. They just have it, and you can’t see it until it’s pointed out by someone who doesn’t have it.

It’s not something you can outright see, and yeah, it’s hurtful to have it pointed out to you.

For instance, I’m white. Hella white. So, it was hard for me to hear that I was acting entitled in discussions pertaining to race. And when I thought I was straight and cis, it was hard to hear that I had privilege when it came to discussions of sexuality or gender.

But instead of going “I’m not entitled! How dare you! My life is hard too!” I actually sat down and listened. You know what happened? I learned to “err on the side of not being an asshole”.

(Dotting “Male privilege is bullshit!” on my Anti-Feminist Bingo Card)

You’re treating men as a class of people. Men are a genetical group, they are not a social class.

Who the fuck said they were a “class of people”? EJ didn’t say that anywhere in his comment?

Are you just marching in here to “Not ALL men!” at us? Because Newsflash: A lot of people in this comments section are men.

David, the MAN who writes this blog, is a MAN. We’re all well aware that yes, not all men are like this.

Patriarchy is still something men need to help address though.

Oh, and I just want to point this out: You’re getting upset because you feel that EJ is lumping all men together, but you’re happily lumping all feminists together?

Pot, meet kettle.

(Dotting “Not ALL men!” on my Anti-Feminist Bingo Card)

No citation and a claim that is rejected by reality. Got it.

And no counter-citation to prove EJ’s wrong, so I can’t say you’re right either.

I mean, if we’re going to play the Citation Game, you’re also apparently shit at it.

It’s not like the world wars ever happened.

Remind me, who started the world wars? Who said that women were “too delicate” and “too distracting” to be in the military and had the power to keep them out?

Because I promise you it wasn’t a woman.

(Dotting “Men died in war!” on my Anti-Feminist bingo card.)

“Women and children first” isn’t a thing.

Yes, because benevolent sexism (and also putting small children who can’t help themselves above adult people) is totally a sign that society caters to women and men are all disposable. Right.

And I provided a link, so I’m apparently more right than you.

(Dotting “[Benevolent Sexism]”) On my Anti-Feminist Bingo Card)

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.

“And the NAACP doesn’t cater to white people! And LGBTQ+ groups don’t cater to cishet people! And scholarships for First Nations students don’t apply to white people!

Therefore, DISCRIMINATION!

And, no, we can’t set up our own groups to solve our own problems, because you’re supposed to do it for us, or else you’re sexist.”

That’s literally what you sound like right now. Reductio ad absurdum.

Your argument may as well be “I am virtue signaling in these comments. Don’t mind me, just passing through”.

Isn’t the act of calling out virtue signalling also virtue signalling?

You’re trying to signal that you’re more virtuous than EJ by calling him out for virtue signalling that he’s not a sexist.

It’s a bit of a paradox, isn’t it?

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 think he was more referring to the way you were being an asshole, not just “You’re a man who happens to be being an asshole, therefore that’s the cause of your assholishness”.

Women can actually also be entitled assholes. Shocking, I know.

White women can be entitled assholes when expecting women of color to capitulate to them or to include white women in everything they do (which is a real problem feminism actually has, hence why women of color have made a splinter group called Womanism, which is a group that focuses on feminists issues, but specifically how they overlap with issues pertaining to race).

Straight or cisgendered women can be entitled assholes when they fetishize gay men or trans people.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

My point is: You were being an entitled asshole because you’re marching in here and going “Not all men!” while simultaneously being that man by going “It’s not happening to me and you’re not sourcing it, so it’s not happening at all!”, thus denying the lived experiences of other people just so you can feel smugly superior because you feel like your worldview is the correct one, and you don’t want to hear anything to the contrary.

I have never heard about anyone who talked about their reproductive issues publicly and weren’t either pitied or ridiculed by people.

And another anecdote. Source?

Reproductive issues are not pleasant no matter what set you have.

This may just be my interpretation, but I don’t think EJ was talking about general reproductive issues, but things that are common to women, like periods.

Any time cis women (or trans men) talk about their vaginas, it’s always met with a chorus of “EEEEEWWWWW GROSS I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT” from cis men.

At the same time, our vaginas are fetishized and cis men want to put their penises in them. But gods forbid we talk about periods or anything that doesn’t have to do with PiV intercourse around them, the poor things.

Our biology is considered “gross” and “dirty” and “not appropriate to talk about” (even in spaces like this one! We’ve had a troll come in and get upset that we started talking about our periods), but men still wanna fuck it.

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.

Women do shame men sometimes, and that’s really shitty of them and they shouldn’t do it. However, that’s not as common as men shaming women solely for having a vagina and talking about it in a way that doesn’t involve men putting their penis in it.

And even when we talk about having sex, we’re shunned as “sluts” and “whores” and “dirty” for liking sex, or “broken” or “damaged” or “defective” if we didn’t.

We’re literally damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

But, of course, you’ll deny this because I didn’t provide citations for my own lived experiences. It’s okay. I do this mostly for those lurking rather than for the people I reply to in cases like these.

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”.

Except men and women don’t, and I, a woman, am explaining this to you.

But, I guess it doesn’t count if I don’t provide ample citations.

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.

Aw, I think he likes you, EJ!

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.

I think it is an issue. I mean, let’s put aside the Wage Gap for the moment (because it’s doubly fucked up that I make less money than my male peers and I get charged more for shit I purchase because it’s for women), and talk about the logistics of it.

Sure, women can just buy men’s products in some cases (I for one purchase men’s razors because I find they’re made better and cost less), but they don’t make things like “tactical tampons” that are specifically for (cis) men to purchase. And sometimes women don’t want to purchase things like men’s body wash or men’s soap because it doesn’t smell the way they want to smell.

There’s also a “pink tax” on services as well. Some places tend to charge women more for the same services that they provide to men.

Here’s a good video to watch that highlights some of the things that The Pink Tax effects, like pillows, dry cleaning, razors, and face cream.

So, why should women have to jump through more hoops and “just buy men’s products” if they want to get something and not be charged more for it?

And what should women do if they don’t want to purchase a men’s product for whatever reason? They should just pay more for it because people charge more and that’s that?

So, why else do you think this is this a “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.

Says who? Where? What a shitty place.

No one here has ever said that men don’t have problems, or that women don’t face the same problems. However, what I find is this:

A lot of anti-feminists seem to think that by giving women attention for the problems they have or for problems women face a disproportionate amount of, that they’re somehow taking away from men.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Women getting rights or talking about how to stop violence or rape doesn’t hurt men at all, and no decent person would ever say men have to “be silent” about the problems they face.

The only time we ask men to listen instead of talk is when men (such as yourself) barge into a feminist space and demand that we start talking about men, because you’re upset that we feminists aren’t doing enough (to your liking) for men at that moment.

You’re trying to derail a conversation about the problems women face with an angry shout that we’re not also dealing with the problems men face right this second, so people are telling you to “shut up” and let us talk about women’s problems for the moment.

However, we women are people, just like men, and thus, we have complex brains that are capable of caring about more than one thing at a time.

Just because I’m talking to you about feminism right now doesn’t mean I suddenly don’t care about men who are suffering with domestic violence or men who have been raped. I do care about these men, and I would do anything to help them.

However, I am only capable of talking about one thing at a time due to the limits of my own mental focus. It’s a damn shame, but I make do.

Reductio ad absurdum.

You keep using that phrase. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

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.

Of course, you could also provide links or citations that prove us wrong, but you won’t do that apparently.

Nope, we have to do all your homework for you, but you can’t be bothered to prove any of your points.

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”.

“You failed to demonstrate to me, to my liking, that I, a man, am wrong, and therefore you lose! Good day sir!”

That’s how you do reductio ad absurdum.

This is also absurd to me, seeing how the media is largely ran by feminists.

Hold on.

This deserves its own little special blockquote.

Because I think our little friend here is setting up for when we do provide citations. Because all he has to say is “that source is biased because [Scary minority] runs the media!” and suddenly, we’re still wrong and the sources are wrong.

So, either way, he thinks he’s won.

It’s so cute when they try this bullshit.

Of course you don’t need citations for that, you didn’t provide any so we’ll just go with what feels right, correct?

Can you look at your post, and then look back at this quote?

Because that’s pretty much exactly what you just did.

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.

Ah, circumcision! I’m so close to getting a bingo on my anti-feminist bingo card! (Dotting that.)

See, here’s the thing about circumcision: Men do this to other men. Men are the ones who run the religious institutions that practice this. Men are the ones who make the decision to circumcise their son’s penises so they’ll “look like me”.

So, why is it somehow women’s fault or even feminism’s fault that this is happening, and why do you think we need to be the ones to do something about it?

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.

All you’re missing is a “sheeple” in there somewhere.

I am not sure if it’ll be any better, but I’ll take my chances with the current one.

Better the devil you know, I suppose.

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.

Found the “sheeple”!

“If you just do what I do, you won’t be a sheep!”

Though, feminism isn’t telling anyone to not be “sheep” so much as we’re trying to tell people to not be sexists.

Two very different things, unless you happen to know some sheep who hold misogynistic views.

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.

“The only rights I care about are my frozen peaches because those are the only ones that can visibly affect me!”

Not your compassion, but your self loathing.

I don’t believe that EJ hates himself. You keep saying that he does, but I don’t see it.

EJ, do you hate yourself because you’re a man with a penis?

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”.

Well, it’s just like “racist” or “bigot” or “Rapist”.

We know the words are bad and we don’t want to be called them, but many people still want to do things that would land them in that category.

It’s almost like some people want to be sexist assholes without being called out for it.

Hence excuses like: “I grew up in a household full of women, therefore I can’t be sexist!”

Here’s the deal: ingroup bias does not exist within men. Men prefer women over men, women prefer women over men.

http://i0.wp.com/www.techdigest.tv/2014/03/25/citationneeded.png

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.

You can “love” women all you want, and still be a sexist asshole. That’s the point. Benevolent Sexism is a thing.

You can “love” women and still be a rapist, you can “love” women and still think that they’re only worth fucking, you can “love” women and only see them in roles of Mother, Cleaner, or One Who Makes me Sandwiches.

You can “love” women and still treat other women like shit.

You can claim to “love” women all you want, but your actions still speak way louder than your self-professed “love” ever will.

And when women turn to you and point out that you’re being a sexist asshole, and you turn around and try to talk over them and speak of your great “love” for women, that’s just another bullet point of misogyny in a long ass list.

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.

http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/nic-cage-sex-pics.gif

“Hey, you guys are doing some stuff that’s pretty sexist to women, can we not do that?”

“HOW DARE YOU SAY I DON’T LOVE WOMEN?! I HAVE A MOTHER YOU [slur]!”

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.

“Reductio ad absurdum” isn’t a fucking zen chant. You actually have to use it.

Also, please read my link about Benevolent Sexism. It’s a thing that exists.

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.

And this is exactly what EJ was talking about when he said that men get angry when he talks about emotions and feelings.

You’re getting upset because it’s not “rational” to talk about feelings.

You’re literally EJ’s citation at this point, dude.

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.

Okay, first of all: Citation needed.

Second of all, what rights do you feel that feminist organizations have “taken down” from men and what privileges do you feel that we women have unfairly gained because of it?

Because, believe it or not, human rights isn’t a fucking zero sum game. Rights are not a finite resource. Women can have some rights without taking away from men and vice-versa.

Women having groups dedicated to problems that women specifically face (like pro-choice groups) or problems that women face a disproportionate amount of (like women’s anti-domestic violence groups) don’t take a damn thing away from men.

What you appear to be getting upset about is the fact that they’re not also catering to you.

So, here’s my advice: Go do some fucking activism. Make a group. Get the word out. Go do what these groups have already done instead of yelling that these groups are somehow guilty of hating men because they’re not using their limited resources on them too.

You’re not asking for equality here, you’re asking for equity. You’re asking for everyone to have access to the exact same resources, regardless of if they need them or not. And in the end, that helps NO ONE.

You’re asking for women to give up their actual limited resources (money, time, and human resources) for the benefit of men, when men might not even need them.

So, go make your own group and fund it go help men instead of screaming that feminists aren’t doing your work for you to your liking.

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.

No one here said this. If someone did, quote it.

Citations, motherfucker.

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.

Citations. Show me where you’ve seen feminists do this.

Because no one here does that shit. No feminist I know would do that shit. But that’s an anecdote and I don’t have a citation for it, and apparently it’s wrong when I do that.

You’re making these grand blanket statements about feminists and how we all hate men and think they were “born wrong”, but get mad when you think that EJ’s making assumptions about “men as a class”?

You get mad when we don’t present evidence that we’re right and that our worldviews are valid, but you write this huge Wall O’ Text based on nothing but your own feelings?

Pot, meet Kettle.

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.

Isn’t that convenient?

“I do all kinds of activism everywhere, but I can’t tell you where or how because you’re all meaniepants who would hurt me!”

Also, I’m having a bit of a giggle at the “You presented no evidence!” line when I see none in his post beyond “I believe it, so it must be so!”

And the line about “resorting to propaganda” when his entire post is just one anti-feminist talking point after another.

Christ O’ Witz.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
8 years ago

You never fail to disappoint, @PI! Fantastic breakdown as always.

With the “in-group bias” things he was talking about, it’s true – it’s been examined, and found that men have a moderate bias towards other men, while women have a strong or very strong bias towards other women.

http://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf

If you just read this from a website or from reddit, you’d probably not realize that the question of “why dis” is addressed in the goddamn paper, of course, and that women tend to favour other women because of male intimidation and the fact that women tend to provide more emotional support. No, if you read it off of a forum or blog post, you’d probably just see a bunch of people assuming the biases of the authors instead. The usual echo-chamber nonsense.

As usual with MRA talking points, @Brian’s point is based on something true, but is cherry picked and obfusticated to imply things that aren’t true.

Still waiting for your citations, Brian. Hopefully we can go through them together and discover the places you were misled!

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

I forgot about the “women and children first” claim. It turns out that women and children first wasn’t actually a thing. It was a thing on the Titanic and that’s why people assume that it was, but it was never an official policy or standard operating procedure for ships. There was even a post on that here a few years ago because this is such a common MRA whine.

I’m going to have ask Ramon for a source on his claim here. He’s going to have provide evidence that women and children first is a real thing or I’m afraid I’m going to be forced to name some fallacies at him.

Ooglyboggles
Ooglyboggles
8 years ago

@PI
I don’t know how you do it. My lizard brain just goes straight to sarcastic jerk mode at that point.
@Axe
Don’t you know Axe according to Ramon, Susan and JudgyBitch we’re women, no if ands or buts.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
8 years ago

er, sorry, PI. I didn’t mean “never fail to disappoint”, I meant “never fail!” and also “never disappoint!”

Brains are weird. Especially when soaked in ethanol.

Paradoxical Intention - Resident Cheeseburger Slut

Ooglyboggles | November 7, 2016 at 9:48 pm
@PI
I don’t know how you do it. My lizard brain just goes straight to sarcastic jerk mode at that point.

Well, it was a gigantic wall of text, as he was that variety of asshole, but when you deal with it in chunks (after I figured out what he was quoting from EJ from my single copy and paste), it actually becomes much easier.

Then I just give my post a re-read once I reach the end, tidy up the post, add a few links here and there, and voila! Takedown achieved.

Imperator Kahlo
Imperator Kahlo
8 years ago

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.

Paradoxical Intention has already called for a citation on this, but I would also like to point out that our troll is comparing two completely different things here when talking about women vs masculinity. Because masculinity =/= men. Yep, a feminist would argue that reducing toxic masculinity* is a good thing, but that has nothing to do with all men being the problem just because they’re men.

Ramon would be approaching a better-reasoned argument if he claimed feminists want more femininity and less masculinity, but I would call bullshit on that claim as well. Let everybody perform their genders in the way that makes them happy, as long as they ain’t hurting others. Down with toxic femininity! Down with toxic masculinity! Praise Katie!

* I’m pretty sure there was long ‘but how do adjectives even work?’ debate with a troll here while I was lurking ages ago, so lemme stress that I’m talking about a subset of masculinity, not saying that masculinity is inherently toxic. Which everybody but Ramon already knows.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
8 years ago

That ‘I love women!’ thing fuckin slays me. Like, I don’t love women. I love individual women (and it’s a pretty small number), but as a group? Indiscriminately? Yeah, fuck that! That probably means my love for women is insufficient. I should be swarmed by misandrist harpies any moment now, looking to flay me alive for my transgressions

And yet, no feminist has ever called me a misogynist. Ever. Maybe feminism doesn’t require faithful devotion to the whims of womankind. Maybe, just don’t be an asshole. Maybe…

@Oogly

Don’t you know Axe according to Ramon, Susan and JudgyBitch we’re women, no if ands or buts

And Mark. And Gert. And more I can’t remember right now. I ain’t even mad, it’s just stale af. Oh, so we’re all girls? Sick burn… for the 37th time. It ain’t cute anymore, folks. Get some new material *sigh*

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

@PI

http://67.media.tumblr.com/034f8000da367a911e30c6cd7ae2ac37/tumblr_ne9rkdJpPX1qeyb9ho3_r1_400.gif

That’s my babe.

Maybe feminism doesn’t require faithful devotion to the whims of womankind. Maybe, just don’t be an asshole.

Shhh! You’re revealing the deepest secrets of the Manginas! You’re going to bring the wrath of Katie upon all of us!

Aunt Podger
Aunt Podger
8 years ago

@Axecalibur,

Oh, so we’re all girls?

Possibly you are trying to get laid. By women upon whom you are never likely to clap eyes, from in many cases separate continents, whose names and contact information you don’t have. I mean, it probably works better than The Secret, but it’s almost as if you have some ulterior motivation. Like, I don’t know, justice or some such. But naaah. Can’t be true.

Ooglyboggles
Ooglyboggles
8 years ago

@Aunt Podger
“If I continue to play nice on a feminist forum surely one of them would be attracted to me, I just need to grind more affection points just like in muh Visual Novels.”

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
8 years ago

@Jack

Shhh! You’re revealing the deepest secrets of the Manginas! You’re going to bring the wrath of Katie upon all of us!

As penance I’ll recite 5 Hail Marys, no Our Fathers, and I’ll redouble my commitment to the sacred Vagenda of Manocide

@Auntie

Possibly you are trying to get laid. By women upon whom you are never likely to clap eyes, from in many cases separate continents, whose names and contact information you don’t have

In 7 months commenting here, I’ve learned the names of 2 people here. And 1 of em I had to guess. This is the most dox averse community I’ve ever seen. With good reason of course. I’m just like, why would anyone think this is the best place to go hunting for internet booty? Websites exist specifically for that purpose! Nope, lemme peep this obscure, feminist blog. That’s where the honeys at ?

Troubelle: Moonbeam Malcontent
Troubelle: Moonbeam Malcontent
8 years ago

*rubs eyes*

Y’alllllllll, it’s getting late. Let Brian or whatever take a nap.

Meanwhile, I don’t know what the hell kinda fallout happened as a result of this necro, but…eh.

Croquembouche of patriarchy
Croquembouche of patriarchy
8 years ago

@Axecalibur, from that other thread,

Deprived of actual children to feel tender towards, these women (presumably Anglin means white women) end up directing their motherly instincts towards black dudes.

If it wouldn’t make my kitteh jealous, I might call dibs on you. If I thought I could outfight all my fellow shrivelled barren spinsters.

You, of course, are here for introductions to our hot young nieces.

Catalpa
Catalpa
8 years ago

Every feminist organisation ever has only taken down men’s rights and added more privileges to women. Categorically. Every single one.

Like those dastardly suffragettes! The ones that gave the audaciously luxurious privilege of voting to women, and took down men’s right to… uh… to be in a very small group of people actually able to have a say in what happens in the government?

I mean, I might have assumed that you approved of the ‘acceptable’ feminist goals of… pretty much giving women the vote and absolutely nothing else, but you specifically said that Every. Single. Feminist. Organization. wanted to give privileges to women and take rights away from men, so I suppose I’ll have to take you at your word!

EJ (The Orphic Lizard)

Paradoxy, I love you dearly.

Brian, I’m afraid I was laughing throughout most of that screed. That’s probably not the answer you wanted to hear from me, but that’s what you got. You are absolutely adorable.

You probably want me to refute your points. Well. Let’s talk about that.

This is the late Duane Gish.
http://www.icr.org/i/articles/af/gish_creation_champion_wide.jpg

This is a galloping horse (taken from Muybridge’s slideshow, possibly the world’s first animated gif.)
http://headsup.boyslife.org/files/2013/05/RACE-HORSE-MOVIE.jpg

When you combine the two, you get what’s called a Gish gallop: an attempt to win a discussion by pouring errors onto the page so quickly that nobody can refute them all.

Let me give you an example of a refutation of a single point:

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.

In the UK, where I live nowadays, most men do not get circumcised but they still lag behind in visiting doctors. It’s considered a major public health risk and has been recognised as such by both sides of the political divide. As such, we cannot say that circumcision is the cause.

(Interestingly, this is less the case with Jewish men. As such, having part of your dick cut off soon after birth actually correlates positively with trusting doctors. However, this is a false correlation: it comes from the fact that better-educated men are more likely to see doctors regularly, and Jewish men are disproportionately better educated. I do not have the data but I wouldn’t be surprised if the correlation goes away once you control for education.)

See? A refutation with sources. Far more sources than you’ve given me in your entire spiel, too.

On the other hand, am I going to do that for literally everything you’ve written? No. I’m not as awesome as Paradoxy is. I do not have time in my day for that. Does this mean that you win, in whatever way victory is defined? No, because Gish Gallops are not the way an honest person examines an issue.

An honest person focuses on one aspect at a time and really understands it before moving on. Let’s do that with one particular aspect of what you’ve written.

Tell me about your feelings, Brian. Why is it important that you come here and write to us, telling us that this is drivel and propaganda? What motivates you to come to one specific website and engage with one specific person? The web is full of engagements and diversions; I don’t buy that you engage with all of them to this level. What makes this so important to you?

Your feelings matter to me, because you are my fellow man and I care about my fellow man; and I’m worried by your belief that this means I must self-loathe.

EJ (The Orphic Lizard)

(Since you asked about my activism: I volunteer with Shelter, a homeless charity, and the British Heart Foundation, which does what it says on the tin. Sadly, homelessness and heart disease are both things which disproportionately affect men.)

1 12 13 14 15 16 78