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.
The idea that these fuckwhizzles will come in here, act like shitheads, and then proceed to complain about the reception of their shitheadedness is fucking ludicrous.
“I just came in here to shit on your carpet, and I just noticed that it’s a horrific shade of eggshell! How very dare you! You know I like burgundy! Wait, why are you upset? I just came in here to shit on your carpet! Why can’t you be civil and set out a cheese platter for me?! You’re so rude!”
Aww. I’ve always wanted to be a wizard.
Lest Jerry thinks stereotype threat is something only lady brains are vulnerable to, that study he claims to have seen about women being better at changing diapers could be explained by it too.
See, diaper changing is a pretty simple task. Anyone able bodied should be able to do it no problem. But boys and men are inundated with stereotypes about child care being woman’s work and men being incompetent at basic household and child care tasks. These messages could very well harm men’s ability to do these tasks.
Wow did not know this was all going on back in the past like this. This thread is wonderful. It’s perfect. It’s like a fantasy epic. We have heroes, villains, warriors, trolls, necromancers and even little folk who disappear and turn invisible when they feel threatened. Tolkien eat your heart out.
My favorite part seems to be the very odd choices the MRA’s seem to be making of accusing Schild of being dumb, lecturing Kupo on women in STEM, arguing law with Alan, trying to shame WWTH into not being snarky and trying to lecture John on french.
I look forward to their future tactics of misquoting Pratchett at Parasol, accusing Francesca of white supremacy and accusing David of insufficient love for tiny kittens. It’s been a real ride.
“Top maths course”?
The hell’s that supposed to be when it’s at home? Ain’t it cute how whenever these amateurs try to STEMlord over people they inevitably faceplant because of their incompetence.
Oooh, now I’m eager to see how these trolls will make a hash of Pratchett. Pardon me while I stick my smallest finger in my ear. Tch-tch-tch.
@ peevee
Jerry appears to have just quoted from this article by Christina Hoff Summers.
http://www.aei.org/publication/why-cant-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man-3/
As only one counter example would be needed to disprove the “No women…” claim, here’s one:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maud_Lavin
There are obviously others but this woman writes about queer theory and cosplay, so I thought she’d fit in here.
Also she’s said she won’t be donating any more money to Harvard so long as the Dean keeps saying “Women can’t do math”.
Which thinking about it is probably more relevant to the discussion at hand than the cosplay thing.
I was looking after the two-year-old daughter of a friend when she and my wife were out for the day. Shortly after lunch, she pretty much re-enacted Bob Hoskins’ death scene in Brazil (although happily without the fatality stage at the end), something that necessitated not merely a nappy change but every stitch of clothing that she was wearing ending up in the washing machine and me having to run an emergency bath for her.
Did I break down in tears and ring for help? I did not, because I’d been bathing my own kids, washing their clothes and changing their nappies for years. But even if I’d had no experience at all, I reckon I could probably have worked it out, what with none of these tasks being remotely difficult. I daresay the package came with instructions if I’d needed them.
Alan,
Tsk. You provided sources. Bad form; that, along with the fact that you’re a lawyer, ensures that Jerry will not believe you.
@Alan:
Oh, so now we have it. So, then:
Isn’t “honors” just code for “huge fucking wank circle” in American?
But I mean, is it the hardest thing ever or is it boot camp? These two things are rather different.
So it’s near a 60 point full time course with teacher support of 18 points? No wonder people find it hard. But I bet the lecturers love it, it’s wanking for cash money.
I
loveit when people talk about difficult math courses without understanding basic logic.And “Advanced Calculus and Linear Algebra” as the toughest math course at Harvard? Try “Engineering Electromagnetics”, the class average on the first exam was around 17 out of 100. “Fundamentals of Linear Differential Equations”, or even “Probability and Sadistics” are difficult for some. There were women in each of these, and from what I could tell, they all did just fine.
“Logic, Sets, and Recursion” Jerry, try passing that.
What’s a 3-manifold? Don’t google it, any real mathematician should know what that is without having to look it up.
Great typo
Not a typo, most of us called it that. 🙂
@ JS
On Land Rovers it’s this bit. Can I do that maths course now? 🙂
On a (tenuously) related note, this used to be the Queen’s Head Inn; the pub that belonged to the Harvard family (It’s just opposite Borough Market in London).
eheeheeheeheehee
Holy noodle, you guys. This thread is now diamonds.
Those “Boot camp” courses are super hard, I’ll grant you. I took one – for calculus in fact! Not Harvard’s, but let’s be honest here, it’s not like the concepts of Calculus and LinAlg vary from school to school. Crammed the whole sorry mess into six weeks.
But they aren’t a test of intelligence. They’re a test of wealth.
Know who can take those courses? People who don’t have to work while they go to school; people who have family support and the ability to focus on one thing and one thing only for an extended period of time. People who have their meals made for them when they get home.
People who don’t have the support needed to focus purely on that one task don’t succeed in those courses. That’s all they are. Status conference devices for rich people. It’s not like someone who passes that course has a better understanding of Calculus to someone who took the material in a normal course, after all. They don’t learn ultra calculus or something. It’s a status symbol for people to point at and go “ooh, look at how important that person is!” And that’s all.
Please answer this one please answer this one please answer this one please answer this one please answer this one please answer this one
@WWTH, noooohohohohooooo
I read more stufffffff
This one drives me right up the wall. Our culture pushes “Girls are Dumb” as a heckin’ trope, a thing that girls should aspire to. They sell tee-shirts for women to brag about how they’re no good at math! And then the STEMlords wander in and yawn with their eyes rolling about how girls just can’t compete. Our society teaches girls that they should not be good at math, you jerks! Of course they’re gonna have a harder time with it when they’re pushing back against a society’s worth of social pressure, on top of the social pressure that nerdy folks get already!
I don’t like the Dunning-Kruger Effect as a structure for explaining mis-estimation error, but boy howdy is it appropriate.
Then he said
aahahahahahahahaha!
-gasp-
aaaahahahahahahahaa!
hee! Oh my gosh. Dood. Dood.
Every. Single. Major. Study. in support of feminist theory uses data sets with samples in excess of one hundred thousand. They typically draw off of government census data, FBI census data, and major demographic data. Their methodologies are simple, robust, and identical to those used to support non-contentious claims. And then the MRAdjacents disregard them because of that fact!
Like, the wage gap data. It’s pulled from government surveys, by and large, with a few independent studies in the tens of thousands of sample sizes – really big, robust, well-made data sets. It discusses – and destroys – the threats to their conclusion that the MRA doods repeat ad infinitum. Because these guys don’t read the studies, they cook up a reason to disregard it instead – inevitably coming up with a reason that’s knocked over in the study write-up.
Meanwhile, all of the biotruths and that’s just genetics studies? Almost entirely n<100 studies of university undergrads with no threat controls, poor methodologies, and shaky conclusions. But it's in a heckin' science magazine 'cause it's contentious, so jackoff STEMlords who think doin' science == reading Science Webiste Weekly get sold on the idea that they know the truth.
Makes me cry and laugh at the same time.
Hey, Jerry, how’s that 3-manifold doin’?
Relevant to Jerry’s bullshit:
https://mobile.twitter.com/jimalkhalili/status/894108370784878592
This pattern of ignoring and rejecting all factual, empirical studies is pervasive among right-wingers. Climate change denial being another obvious instance.
The nature of the right wing is to live and act as if the world were the way they want it to be, not as it is; and then to blame the left/women/gays/furriners/whoever when it deviates from their expectations in any way.
Mr Futrelle wrote an open letter to Cassie Jaye. Well I’ve written a letter to him.
Hi David,
To begin, there’s an irony in your derision for Cassie when your site is devoted to opposing Trump and the ‘angry white males’ you believe him to be the champion of. Cassie, a multi-award winning documentary maker, has made films tackling controversial subjects, one being same sex marriage, which isn’t a subject Mr Trump will approve of, as he wants the support of the Christian right. Concerning Trump, he’s part of a phenomenon across the western world, that of the rise of the alternative politician. Some, like Sanders, Corbyn in the UK, Syriza in Greece, and others mean well. Some, like Trump, are not so well intentioned, but the popularity of all of them is that so many of us, myself included, have concluded that the political establishment is corrupt. Not a particular political party, but the political class, who are in league with equally corrupt chiefs of big business. Trumps opponent in the presidential election, Hilary Clinton, is a classic example. She’s a sumptuously rewarded hireling of the finance and energy industries. Her version of gender equality is that she has no problem with the richest 1% looting the country and driving down the living standards of the masses as long as the 1% is 50% female. Including herself of course.
Trump is not the problem, but a symptom of it. If the establishment hadn’t become so corrupt he wouldn’t have stood a chance of becoming president.
To turn to The Red Pill. You remind Cassie that she stated she wanted no funding from organisations with a ‘biased agenda’. You more than imply that it was, but provide no evidence, other than the boasts of a few people you have contempt for. But you trust them to be truthful in this case. You pint out that one such person had raised only “a paltry amount,” but nevertheless insist RP was funded overwhelmingly by MRA’S. Why? You’d have done better to have examined the agenda of those who’ve funded Cassie in the past but refused any funding for RP unless they had editorial input. Like any worthwhile film maker she refused. Had they done so there would probably have been no funding from any MRA’s. Would that have made the film better in your opinion? You must be aware that those who donate cash play no part in the making of the film, unless they’re interviewed. Cassie chose who to interview, what to ask, and she edited the film. You haven’t seen it, but are sure your judgement of the film is correct. Your refusal to be interviewed by Cassie is cowardice.
You maintain MRA’s are extremists. No doubt some are, so are some feminists. I don’t assume every feminist has extreme views.
One last point. Who are the greatest oppressors of the rights of women? Saudi Arabia and the other royal states of the Arabian gulf. Who gives those tyrants the weaponry to stay in power? We, the western world, do. Western democracies, ‘enlightened’ governments, led by ‘freedom loving’ people, like Blair, Hollande, Merkel, and others, including Hilary Clinton, who you voted for. I’ve heard that when she was Secretary of State more bombs were dropped from drones on Pakistan than in Bush’s terms of office. I haven’t checked, but it’s believable. Our leaders, including those who call themselves feminists, supply weapons to murderous tyrants in quantity. If a country in what we once called the third world isn’t subservient to us, we seek to undermine its government, drop bombs on the people, and, if practical, invade, We slaughter on a grand scale, and those who feminists urge us to vote for are as guilty as any other. Clinton may be better than Trump, but not by much!
OK here are specifics. [NOTE FROM DF: personally identifying info removed; if anyone wants the info about the cases in question email me and I can ask Jerry if it is ok to send the info to you; I won’t send the info to anyone I don’t already know from the comments here] Yes I could be making this up but why would I bother, seriously.
I got the maths thing off a youtube…and knew I would get the lame old “women need a role model or cant do maths because someone ruined the confidence” crap…lame even by feminist standards.
Grahame’s (above) young blonde daughter has a better maths brain than me and has passed highest marks in accountancy degree but I am talking on aggregate and the top elite.
“Define feminist scientist” OK the Israeli working in neuroscience (even though not qualified in that area) with an all female feminist team doing brain scans to prove that brain sex differences don’t exist. Quote ” because its dangerous to believe in brain sex differences” In other word she had a bias/pre agenda going in. You can watch her utubes (ted talks) or google press articles. Baron Cohens work would be an example of objective science.
So you are all having a lend of me on the French thing, I am the only person here who actually grew up in France. I wondered why not one person actually corrected my grammar or posted in French…had me head scratching…Bravo!
Oh look, they’ve both come back at the same time. What a coincidence!
So we have John spouting tired old Berniebro bullshit and hand waving away the rise of fascism in the US and Europe as “alternative.” And Jerry spouting some BS about YouTube and proving my point that he’s disagreeing with research based on the perception that it’s feminist rather than actually delivering a critique of the methodology.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/bbb1.gif
Good thing I’m still riding high on my Game of Thrones buzz or that would’ve put me to sleep.
@Jerry
Revealing personal information of anyone other than yourself here is against Comment Policy. Revealing your own personal information is not required either. I don’t think anyone asked you for that information.
What’s a 3-manifold? You can just give a basic definition, any mathematician ought to have a good idea of what it is without having to google it.
@John
Please let me know if I’m wrong, but you seem to think that Dave should interview with Cassie Jaye? I can’t really tell with all the random things you put in that letter, but that is your main request, right?
John,
Send him an email. I think it is pretty obvious by now that you are simply looking for attention.
Also, paragraph breaks. Holy crap.
Jerry,
Nobody cares about your self-aggrandizing tap dance. Really. Continuing to do this will earn you more mocking, because that’s what this goddamned blog is about.
You really have to understand 3-manifold if you are to really understand the universe of STEM, otherwise you’re just an inert chunk of randomly assembled molecules drifting wherever the universe blows you. Oh, I’m sorry, Jerry, I didn’t see you there, how much of that did you hear?
@John
This, right here, is why no one wants to debate you. You think that you can make claims without checking the facts or providing evidence. You say you want an open debate, but you don’t seem to understand how debates work.