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
kupo
kupo
8 years ago

In terms of the “routine” false allegations of abuse in family courts I guess the Canadian Department of Justice thought it was a “routine” and not isolated practice enough to make that body commission a study into the cause and impact.

Great, we’re getting somewhere! Care to link a source for this?

I don’t think I will ever get people like weirwood to take their heads out of their nether regions and understand that men are impacted by issues as well. You can quote statistics but men who fight an often uphill battle in Family Court and children (just like mine) who are regularly negatively impacted by a gender-biased system have names, faces, hopes and feelings just like everyone else.

WWTH actually does frequently acknowledge that men have issues, too. That doesn’t mean she has to accept assfax as evidence.

Andrew
Andrew
8 years ago

Th article in the link is a well-documented Family Court decision in Canada. It may not speak directly to parents lying to get an advantage in court but the message is clear from this judge. This type of behavior is not isolated.
https://www.google.ca/amp/globalnews.ca/news/2575275/judge-blasts-parents-for-squandering-kids-future-with-500k-custody-battle/amp/

Canada’s Ministry of Justice believed the existence of false allegations of abuse in divorce cases was significant enough that it led to the department commissioning a study into the subject (allegations of abuse are six times higher in families that are going through Family Court than in the general population. Draw your own conclusions.)

Andrew
Andrew
8 years ago

And weirwood, it is not just mothers who make false allegations it is fathers as well. Either way, not believing that this is happening is your ignorance. Regardless of the parent which does this how is this in the best interest of the children? (answer, it isn’t).

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Once again, Andrew.

Nobody said false accusations never happen. You said they were ROUTINE

That’s quite a claim and it requires strong evidence.

And obviously custody cases going through family court are more likely to involve abuse allegations. Amicable divorces don’t go through the court system because they don’t need to. It’s a huge unfounded leap to conclude that the reason is a conspiracy of malicious false abuse allegations. You sound like the kind of person who says “wake up, sheeple” unironically.

Also, I never said or even implied that false abuse accusations are in the best interest of children. My initial suspicion that you are a dolt stands.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Okay, I read that article and all it is was a short story about a contentious and nasty custody case. Not only does it not support Andrew’s claim that the family court system is biased against men, it undermines it because the judge declared the woman was the one most in the wrong.

The fact that some divorce cases are a mess does not mean that misandry is a thing.

Andrew
Andrew
8 years ago

@ Weirwood, yes we know that false allegations in Family Court are the “mammoth”. The Canadian government commissioned a study into the subject. They must be in on this conspiracy as well. This from the study (yes, I know it was a psychologist and not a lawyer but to not even interview the father before coming to a (wrong) conclusion? Real professional) and the link to the full study is attached.

There is a significant degree of civil immunity for alleged negligence arising out of testifying in court about allegations of abuse. This is the concept known as “privilege.” In the British Columbia case of Carnahan v. Coates,[41] a psychologist who worked for the clinic that was treating the mother was retained by the mother to provide an opinion that supported her application to terminate visits with the father. Although the psychologist did not interview the father, he concluded that the children had considerable anxiety about their visits with the father, and that their negative attitudes were their own views, rather than merely a reflection of the mother’s concerns. Supported by the testimony of the psychologist, the court terminated the father’s access, though after four years the father was able to persuade the courts to reverse the decision and gain a legal right to access, supported by an independent expert who concluded that the “children’s wishes were a mirror reflection of their mother’s destructive manipulation.”

Tragically, by that time it was too late for the father to establish a meaningful relationship with the children, and he “conceded defeat” and ceased trying to enforce access. In the meantime, the father complained to the British Columbia Psychological Association, which censured the first psychologist for “unethical and unprofessional conduct” in the course of preparing his assessment, including failing to adequately interview the children to ascertain the true reasons for their expressed preferences. The father then sued the psychologist for negligence and abuse of process that resulted in him losing his relationship with his children. The court rejected the civil claim as the psychologist had a “qualified privilege” that gave him immunity from civil suit for the opinions he expressed in court, even if he was negligent in formulating them. The judge did, however, recognize that the grant of privilege was not “absolute” and a witness could be liable if it was proved that there was a “conspiracy” to put forward false testimony.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/divorce/2001_4/p3.html

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

we know that false allegations in Family Court are the “mammoth”

Wat? Ya know what, nevermind…

Makroth - Agent of the Great Degeneracy
Makroth - Agent of the Great Degeneracy
8 years ago

@Andrew

”We hunted the mammoth to feed you”. Look it up.

Andrew
Andrew
8 years ago

Most reasonable men will admit to discrimination against women. For some reason, many women (especially hardcore feminists) seem to be able to admit that discrimination cuts both ways. Why do you not criticize those hard-line feminists with the same vigor that you do MRAs? I’ll tell you why – you are “defending the sisterhood” (again).

Question? How many of you have even seen The Red Pill? Feminist groups like those in Australia have effectively lobbied to have screenings cancelled without ever watching the film! This is not a holocaust denying documentary. It is a different point of view on the issue. What are so many feminists fearful of that they will stifle free speech (not hate speech people) to get a point across. An open dialogue is the only route to change that works for all. Stifling opinion and labeling people as racist, bigots and sexists gets you (in the words of UK political satirist Jonathan Pie)… President Trump!

EJ (The Orphic Lizard)

M, I am glad to see you again. We sorely missed the anger of a pissed-off GlaDOS-revering paleontologist.

Andrew
Andrew
8 years ago

Of course, men are liars and women are above reproach (lol!). I can send you submissions from my ex and her ( third of four) counsel that states they don’t believe how much I am making and even if it is accurate I can find more employment (this while she sits on her ass and earns half of the industry standard for her profession). The system creates a victim mentality for mothers (again, some mothers are truly victims. Those like my ex who are not make the climate more hostile for all.).

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Sigh. One case of a psychologist maybe acting questionably does not support the claim that there is a systemic bias against men. It certainly doesn’t show that attorneys frequently recommend that their clients make false accusations.

If we’re playing the single case = systemic bias game than I have proof the system is actually against women. There was a family court judge who ordered a teenage girl be put in juvie for refusing to see her father because she had witnessed him abusing her mother.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Did Andrew just threaten to dox his ex wife?

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

I’m confused. How does something from a US agency prove that Canadian family law attorneys conspire with female clients to steal kids from their fathers?

They forget they were Candian for a moment, like JB.

Why do you not criticize those hard-line feminists with the same vigor that you do MRAs? I’ll tell you why – you are “defending the sisterhood” (again).

You’ve never actually read this blog or the comments, have you? Or actually spoken to a feminist about feminist issues all your life. Sweetheart, maybe you should actually do research into feminism before you dismiss it? 🙂

Of course, men are liars and women are above reproach (lol!).

No, of course not. Some are feminists.

But, to be serious, no, the whole of men aren’t liars. You seem to be, if you’re a man. (I don’t know your gender so inform me, please.) You’re twisting your story and sending links that do not back your assertions.

Give us proof that women are advised to falsify stories about abuse in custody cases or get out. This (http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/divorce/2001_4/p3.html) isn’t proof to the fact. This is proof that a psychologist didn’t likely do their job properly or whatever, nothing about women being advised to lie. You do know the psychologist isn’t the woman battling over custody of their own children, right?

PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
8 years ago

Did Andrew just threaten to dox his ex wife?

That is certainly what

I can send you submissions from my ex and her ( third of four) counsel that states they don’t believe how much I am making and even if it is accurate I can find more employment (this while she sits on her ass and earns half of the industry standard for her profession.

sounds like to me.

He started off well, and then devolved into the basic, one-each standardized MRA talking points.

kupo
kupo
8 years ago

Your ex-wife is privileged because she earns half what others in her profession earn? WTF?

Andrew
Andrew
8 years ago

@ Weirwood, the Canadian government thought the false allegation issue required enough attention that they wrote a paper on it complete with a discussion on possible sanctions/punishment for offenders. Is this a “one off” as well? Unbelievable the lack of any acknowledgement that this may in fact be an issue even though the Canadian government says otherwise. (by the way I used the word “routinely” instead of words used by others on this thread such as “frequently” to try and illustrate that it is not an isolated tactic in Family Court. If you would choose to attack me on semantics be my guest). Some of you are priceless (daft but priceless).

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

I find it hard to believe that Andrew works 60 hours a week, watches the kids Wednesday through Sunday and on a day he supposedly has the kids, still has time to troll all day. I’ve only had time to post today with any frequency because it’s really slow at work and I’m back in the corner where the managers can’t see me. And I only work 40 hours a week and have no kids.

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

Canadian government thought the false allegation issue required enough attention that they wrote a paper on it complete with a discussion on possible sanctions/punishment for offenders.

Then give us the link you dolt.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Moving on since Andrew refuses to put his money where is mouth is…

What is it that you actually want? In Andrew’s utopia, what should the family court do when there is an abuse allegations? Should a father get equal physical custody by default no matter what? Should he have to be convicted of abuse to lose any access to his children?

Andrew
Andrew
8 years ago

already provided in a previous post (“sticks and stones may break my bones…”). here it is again for the reading/comprehension-impaired.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/divorce/2001_4/p3.html

kupo
kupo
8 years ago

Like all MRAs who come through here, Andrew expects us to do our own research to back ip his assertions. The men’s center I found for you and you ignored was a freebie. You have to do your own work now, Andrew.

Andrew
Andrew
8 years ago

@weirwood, a father should not be stripped of his parental rights based on an allegation. Due diligence by professionals and the court is important to make sure that the best interests of the children are recognized (sorry, in your utopia “best interests of the children” does not mean that a mother can drop an allegation and sometimes multiple allegations in the hope a father does not have the financial resources to contest these allegations and concedes custody in an effort to avoid living in a cardboard box). again, you are truly clueless.

Andrew
Andrew
8 years ago

@ kupo,

Your ex-wife is privileged because she earns half what others in her profession earn? WTF?

no because she chooses NOT to earn more. Everything is equal in both households except that she works 20 hours and I work 60+. Do you understand why that is not reasonable if she is able to make more without compromising her parental responsibilities or should I draw you a map or fancy pie chart?

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

already provided in a previous post (“sticks and stones may break my bones…”). here it is again for the reading/comprehension-impaired.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/divorce/2001_4/p3.html

We were able to locate only one reported Canadian case since 1990 in which the maker of a false allegation in the context of parental separation was charged with any of these offences.

Welp.

But also this still has nothing to do with women be advised to say there was abuse when there is none.

In Canada, mothers are routinely advised by counsel to make abuse claims against fathers to secure custody. Just the existence of a complaint is often enough for Kangaroo, I mean Family Court to “steal” a father’s parental rights.

Man, it seems to be the opposite of what you’ve said. It’s as if, maybe, you’re a fucking liar or something.

Hope your kids come out of this in better hands than they came in.

1 15 16 17 18 19 78