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.
@kupo
Weeell I try my best :3
@Rhuu
As far as I know, most French people still write with accents. I mean, it’s often the wrong ones, because that shit is ridiculously complicated and nobody got time fer that, but we mostly try to still use them. Truth is, spelling mistakes often involve an é where that sound should actually be written ai or e without an accent (due to a rule about double consonants making accents redundant, for example) – so in the end we actually end up using more accents than necessary.
@John & Rhuu
I used to do correspondence work with Québécois customers and I almost never ran into any of them leaving off the accents. That was over a decade ago though, so it might have changed. Then there’s the issue of needing to look up the alt codes if you don’t have them memorized and are using a QWERTY keyboard, but anyone who writes in French regularly on QWERTY has at least the main ones memorized (I still have a few of them memorized over a decade later!).
@Sinkable John: I had a teacher consistently write my first name with an accent when I was a kid, I get the extra accents thing haha. In their defense, my first and last name are both pretty french, so I get the confusion. 9__9
Thanks so much for explaining!
Missed the edit window, but thanks to Kupo also for replying! I learned one of the alt codes, ‘é’, so I could type my lead’s name with the accent that was in it. 🙂
I don’t know any others though! Except this one: Þ which I liked to use for this face :Þ for a fun tongue sticking out one.
It’s more fun in a serif font, because then it has cheeks too.
I’m fond of adding accents to words that don’t need them. For example : remarquable is a pretty boring word when left alone, while remarquâble has that delightful snobbish intonation.
Butchering language to make it more fun is my guilty pleasure.
we are söul mates
@Scildfreja
(So… You may or may not owe me a new keyboard and a sip of herbal tea.)
Since I apparently didn’t grow up in France, can I… err… can I… have grown up ? Yeah let’s try that, can I have grown up in Canada too ?
You can have grown up in Canada if you like! Also, yes, that’s how it is said! Also also, yes, it’s stupid and English speakers get that tense wrong all the time. So don’t sweat that one, it ain’t so big a deal, ’cause it’s all understandable. Also acceptable would be:
can I have grown up
can I have growed up
can I has growed up
can I growed up
(note, pedants will complain about those in the written form, but in spoken form, no one’ll bat an eye.)
@WWTH
So we have John spouting tired old Berniebro bullshit and hand waving away the rise of fascism in the US and Europe as “alternative.”
Bernie’s a fascist? You’re mistaken. He’s not.
@Sinkable John: These should help you pass as Canadian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhiDILWFXBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-glHAzXi_M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRI-A3vakVg
Though you gotta get that Canadian raising thing goin’ on too.
Oh look here’s a video on it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5YJnKy1yq8
(And it’s much closer to ‘Tarana’ than ‘toh-ron-toh’, but that’s more a local thing. U__U)
It was my best guess, but this is definitely why I love sentences that don’t make sense : they can challenge the structure of language in the weirdest and most fantastical ways.
Weird grammar is another one of my guilty pleasures. French is perfect for that, because it has all of those holes. For example, the verb “to die” is very awkward to use in some past tenses in the first person – I can’t imagine why that is.
@PeeVee
Send him an email.
Tried. The link didn’t work.
@Rhuu
Sorry, didn’t see it before the edit window closed 😮
I’m gonna take a look at these asap (now’s not the best time for videos) – plus I’ve seriously considered moving to Canada a few times before, so, y’know.
@John Devalle
Sorry, where in the quote do you see anyone saying Bernie’s a fascist ? We were just talking grammar, you might wanna join the conversation, you seem like you could learn a few things.
OH RIGHT there is like, so much swearing in the second song. So NSFW, sorry! The F word is like every other word. WHOOPS (still a great song)
@Sinkable John: This is all from an anglophone perspective, I’ve never lived in Quebec or a majority French area so that’s all I can give.
I still need to go to Quebec for some for realsies poutine. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Bernie? No.
Berniebros? Some.
Once again confusing the existential with the universal.
John is once again failing to see any of the other points people have been making while John flails around with a ‘new’ strawman.
What do you mean by, “The link didn’t work.”? What happened when you clicked on it?
@JS, John D.
I tried the link just now and it’s working fine. Are you in IE? That tends to try to open mailto: links using outlook, whether or not you have outlook set up. IE sucks. Don’t use it.
Just hover over the email link and look in the bottom-left corner. You’ll be able to see the email address there. It’s an easy one to remember. Just type that into your email client and you’re set. Or use Chrome. Or FireFox. You know, a good browser.
BTW, when I informed David of the personal info in Jerry’s post, I also let him know about your open letter. He didn’t say anything about it. I’m guessing he doesn’t care. Poor John D.
No, fuckwit. Yeah, I’m calling you a name. Because you most likely misinterpreted my comment on purpose.
But Berniebros are pretty prone to being more concerned with the feelings and priorities of fascists than you are with the feelings and concern of their targets.
This is exemplified by your blather about how Trump voters are “ordinary Americans” and we should coddle their feelings. Around here, we’re pretty tired of Berniebros who are pretending to be more leftist than thou but are happy to throw Americans who aren’t cishet white Christian able bodied and male under the bus and identify with Trump and his racist ass supporters.
@Rhuu
Heh, I’m reminded of lumberjack rap. I guess France isn’t all that different from Canada.
Also I totally agree on zed, not zee.
Hey, has everyone noticed that the Berniebros have a new target? Kamala Harris used to be an acceptable progressive. Now she’s getting buzz as a possible presidential candidate and surprise, surprise they’ve turned on her. Isn’t it just so convenient that their targeted insufficiently progressive and pure Democrat always happens to be a woman. Yet they’ll get so mad if you point that out.
They’re so mad that the rest of us refuse to acknowledge the white male’s rightful place as leader of the left.
Language weirdness.
Does anyone have any minor but pervasive language issues? I have an odd one that I’ve always wondered about. I have to consciously make sure that I get Left and Right correct, as well as East and West.
http://i.imgur.com/DqCFcQE.jpg
For all your Straw Man Fascist needs.
@Sinkable John: omg omg omg!! *clicks* I’ll have to find the lyrics somewhere and see how much I can get.
Also there’s this song that I’m sure you’ve heard, but on the off chance you haven’t:
@Brony: Left and Right are my baaaane. If I’m really tired I’ll get east and west confused, but some how never north and south.
I’ve got a birthmark on my left hand that let me cheat in school in the whole ‘learn your left from your right’ so I blame part of my problem on my laziness.
BUT NOW I AM FUTURE SPIKE!!!!
I have to remind myself how to pronounce the word ‘chasm’, (kasm, apparently) and… Lychee! I never remember that one! Lie-chee? Lee-chee? People have told me!
@Alan
I was finally able to process. Sorry about that. I’ve developed a sensitivity to what I let myself think about when an online conflict is involved. It’s a habit I’ve fallen into over the years when it comes to mental hygiene and arguments. Other things include stuff like periods of time and sleep between writing first responses and going back later to think about what I wrote and read.
I’m not familiar with the OODA loop specifically but that’s a good example of society creating something around something that can more comfortably be considered a human universal. So I’m not surprised to see brain science literature and things like that fall on similar numbers. Little things like that are what I tend to unconsciously include and incorporate as I study brain science. If journals, history and pop-culture see it that’s a keeper in terms of everyday functional use. An assumption that can comfortably include everyone. At worst one has to implicitly assume that the object [object recognition at 0.2 seconds] includes other variables as we learn about object recognition.
If it takes 0.3 seconds for the detection to become appropriate response than 0.2 seconds will exceeded the other persons ability to respond.
The fun part is where the implications go when I think about it. If you are initiating a response every 0.2 seconds you are engaging in what is essentially unconscious repetitive action. You are letting your immediate moment impulses run the task as your concentration is, well now that is even more interesting to me. There is probably a difference between concentrating on the task and the other thing. Any impressions?
Hicks law seems consistent with what I read. One is presented with x number of objects = choices that take an amount of time to think about. That’s recognizing each choice, being able to properly appreciate each choice and think about each choice (lots of mental work over time, a process), rank the choices from best to worst and then choosing. I’m going to have to think about what goes into being able to recognize a choice.
My problem is that reading about consciousness makes everything interesting.
If you read the compass cross like standard english, starting at the top, it spells “NWES”. Just remember that the compass is misspelled news, but not fake, that might help.
N
W E
S