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.
John here worries that people are mocking him in an old thread on a misogyny mocking blog.
I never worry, but it is the first time in my life I’ve been called a misogynist, so I was surprised.
So sensitive to criticism and yet unwilling to be specific in theirs. And now a term that indicates hatred and contempt of women is just too much. Now who would want to minimize that in a society where both are ubiquitous?
I think it starts with an M.
But it is true that my informal writing style is pretty assertive and no nonsense.
No doubt it’s assertive manatee, but ‘no nonsense’ is open to debate. I don’t think you and others here will ever see that by not engaging with those who aren’t of precisely your view means you’ll achieve nothing.
@John Devalle
What? Whatever gave you the idea I was being sarcastic? I am nothing but 100% genuine all the time. No sarcasm here, not ever.
And most certainly not for someone as eloquent and reasonable as the
trollsfine gentlemen we get here at WHTM.Shit, sorry. I just can’t stop it, I need to get my fix. Now to cut the sarcasm into lines and snort it.
@John
No, you didn’t. You called the comments “angry sarcasm” instead of responding to their arguments, as if the tone made the comments unworthy of a response. It’s a form of gaslighting and we’ve seen it before.
You also don’t get to dictate how someone else communicates.
@ shapman
I don’t want to dismiss your personal experiences, and I know courts can be intimidating places; but why was it necessary for the judge to assume anything?
The whole point of hearings is for the parties to present evidence, and make arguments based on that evidence.
If you wish to establish you are the primary care giver then it’s a fairly simple procedure. You show the hours you spend looking after the kids, that you cook for them and get them to school. That you’re the one who takes them to the doctor’s and football practice etc.
Were you denied an opportunity to do this?
If that were the case you would have grounds to feel aggrieved; but also for an immediate appeal.
If you hear that word all the time, it’s probably because either you are constantly acting like a misogynist or because you troll feminist websites every day. I’m a feminist and I rarely hear or say that word outside of feminist spaces.
So, you’re ignoring that I called John privileged because he’s stated that this site is the most aggression he’s seen and taken that as a personal attack against you?
I see you’re also ignoring the fact that the only person in this thread who has suggested that only women are able to be the primary care giver of children was Jerry. The MRA that you defended.
Interesting framing. You seem to be implying that you will talk to your daughter about rape, but not your son. Yes? And you seem to be implying that rape prevention is about women protecting themselves. Yet you get upset that feminists supposedly paint all men as abusers. Tell me. How do women protect themselves from rape and abuse without hurting the feelings of men?
Dude, my name is weirwoodtreehugger and I am the chief manatee of this site. You may shorten it to WWTH if you like. But my name is not “Manatee.”
Anyway, I make “snark comments” because I am witty and I am good at making snarky commentary. I also do it because it seems to upset trolls so much. I’ll treat you as a serious person when you show me that you are one. So far, you are lacking.
So I just popped over from a post on George Takei’s facebook page where he had shared an article about an Indian airline giving women flying alone the option not to be given a middle seat because there’s such a huge problem of women being sexually assaulted while flying. The comments section was filled with dudes complaining about how unfair it is that women are being given “special privileges,” stating that women in the U.S. shouldn’t complain about all the rape we experience because it’s worse in India, and claiming they’re going to change their gender identity just so they can get an aisle/window seat while flying. And then I see this word vomit. Lovely.
Imagine experiencing it every day.
You say this like men don’t present evidence in their disclosure to the courts to support their position as a caregiver. My point was that I was shocked that the judge clearly did not read the disclosure before opening her uninformed mouth. It was my lawyer who caught the language the judge used and she was gobsmacked. It is my assertion that fathers are swimming upstream in the family court system in Canada due to some of the stereotypes which belong in the 1950s and there is plenty of evidence to support this. Your notion that we have blind justice in the family court system (or in the criminal court system for that matter where women routinely are given a lighter sentence than males who commit similar crimes) is for lack of a better a term a crock of shit!
http://wondermark.com/c/2014-09-19-1062sea.png
I’mma just leave this here.
Of course I know you’re a transphobic piece of shit but I figure I’d just let you know that men do, in fact, have babies.
Now if y’all will excuse me, I have to go to work tomorrow and I need a shower, and to put away the dishes.
Anyone else for banhammering Andrew/Shapman? He has worn his welcome to a flimsy thread.
Yes, miscarriages of justice happen and they are unfortunate–but women and feminists ARE NOT to blame! What’s to blame for women getting lighter sentences than men is the BS idea that women are weaker and can’t handle prison well. There’s a term for that: benevolent sexism!
@ shapman
Was there no cross examination on the evidence? The usual position is that the parties give their evidence in chief (often by way of written statements); then if that is disputed the opposition challenges them on that.
So if your wife/partner had denied you were the primary caregiver your lawyer could ask her “Isn’t it the case that Mr Shapman is actually the one who stays home with the kids?” Similarly if she disputed your evidence then you would be questioned. If you weren’t questioned then you’re lawyer would have been perfectly entitled to say “It is not disputed that Mr Shapman is the primary caregiver…”
And if the judge found in contravention of the unchallenged evidence you’d have instant grounds for appeal.
Andy, answer what he asked, not what your feelings are on the family court systems. If you want to know why you’re viewed with suspicion, this is why; this and your whole tendency to paint all feminists in a very general way while implying yourself to be different than other MRA’s that shitpost here on a regular basis.
@WWTH:
There’s a rules-free subforum on a gaming website I still visit and I’ve taken to mostly just mocking the gamerbros there. Turns out being snarky really upsets them, too. Shocker.
It really is remarkable to me just how similar all of their mangry anti-SJW rants sound, though.
Funny thing about this, though, is that I present myself in much the same manner when I’m tackling aforementioned gamerbros, and for some reason the different context in which I’m being such an awful dastardly man-hating SJW has led to me getting misgendered as a woman.
‘Cause everyone knows that Real Gamer Guys TM wouldn’t ever take a pro-feminist stance. Or something.
It’s the woman only train cars in Japan all over again. The woman only cars were a response to the epidemic of men groping women in trains, but of course it wasn’t the women being assaulted on the way to work who were the victims, it was the poor men who don’t get their own subway cars. Waaah!
Why is it that these stereotypes belong in the 50s? Which group of people of it that fought to change the assumption that men are breadwinners, women do the cooking, cleaning and child rearing?
I know there was a social justice movement dedicated to changing these gender roles. I just can’t think of what it was called. Help a poor little befuddled lady brain out?
@Scildfreja
That’s what I got too, but I also don’t know Swedish, and thought that it might be a machine translation error. I don’t know why I bothered giving him the benefit of the doubt on his claims to familiarity with various Scandinavian languages, none of these clowns ever actually demonstrates whatever expertise they claim.
@Dali
You take that back! He’s a 329 year old engineer and he CREATS THE JIBS!
the point is lost apparently that judges in Family Court (at least in Canada) make the assumption that mothers are always the primary care-giver before even reading the disclosure. Regardless of what comes after there is a bias which exists. Judges are not robots. Bias is not undone by disclosure.
yes, but apparently when those stereotypes benefit women they are just fine thank you. Is that what you are saying?
I am down with the Urban Dictionary’s definition of the patriarchy (and by the way I am still waiting for my cheque). Good night!
Patriarchy
The bogeyman that feminists blame for women’s problems or under-achievements because their big-girl pants apparently don’t fit.
However Seeing as women are free to pursue any career they want, own any property they wish, attend any college they desire, are owning businesses and running corporations, actively involved in political power, engineering and science, are protected from discrimination by law and are openly praised for all this to cloying degree… We are NOT living in one and have not been for some time.
It is rumored that every man secretly receives a patriarchy check in the mail each month. Feminist scholars are still trying to confirm this.
Misogynistic stereotypes don’t benefit women. So no, that’s not what I’m saying. Care to try again?
Which social justice movement was the one responsible for challenging the notion that men must always be the breadwinner and women must always be the homemaker.
Please do tell me. What happened post 1950s that started to smash rigid gender roles?
Like I said, benevolent sexism. Can we ban this bozo now?
Yes. Urban Dictionary. The ultimate academic source
Since all this could be said of men as well, if you are using this to argue that patriarchy doesn’t exist and women aren’t marginalized, then you can’t argue that men are in any way marginalized either.
I mean, the “technically discrimination is illegal” argument is about as shallow and over simplified as it gets, but if you want to use it, it has to be applied to every demographic. It’s not legal to discriminate by gender, therefore men are not discriminated against in family court. Problem solved!
@ Scildfreja
For gods sake stop being so anal and precious, have a laugh, roll with the punches. Ou “va avec’ Si vous etes Francaise…Si non c’est met egal.
This is a classic example of what Im talking about, the desperate desire to be offended by everything. To avoid dealing with anything of substance. The “offenderatti” the victim Olympics, “you are not using one of the 50 made up pronouns that trans demand”, etc.
This is my primary evidence that the Marxist feminist/ SJW crowd have run out of causes, and are desperately inventing them. Mansplaining, manspreading, sexist air conditioning, Microaggressions etc.
Its also my contention that western white women are the most privileged group of people in the whole of history. Not the most oppressed as they claim, and is actually the cause of their narcissistic self obsession and paranoia. to anyone outside the group it all sounds laughable and it would be if it wasn’t using considerable resources needed for people who have real problems. For example a Qld police unit set up to deal with an epidemic of drink spiking after outrage by feminists in media….After a 1 yr period police admitted they hadn’t found even 1 case of a drug being used tospike a drink…same result with the massive sex slave trade…only found a small group of Asian prostitutes working illegally on their own passports.
Yes I believe that research was in a news item that I saw….Yes I love that song too…I wrote Svenska Kvinna but couldn’t find it anywhere so changed it back…Breton are Iberian people…Celts/Gauls are northern Germanic…Hence the term celtiberi for most british and French..the Fresian Engels gave their name to England and the Danish got their name sasson from the Bretons, who in turn got their name welsh (foreigners) from the danes. And that’s all she wrote.