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.
Do any Canadians here know about child care law? I guess it doesn’t matter if Andrew is telling the truth about his case or not because either way, a sample of one is not useful in determining whether or not there’s systemic bias against men in family court. However, his story doesn’t quite pass the smell test for me. He claimed to have the kids Wed – Sun. That would mean his ex only has them on Mon and Tue. That would make him the primary custody holder. So it doesn’t really make sense that he would be the one paying support. Or if he did, it wouldn’t follow that it should be 40% of his income. From the brief Googling I did, it looks like the child support calculators are pretty well adhered to and judges can’t just decide they’re going to be misandric and make up a punitive amount on a whim. I’m no expert on the subject of course, but it just isn’t adding up for me.
Unlike Scildfreya and Belladonna, I’m not nice enough to give trolls the benefit of the doubt. Note to Andrew: I mean trolls (especially necro trolls) and not men in general.
@ Scildfreja, very eloquently written.
I will say this for many who responded to my posts, the generalizations and assumptions ran very deep. One poster even said that my responses led them to believe I was probably “abusive”.
I have been called a dolt and an asshole all for expressing an opinion formed not only from my personal experience and those of others whom I know but also from extensive research.
Here is another article which sheds light on the issue of false allegations and the myriad of challenges courts face in this area. To say this is not a real issue with real implications (mostly experienced by the children) is burying heads in the sand.
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201206042026/headline-news/lawyers-alarmed-at-criminal-charges-in-family-cases
My point in many cases is that some issues require a gender discussion – not a gender-based one. I have pointed out issues which I recognize may not effect men/boys on the same level as women/girls (such as body self image) and I get the condescending (at best) and dismissive/ignorant (at worse) responses. I make a case that some issues like the Family Court system actually show a gender-bias (like it or not supported by anecdotal and actual studies) that leaves fathers swimming upstream and I get the anecdotal and condescending responses.
Why is everything a “women’s” or “men’s” issue? Are we not part of one collective. Can we not have a reasonable dialogue that does allow for a discussion of issues on a less gender specific plane? You want more men to buy in? Invite them in to the discussion and ask them how an issue may impact them. Try it – you will be surprised how well it goes over.
I’m no expert, but I’ve explored it in helping family and friends get through it.
The calculator is adhered to pretty well; there has to be a very good reason for any deviations, generally. Also, there’s no national or provincial apparatus for pursuing people who fail to pay. The recipient of the child support has to sue for that money if the payer refuses to pay (requiring getting a lawyer, etc), and even in this case the court won’t demand money that the payer doesn’t have. I’ve seen numerous cases of payers avoiding ever supporting their children by never taking jobs which earn enough.
As for the time-spent-caring, the court allows parents to decide themselves who has the kids when, unless the parents are unable to come to agreement. In that case, the court will rule on a schedule that best suits the children. If that has to change based on parents’ lives, then the court will make sure that it’s a feasible schedule, but in general they won’t interfere unless the parents speak up and ask for the assistance of the court.
(ahem)
That’s the central rule, really. When in doubt, choose the result that’s best for the kids. In Canada, “Best for the kids” is to have ample time with both parents. The favoured outcome is a 50-50 split with one parent providing a stable home while the other is a frequent influence.
To my limited understanding! Your mileage may vary.
((PS: It didn’t add up for me either, I just want to see if he’s going to walk into a wall or not.))
I call out behavior that is assholish.
Want to be seen as not assholish? Don’t act like one. I only called you that after you became one.
You do not get to claim some sort of victimization hete, especially after telling us that
Please do not tone troll here.
If you want to have a conversation on a less gender-specific plane, don’t introduce it as an issue from the get go like you did.
You’ve yet to prove otherwise.
http://67.media.tumblr.com/d03882eee73115d71acc1bdafc00c6ea/tumblr_nnr1x4USvq1uu8359o1_500.png
EDIT: STILL waiting on the proof that women are advise to lie about abuse…
Will reply in a bit, Andrew; must be AFK again. have only skimmed your reply and read the article you linked.
In the interim, I just want to confirm – are you sure you want to reply to my statement of:
> “don’t use anecdotes without also examining the full constellations of data available”
with
> “Here is an an anecdote from a lawyer”
?
Is that what you want to do? Because that’s what you’ve done. A lawyer isn’t a God (Sorry, Alan), and his perspective is biased by virtue of being a single human being embedded in a very large system. Are you absolutely sure that you want to reply to me with an anecdote?
@wwth
For the record, can I just say that I appreciate your stance. Whether I’m “nice” enough to give the benefit of the doubt or not, I truly, truly also appreciate you for holding the line. I admire every comment you make. I think both of these stances are needed, maybe, and that it’s really vital to have some people who are good at one and some people who are good at the other. I hope that makes sense.
How can feminists possibly have the chance to invite men to join the discussion and ask for their opinions when feminist spaces are constantly barraged with men sharing their opinions, providing boner notes and doing “what about the menz” whines?
There’s a reason so many feminists give requests to spend time on men’s priorities a hostile response and it’s not meanness or man hating. It’s because women are constantly asked to prioritize you and feminist spaces are the one place we have outside of wedding planning to prioritize women. And even this one movement to focus on our own issues is apparently to much to ask of men. Fuck that!
Also, isn’t it about time to get dinner ready for your kids instead of trolling old comment sections?
Thank you! It does make sense and I agree. A blend of approaches will break down every troll sooner or later 🙂
@Andrew
So start exactly such a discussion. I tried for one and you utterly ignored me. So I’m not particularly surprised or impressed with how well it went over. I feel really sorry for your daughter, at this point.
((wwth is my model for commenting on these threads. Just sayin <3))
@ scildfreja
Heh, you’re right there. Devils maybe. (God’s probably a lawyer though. Would explain all that stuff in Deutoronomy)
As for the anecdote point. As well as all the usual caveats about anecdotal evidence it’s also worth remembering that by definition we generally only get involved when everything has gone all contentious and acrimonious between the parties. You can explain selection bias better than I.
As for encouraging clients to lie, I can’t say that’s never happened but not only is it expressly forbidden in most lawyers’ relevant codes of conduct, it’s just not something we do for purely selfish reasons. It’s bad enough for a case when clients get caught in a lie, but clients (especially the ones who will play dirty) have no qualms about diverting blame by grassing someone else up when caught. The last thing you want a judge to hear is “my lawyer told me to say that”
(For an explanation as to why it’s so anathema to lawyers to even coach witnesses now read up on the famous Triangle Shirt Company fire case)
http://www.impawards.com/1997/posters/devils_advocate_ver1.jpg
@ weirwood
already done and also coached my son’s hockey team for 90 minutes. I know, my ex must have been responsible in some way.
@ Scildfreja
don’t bother I was constantly told by my ex-wife that women are always right. No need to remind me.
@ Belladonna
I feel sorry for anyone who is forced to be in your presence for more than a couple of minutes you toxic hag. My daughter is just fine thank you. She knows she is loved and respected and when she is old enough I will teach her not to be a victim and to be strong and independent. Part of that lesson will be avoiding people like you.
Good night everyone and good luck with making the world a single gendered planet. Clearly you have no time to acknowledge men or any of their (real) issues.
Lol.
I spent paragraphs of my post agreeing with you. Acknowledging men and their real issues. The same issues you were talking about.
Like here:
and here:
and here:
I was being nice to you, Andrew. I was trying to have a discussion about real problems that face both men and women. So don’t drop your “you’re just being unreasonable like all women” on me.
Problem is that I’m not just caving to your interpretations. No, to you I’m just being a bitch who won’t accept her place.
I am often wrong. About many things. But I refuse to be put in my place by anecdote and assertion, and that’s all I’ve ever seen coming out of MRA’s mouths.
But go on, then. Wander off mumbling about how I’m a bitch who won’t accept reality. Who thinks she’s better than men. Go ahead, lie to yourself to balm the hurt instead of confronting what I’m saying.
The path to truth is a path of self-destruction, Andrew. You can’t follow truth and protect yourself at the same time. You only get one.
– Scildfreja Unnýðnes, Bitch-Valkyrie
“Single gendered planet”? “Toxic hag”? Calm down, Andrew. If the feminists have a plot to destroy all men, I’m certainly unaware of it. Chalk that up to my being a useful idiot or whatever, but I see no evidence of such a plot. Present some, or you’re full of shit.
http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/big-lebowski-the-dude-is-bored.gif
Andy is boring now. Well, they were boring a few posts back, but, still, boring Andy is boring.
I mean, I’ve been waiting for proof that women are advised to lie about abuse in court like they claimed, but I guess since that was fully pulled from their rectum, they’ve got no leg to stand on so they’re just being a fuck about thing.
Imma email David to get rid of this dude’s tedious ass. Maybe Andy’ll surprise me and be more fun before they’re gone, if David decides to ban at all.
EDIT: You know, I tried to find a Joker gif of him saying someone or something was boring, but I didn’t find anything. That’s weird, right? You’d think that would be something.
Awesome. Andrew didn’t respond to one single thing I said in my post where I was being sympathetic about his issues. But he’s the totally reasonable one. He’s the one who’s trying to reach out and see how issues affect “both” genders (right). I did forget to say that I also feel very sorry for his son, as well as his daughter. But I do.
I’m thinking of changing my nym to Toxic Hag. It’s not so far from Belladonna, anyway.
We have a meltdown, folks!
I don’t have a Joker gif but I can provide a Willow gif.
@Belladonna
Just add it on…wear it like pride, like so many other people do!
@Eli
Done! Thank you. 🙂
And I love Willow!
I couldn’t find one of him saying he’s bored, but I did find one of him eating potato chips with a bored expression?
(I can’t seem to recall which animated series/movie it’s from though. Pretty sure it was a movie.)
Is there some way to avoid moderation when you change your nym?
@Belladonna
You can write something with the new name and then change back to the old one until the new one goes through. All the old names are still usable and stuff.
Probably just the first time.
And see…someone knowledgable to help you…I’ll show myself out.
@eli
Aw, I’m sorry, I just change my name. A lot.
So much. Too much.