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.
From “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”: Community Activism and The Black Panther Party, 1966-1971, Ryan J. Kirkby:
Then you have no point, Devalle.
@POM
You’re just flat-out wrong. Economic civil rights were definitely demanded because access to the financial system is fucking important. WTF are you on about, you ignorant dipshit?
Really? Bankers funded the black rights movement in the sixties? You’d best tell the world, as nobody else knows this.
@John
Re: Bankers…
http://bfy.tw/DH3E
HTH. HAND!
Come on, it took less than a minute to look that up.
😀
Alan, we can always trust you for the most crushing slapdowns
tee hee
EDIT: Wasn’t it John that was telling us a few pages back that he wasn’t going to be providing any sources because we should just google it? Or was that Jerry? They all blur together.
(in saying this i have provided him an escape clause. Let’s see if he can find it!)
@John Devalle
One minute later…
@Alan Robertshaw
Emptyquoting for emphasis. Now would be a good time for John to not start using antisemetic dogwhistles. After all he wouldn’t want to be mislabeled as an antisemitism or something. That’d be quite rude.
If you directed that post at myself Alan, the fund raising you refer to isn’t the same as being paid a six figure fee to give a speech to Goldman Sachs. Bankers don’t give you money for nothing, and that they gave, and continue to give so generously to St Hilary (amongst other politicians) tells you where her loyalties lie.
So Hillary does-a-thing to get money from the bankers, so she’s horribly corrupt and evil.
But the Panthers don’t do-a-thing to get money from the bankers, so they’re totally fine.
Whyyyyyyyy?
What’s the importance of making a token gesture towards the money-giver?
@John Devalle
Yeah and we all know Trump is very virtuous as the one under scrutiny.
http://www.salon.com/2017/03/16/the-wall-street-white-house-trump-hires-fifth-goldman-sachs-staffer-to-the-administration/
Not really sure what you’re trying to accomplish here. Because if it’s to dazzle the readers with your knowledge and reasoning, you may want to reconsider your game plan. So please, continue one Jerry’s whitesplaining, let’s go for a bingo.
Did John bother to ask any black Americans what they thought about Hillary vs. Bernie? Or is he just happily whitesplaining on the matter?
Oh, look.
http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/
Hillary Clinton won 75.9% of the black vote in the primary.
So apparently the fee was paid for the speech. I mean, you said it. Right there. *Points up*
(That creaking sound you hear is the sound of goalposts being shifted from “anyone receiving money from bankers is corrupt” to “Hillary has a pattern of collaborating with the wealthy at the expense of the poor.”)
http://i.imgur.com/yR6tJJR.png
You do like moving those goalposts, don’t you Mr. Devalle?
Uh, John, sweetie, polls showing that Bernie is currently the most popular politician in the US have nothing to do with Bernie’s popularity during the election last year, nor do they have anything to do with how many Bernie supporters would actually turn out to the polls had he won the primary.
You’ll have to adjust for inflation yourself.
Obviously the Panthers weren’t exactly a popular cause amongst more conservative elements like banking. Quite a few banks did hand over cash though. Not necessarily entirely voluntarily 😀
Hey, sometimes when the odds are against you, you have to adapt, improvise and overcome.
Dammit John. Again you are not helping. Anyone who looks at Hillary (Establishment Moderate Hawkish Pro-Business Politician) and Trump (Populist Fascist Incompetent Kleptocrat Foreign-Asset) and sees the same person or even close to the same person has no business making political observations. No amount of buttery-males or paid speeches will bridge that gap.
Thank you JS. If you look here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Power_movement
you’ll see there’s no mention of bankers giving money to black rights activists.
EDIT: Seriously John? “Wikipedia doesn’t have that information, therefore it MUST be false!”
Apparently Wikipedia is the only source of information at AssFax U.
I can’t remember why I got to watch it as a kid. I think it’s because my mom is into vampires and such. I recently read The Vampire Lestat recently, and saw an opportunity to do a refresher on the movie.
I’m glad I rewatched it. Tom Cruise was such a damn good Lestat, all sneering and fulla himself, but still very internally terrified and putting on a brave face.
And Kirsten Dunst was a damn good Claudia. She really had no trouble pretending to be an adult woman trapped in a child’s body.
I think I’ll try to track down Queen of the Damned tonight and watch that.
Maybe, but if you look at stuff from my previous link, you’ll see that there is.
TIL that Wikipedia is the definitive, exhaustive source on social movements.
@John Devalle
Books are still a thing.
“The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”: Community Activism and The Black Panther Party, 1966-1971, Ryan J. Kirkby
Websites are still a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1954%E2%80%931968)
@Imperator Kahlo
But using wikipedia’s citations is haaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrdd.
You duplicitous gaslighting shitbag, that isn’t remotely what you said and what I challenged. Go back to school, you’re out of your league here.
@Scildfreja
So Hillary does-a-thing to get money from the bankers, so she’s horribly corrupt and evil.
But the Panthers don’t do-a-thing to get money from the bankers, so they’re totally fine.
I didn’t say somebody is ‘fine’ because they’ve had no money from bankers. The obvious point is that bankers give money to those who will put bankers interests first. If you have another theory as to why bankers fund a politician let us know of it.
While you haven’t suggested I’m a Trump supporter, to save making another post I’ll reply to those who have here. I’ve stated more than once that I loath Trump. He’s evil!
@John Devalle
Oh so you’re now turning your back on black civil rights activists and calling them servants of the bankers because they received funding from bankers and other well off people?