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
Ace
Ace
9 years ago

@luzbelitx yeah, I guess I was going off the assumption that the intern specifically said that she was triggered. Either way, the way she was treated shows exactly why most people don’t let others know (if they can help it) that something did trigger them.

phasma
9 years ago

Just for the sake of completeness, in supplement to Bina’s overarching point here’s Jaye’s answer to someone I suppose regular readers might recognise as someone quite frequently featured here, regarding the title of her movie, coming from hers Twitter feed, which currently resemble a who-is-who for reactionary shit, initially stirred by GamerGate. Also, her reddit account, for a quick overview and summuray of her AMA responses*.

Miss Andry
9 years ago

She actually tried to post a comment in this thread under her real name. Something to the effect of “delicious feminist tears.”

She’s been posing as a feminist? She’s a complete and utter fraud.

Miss Andry
9 years ago

Oops, guess I shouldn’t type out these responses with so little sleep. Misread that. It was Andrea who tried commenting, not Cassie. At any rate, I’m still thinking she’s a phony feminist nonetheless.

Kat
Kat
9 years ago

IMO, the odds are about 50/50 that her intern cried. Because Cassie Jaye knows that the MRM will eat that stuff up. So maybe she’s throwing them a bone to make them feel powerful.

Either way, ick.

Kat
Kat
9 years ago

@Iris Scanner

Yes, it does appear that Cassie Jaye’s crime was taking MRAs seriously. When she was planning on a hit piece as you describe, she had support from feminists. But when she wanted to take them seriously?

Not allowed.

Crime?

Who’s talking about a crime? You, that’s who. No feminists are talking about a crime. We’re talking about a film.

Not allowed?

Who’s not allowing whom to do what now? Do you know the difference between criticism and censorship?

You do. You just pretend you don’t.

The making of this film will proceed without any interference from feminists.

Kat
Kat
9 years ago

@Iris Scanner

She may have simply discovered that MRAs are people. Which is a radical notion in some circles.

What circles? What circles?

It’s cruel to keep us in suspense.

katz
katz
9 years ago

Pandapool: Oh yes, that cartoon was amazing. Why is the “diversity quotas” head a white dude? They can’t even acknowledge that minorities exist when they’re talking about them!

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
9 years ago

@katz

That confused me too. I took a cursory glance at his websites and, well, lot’s of white people pretty much.

Iris Scanner
Iris Scanner
9 years ago

Kat,

With regard to the “people” thing, I think Bina answered that question best:

Nobody’s denying they’re people. We’re just saying they’re shitty, rotten, good-for-nothing people.

You know, the kind of nuanced point of view one wants from a documentary filmmaker tackling a complex issue.

(And, no, of course I didn’t mean Jaye actually committed a crime, or that anyone is saying she did. By “crime” I meant “the offense that made David and other feminists decide to stay away from her.” That crime was apparently gaining a more nuanced perspective about MRAs after meeting several of them in person and talking with them at length. Not allowed. Shunning required.)

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
9 years ago

OH MY GOD

http://bubonickitten.tumblr.com/post/132134379323/autismgender-acetylhydrolase

also yes, this is 100% serious and milo himself commissioned it from garrison which makes it 4000x more pathetic and masturbatory tbh

IF THIS IS TRUE

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
9 years ago

Hydras have either seven or 2^n heads, depending upon whom you ask. That one has six. Dumbass Garrison needs to do it properly.

katz
katz
9 years ago

Dumbass Garrison probably couldn’t think of a seventh scaaaaaaaaary SJW thing. I mean, “wage gap myth” got an entire head to itself, like that’s one of the six most important things he has to worry about.

And *of course* he commissioned it for himself. Because of course he did. Who the hell else would consider him important enough to draw a cartoon of?

painteyelash
painteyelash
9 years ago

@Iris Scanner

I’m not sure what your point is here. Do you not understand that it is weird for her to apparently change her mind when meeting them in person? What she (and you, I guess) is saying is that one can’t understand what the true MRAs are like and what they think before meeting them in person. That one will be in some sort of confused state when reading their own material and their tactics until you have a chance to meet them. How bad at communicating a point can MRAs be that it takes a film to REALLY understand them?! Are you kidding me. There are years, yes years worth of material to judge them by, but if one does not think highly of them it is because of feminist or media bias. Then, maybe, MRAs should ask themselves if they are portraying themselves in a way other people would see as a real concern for men or not. This is not a conspiracy. Journalists actually read their material. Just because they don’t agree with the whole Red Pill does not mean MRAs are victims of the media. They have chosen a specific language on their websites. Especially Paul Elam. They knew it would have consequences. What did they think would happen? It’s their own fault. Suck it up.

painteyelash
painteyelash
9 years ago

“a more nuanced perspective about MRAs”…

Again, people are judging them by their own words and actions. What “unnuanced” perspective are you talking about exactly?

Paradoxical Intention
9 years ago

Iris Scanner | October 29, 2015 at 1:18 am
(And, no, of course I didn’t mean Jaye actually committed a crime, or that anyone is saying she did. By “crime” I meant “the offense that made David and other feminists decide to stay away from her.” That crime was apparently gaining a more nuanced perspective about MRAs after meeting several of them in person and talking with them at length. Not allowed. Shunning required.)

If you’d read the article instead of imagining what the article must have said, you’d read this bit from David where he points out that she’s taken money from the people she’s supposed to be making this film on. This documentary about MRAs is now funded by MRAs, specifically the anti-feminist, openly woman-hating kind.

David also mentions that she, a self-proclaimed feminist, is now pandering to them, and brings up a specific interview with Yiannopolous where she has the gall to complain that she triggered her intern (if that actually happened and isn’t an exaggerated strawman of “triggered behavior” that internet assholes love so much).

Which means David (or us for that matter) didn’t “shun” Jaye, nor does it mean she’s committed some sort of heinous “offense” in our eyes, we’re just not trusting her to make a not-biased film because she’s getting money from and pandering to the MRAs, and either that’s going to taint her bias because they were “nice” enough to donate to her, and she’ll be ripped apart because she didn’t do a good enough job for Elam and Company, or she’s going to feel pressured to put them in a positive light and not show any negatives because they’ll rip her apart if she says anything remotely negative, and we’ve seen them do this before to a journalist, Jeff Shartlet.

Shartlet was sent to an AVfM convention, where he was going to document what he saw. AVfM saw this as a great idea at first, and boasted that they were going to get their message out to the world, and everything was going to be awesome. Then Shartlet posted his article, and it wasn’t flattering. They tore into him over it, calling him all sorts of things, insisting he was a pedophile, that he hired a woman, who was sexually harassed at the convention by one of AVfM’s “activists”, Sage Gerard, to be “rape bait” at the convention.

Either way, Jaye doesn’t stand to gain in this situation, and it’s going to be awful for her either way, and we’re not looking forward to the fallout.

TL;DR: Learn to read instead of imagining what other people are saying, Felipe. You’ll get further in life.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
9 years ago

Actually, I think I’m being unfair to Garrison. There doesn’t seem to be anywhere on the picture that a seventh head could easily go, so I’m happy to chalk this one up to artistic license.

Kat
Kat
9 years ago

@Iris Scanner

(And, no, of course I didn’t mean Jaye actually committed a crime, or that anyone is saying she did. By “crime” I meant “the offense that made David and other feminists decide to stay away from her.” That crime was apparently gaining a more nuanced perspective about MRAs after meeting several of them in person and talking with them at length. Not allowed. Shunning required.)

Let me get this straight: David tells himself that he is “not allowed” to grant an interview to Cassie Jaye. “Shunning required,” he reminds himself.

I’m sure that usually when you demand that two people meet for an interview, they comply.

But David is an independent sort. He meets with whom he wants to meet. And in this case, he feels that he’s been played by Cassie Jaye, so he’s not going to meet with her.

I understand that you find this behavior unreasonable and unseemly. Maybe if you keep repeating that David is “shunning” Cassie Jaye, he’ll come around.

Bonne chance!

mindphuk
mindphuk
9 years ago

It’s funny how the only point to criticize to Cassie is, that she made Paul feeling victorous, and that this salt triggers you to spill out that many words in an article, that basically says nothing but “great, you made him feel victorious”. And all that before the subject of complains, the film, was even released.

If you really have nothing more to complain about, this will be an easy run for MRAs, because they have plenty points to bring up against the likes of your kind.

ryohji
ryohji
9 years ago

Looks like Iris is back… and still as blind and lazy as ever.

Cyberwulf
Cyberwulf
9 years ago

Mindphuk – you mean the same easily disproven “facts” they spout over and over instead of doing something to actually benefit homeless men, suicidal men, men suffering from cancer of their reproductive systems, and male victims of sexual abuse?

262
262
9 years ago

Assuming money will influence the outcome of the movie, why not donate to influence it?

sn0rkmaiden
9 years ago

Back to Judgybitch for a moment, she’s now grifting for extra funds for her Milo GoFundMe, by suggesting that Cassie’s kickstarter might be sabotaged by evil SJWs making fake pledges:

http://judgybitch.com/2015/10/28/cassie-jaye-is-funded-now-lets-deal-with-the-troll-pledges/

Apparently lots of people ‘don’t want this film to get made’. Yup, nothing like a straw enemy to rally the troops and get more dollars rolling in.

Personally I can’t wait for this film to get released, it’ll be The Sarkeesian Effect all over again. Though to be fair, I’ll bet Cassie Jaye knows where all the keyboard shortcuts are.

sn0rkmaiden
9 years ago

Oops, I forgot to copy paste a donotlink, please don’t click on my link above, go to this one:

http://www.donotlink.com/h6f0

1 3 4 5 6 7 78