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.
(Also, I notice that he misgendered me, and I’m going to take that as praise. The sort of qualities that people like him see as coded-male are not ones that I wish to possess. Being called a woman is never an insult, but from someone like that it’s a badge of honour.)
@ EJ
I’ve got a physics question that might be right up your street.
It can be summarised as “are satellites ‘tidal locked’?”
By which I mean, assume a satellite has an arbitrary top and bottom. It’s at a point in its orbit where ‘bottom’ is facing toward Earth. When it’s gone 180′ around its orbit (so it’s on the ‘other side’ of the earth; ignore the rotation of the earth for the purposes of this question) is bottom still facing the Earth or is it now the ‘top’ facing the Earth.
I hope that makes sense.
(i.e. Which of the two examples below is it?)
T T
B B
T T TB BT
B B B
T T
B
TIA.
ETA: Hmm, when I post the examples lose all their spacing.
Lemme give you the long answer.
If we put Alan Robertshaw in space and didn’t spin him at all, then he would slowly change which side of his body is pointed at the ground. This would make the Earth appear to “rise” and “set” to him. This would happen once in every orbital period, so the lower he was orbitting, the more often the Earth would rise and set.
Spy satellites are very low, with an orbit of about 90 minutes, so if Alan was a spy satellite he’d only spend 45 minutes at a time staring up at the stars. Communications satellites are far higher, around 24 hours. If Alan was orbiting like a communications satellite then he’d have a “day” of 12 hours during which his face was to the Earth, and a “night” of 12 hours during which his back was to the Earth.
We can overcome this by spinning Alan. If he spins slowly enough that he has one complete rotation every 12 hours, then he’ll always face the Earth. This is called a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance. When it happens due to gravity, then it’s called tidal lock. For human-launched satellites it’s easier and faster to use thrusters and gyros to get the spin right.
Sadly, the spin is never going to be perfect. This is partly because we can’t get exactly right at first, but mostly because things like Earth’s magnetosphere and the Sun’s gravity interfere. As a result, we’ll need to occasionally nudge it using gyros or thrusters, just to keep the spin right.
(One complete rotation every 24 hours. Ugh. Proofreading.)
@ EJ
That’s my favourite kind of answer. 🙂
Thanks ever so much for that, I knew you’d know. I thought it was the ‘keeping the same orientation’ thing but then I was chatting about some of these tether/skyhook ideas. So I wondered how they kept them facing ‘down’. I wondered if the tether itself might act as some sort of anchor but then it was explained that some of the ideas actually rely on them rotating so I just got even more confused.
So basically you can launch them with a bit of ‘spin’ and/or you can use gyros. That makes perfect sense (although I’ve never really understood the difference between gyroscopes and magic).
@ Belladonna, thanks for at least acknowledging your comments related to my daughter were way below the belt. My kids are my world and they think there dad is pretty awesome.
I never use it but I understand the context even if I do not like the language. It relates more to a friendship level than what I am speaking of when I say “defending the sisterhood”. I have seen women defend women they don’t even know for no apparent reason other than they have a vagina. I am sure some men may do the same for other men but I will call someone out for behaving badly regardless of gender.
Oh, really? I didn’t you call Yor out for saying feminists are smelly, dirty underpantsed and ugly and making creepy sexual comments. You sympathized with him.
Again I ask, would you show your kids his comments as an example of good behavior? Would you tell them that’s an appropriate way to deal with someone they disagree with?
You’ve shown no evidence you’re willing to hold men to the same civility standards you hold women to. You don’t care about civility, you are merely a tone troll.
I agree with WWTH.
(I mean, I should always agree with WWTH, because she’s got really good troll-sense and therefore any time she and I disagree I’m probably in the wrong, but on this occasion her intuition and mine align.)
Andrew, a number of questions have been asked of you. You’ve ignored them in favour of screeding. I feel that this is impolite and shows very little respect.
If it matters, I’m a straight white man.
*shuffles in wearing nightcap and carpet slippers*
Will you kids keep it down, down here? What’s all the fuss?
… Oh, multiple trolls. Carry on.
@ woody, you speak of civility? That is rich.
@ woody, look back on some of the things you have said to me. Beside the childish name calling you and Yor engaged in I believe it was you who said I have the makings of a “serial abuser”. now while what Yor wrote is a childish response to the bullying behavior of some on this site (yes, I am looking at you because again I believe you would not say much of what you said on-line to my face) I have been generally civil. You on the other hand…
Andrew,
The point just whooshed right over your head, didn’t it?
Whether you find me civil is irrelevant. I’m not civil to trolls. I happily admit that.
My point is, if you find civility important, you need to expect it of your own side too. You have demonstrated that you don’t. Thus, you are a hypocrite. I don’t care about tone or civility personally as long as one isn’t using bigoted language, harassing or making threats. But if you’re going to care about it, you need to hold yourself and others on your side to those same standards. That you don’t proves you don’t care, you’re just tone policing as an excuse to not engage with feminist’s actual arguments.
I can’t stand Ann Coulter. But when a fellow progressive calls her Man Coulter, I call them out because I think transphobia and gender policing are wrong. They’re wrong when the right does it. They’re just as wrong when the left does it.
I may be a bitch sometimes but at least I have the courage of my convictions. You do not.
I believe I said that you sound like an abuser. Not that you are one. Not the same thing. If you provide me your quote, I’ll address it.
Also, making rapey comments about fishing like Yor did goes way beyond childish. Stop being disingenuous.
Sorry to spam the thread but I wanted to a dress the claim that I wouldn’t talk like this to Andrew’s face.
I don’t say anything online I don’t stand by.
Andrew, do you honestly believe people were rude to you without cause?
If someone walked up to me and my friends out in meatspace and introduced themselves by criticizing us, no, I wouldn’t be civil. The only reason I might not respond by telling them to fuck off is that it might be a safety risk. Actually it’s pretty funny that you take offense to being told you’re talking like an abuser as you posture about how I wouldn’t dare be all uppity with you if I weren’t safely anonymous and online. Yes, women face consequences, sometimes deadly ones for standing up to men. Is that something you think is good?
Again, I ask you to hold yourself to the standards you hold up to. Would you introduce yourself to complete strangers by walking up to them and making a smug and critical comment? If not, why is it okay to do it here? You need to look through your own behavior if you want to know why you’ve received a poor reception. It’s because nobody asked you to come in here and necro a thread with your whines.
Good grief.
You came in here, angry and offensive, sure of your conviction that we hate all men and are all biased against them. Then you get upset for us calling you names? You came in here specifically to get us angry, so that you could feel justified in your hate. Your hate has no justification, so you manufacture your own.
Shove off, Andrew. WWTH was right about you.
Thanks for backing me up Scildfreja and EJ. Tone trolls are worse than outright assholes like Yor IMO because they use the cultural expectation that women be polite and deferential to men against us. I hate that!
I also saw after the edit window closed that the rapey comment was about fisting. Not fishing. Damn you autocorrect!
@wwth
Congrats on getting promoted from bonobo to chief manatee! On a more serious note I finally managed to slog through this thread and all I can say to Andy is ugggggggghhhh just shove off with you trying to legitimize your hate by riling up others. It’s bad enough you keep ignoring posters’ comments when their posts go against your narrative but you also expect people to be polite when you’re not? Get real.
Ha, I stopped paying attention to him and was legit wondering what kind of fishing comment he made. (I saw the fisting comment. My autocorrect changes it to distinguished which I almost kept.)
Can I bring it back to astronomy?
As a misandering feminist manatee, I’m no longer content with making men slave away in the bonbon mines. I propose we send them away to this gas giant
http://gizmodo.com/clouds-of-rubies-and-sapphires-glow-on-this-distant-exo-1790044935
It rains rubies and sapphires and I think they need to be fetched on behalf of Katie and her disciples.
Let’s think big and misander all across the universe!
I’m super susceptible to that. (You may have noticed that I can be sort of deferential and avoidant at times). You’ve been a very big help in getting better with that. I certainly find it easier to deal with guys like Yor – their aggression is right on the table. Both of’em came here to confront us, though; Andrew was just less direct about it.
As for Yor, I didn’t really read much of what he wrote. Which is hilarious, as at the end he was all “Lol you think I write like that all the time I was just fuckin with you”. Which is probably true, but I’m not sure why he thought that was funny, because he sat at the keyboard hammerin’ away for a half hour for something that no one read and no one took seriously. Good job wastin’ yer own time, troll!
This said, I guess that’s what they’re all doing, so it fits the bill.
@WWTH
Sapphires are my favorite gem because they can be all the colors of the rainbow. Except red, because then they’re called rubies. 🙂
We’ve got a similar thing happening here in our own system just with carbon rather than than corundum. And we don’t know for sure if our gas giants have enough atmospheric pressure to form the carbon into diamonds. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24477667
I’m not even the biggest diamond fan, but I still think it’s cool that there’s a planet made of diamond. I’m picturing an MGTOW science fiction story about hapless betas sent on a mission by an evil girlfriend to collect giant chunks of it for fancy engagement rings. They bond with each other on the spaceship and decide to form an MGTOW colony on the diamond world instead.
@ Woody, selective reading or just choosing to ignore what I said?
I do expect civility. Is that such a bad thing? How do you expect someone to listen to your point of view when they call you names such as “dolt”, “idiot”, “moron”, “asshole”? Also, some have accused me of being a “serial abuser” and saying that you feel sorry for my daughter – presumably not because she is beautiful, talented, kind, compassionate and well-adjusted but because I am her father.
So, who is really “tone” deaf here?
There’s nothing civil about tone policing. Yes, tone policing is a bad thing.
What makes you think it’s the responsibility of the less privileged to educate the more privileged? That’s what you’re talking about here, whether you’ve thought it all the way through or not. This question rests on the premise that WWTH needs to persuade someone of something, and therefore needs to adopt persuasive language. Why exactly is it WWTH’s responsibility to persuade you (or anyone) rather than your responsibility to educate yourself and stop being an asshole all on your own?
@Dandy Andy
After wwth called you out for not calling out Yor, you made the comment you quoted to wwth, and it was after Yor had already been banned.
What you actually said to Yor was this:
You are completely disingenuous. You are biased. You are irrational. You have not shown any civility. You have in no way sought an exchange of ideas, but only to pound your ideas into us at all costs and prove that you are right and we are wrong. If you truly think differently, it is only further proof of your irrationality. And your endless repetitive refrain is truly boring, at this point.