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.
Loathing Trump does not automatically make you a wonderful person. Glenn Beck doesn’t like Trump any more. I still don’t like his policy ideas.
Why are we even talking about bankers funding anything? Didn’t you want David to interview Cassie? Or was that someone else?
Happy Birthday, dr. ej!
Favourite bit from Lake Placid (that isn’t Betty White swearing)
https://youtu.be/7DnDgxL6NW0
The Internet never forgets, and it especially doesn’t forget what was only one page ago:
They absolutely did. They demanded that bankers fund them. Whether or not they actually got any money is beside the point in this instance, although they did, in fact, get money from some banker sources. You stated that they never asked for this, and they did ask for this because that’s the basis of economic justice. The civil rights movement of the 60s and 70s wasn’t run by fools who just overlooked that type of justice. They were fucking on top of it.
Maybe you’re not on top of it because you’re a privileged, undereducated mediocre man who thinks that your balls turn your assfax into real facts?
Birthday update! I decided to treat myself to a gourmet burger (topped with chili, a fried egg, and an onion ring) for dinner and I’m pairing it with a huckleberry cream ale. Birthday dinners are awesome!
John Devalle, you have shown yourself to be one of the most intellectually dishonest debaters this site has seen in a while.
Would you accept the Rothchilds as examples of bankers?
(Jacob delivered one of the eulogies at MLK’s funeral.)
@dr. ej
That sounds delicious, have a wonderful birthday, it sounds tantalizingly scrumptious.
http://files.ctctcdn.com/084c9679001/bc751811-ce4a-46dd-a511-2ffdaa6eed4f.jpg
Alan, regarding your post of 7.09, there is a difference between raising funds for an organisation, and, as Clinton, and others, have done, which is raise funds from bankers to enrich yourself. How much do you trust GS, JP Morgan, HSBC, Merrill Lynch, RBS and others to be acting in the interests of the community?
Birthday egg! good on you Dr. ej! Birthday egg is best egg.
John, i’d love to actually, you know, talk about this with you. Have a discussion about how capitalism is eroding and destroying our countries with rampant corruption up and down the political spectrum. It’s a great conversation, and an important one.
I just don’t think you’re gonna actually be able to. You say you loathe Trump, and that he’s evil – and we agree on that. I’ll even agree that I’m deeply uncomfortable with how hawkish Hillary can be, and how her relationship with the banks compromises her.
It’s that point that sticks, though. It compromises her. Doesn’t invalidate her. There’s a difference.
Rich people spend money on politicians in order to put their concerns into the politician’s mind. It forces the politician to juggle ideology and pragmatic requirements-for-funds. It’s erosive.
But those politicians still have flexibility and leverage. They’ve just got an onerous balance to make – a devil’s bargain. So too would a President Sanders. He wouldn’t have fixed it. Change is slow and incremental. The actual bang of victory takes twenty-to-two-hundred years of pressure. Ask any POC or LGBT person and that’s what they’ll say.
But you demonize Hillary for this compromising position she’s in, and in so doing hand your country to a man who’s not compromised – he’s the compromiser. He’s the corruptor.
Hillary makes money talking to Wall Street? Trump literally owes Russian and American banks undisclosed fortunes.
Hillary’s crooked? Trump refuses to allow anyone to see his tax returns at all.
Hillary’s warlike? Trump’s threatening North Korea with hellfire and the biggest war the world has ever seen, right fucking now.
Hillary’s laboured under thirty years of Fox News and right wing smear campaigns. It’s maybe kinda sorta possible that she’s not as bad as she seems to you, huh?
Go ahead and reply, let’s see if you can adult.
Keep moving those goalposts. I’m going to move them straight back. You were flat wrong in your statement and all of your weaseling sideways doesn’t change that. You can’t gaslight me on the internet, asshole.
It would appear that John Devalle cannot admit being incorrect any more than Jerry Donahue can.
Look! More intellectual dishonesty! Don’t face the points we’ve talked about, move the goalposts again.
So, now we’re talking about whether we “trust” banks act in the interests of the community. Hint: They do, every day, by giving people loans to do things they want to do. And we don’t trust them, that’s why there’s the FDIC and other regulatory agencies. As Reagan said, “Trust, but verify”.
Enough already, stick to whatever point you’re actually trying to make.
It must be so difficult for John Devalle to deal with so many people who just won’t put up with disinformation tactics.
@Brony
The Chinese cultural revolution was done with societal consensus, when you have a brainwashed population the consensus can go horribly wrong…Plus its the zealots fighting for good who act first, be they Marxist Isis or whoever.
The only consequence of free speech should be more free speech, if you disagree with someone debate them, don’t kill them. (its not free if you pay the highest price).
If this guy was a declared member of the KKK and spouted race hate, around black colleagues. No one would have a problem. But to say that on aggregate males and females take different life/career paths is a legitimate opinion…. Its sexist for example to say that men and women have different external genitalia, but its also a fact, so were do you draw the line.
@Hippo…No Im quite serious, I would not accept a feminist being sacked for her opinion….Has anyone found an example yet? They seem to be the ones exclusively doing the sackings.
@Chief….No he went against their ideological position…their dogma.
@sinister….You cant get a much more hostile work environment than people living in fear of expressing an opinion in case they get sacked.
HUH Jerry is back. What a coinkydink.
@Sinister Pigeon
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.
That’s a fair point, but as I’ve mentioned before it’s the fact that the political establishment has been interested only in its own interests that gave Trump the opportunity. Same thing has happened in Europe, and the newly popular politicians are not all evil, though some are. For a political surprise that equals Trumps triumph, look at Italy, There, 5 Star, a party started by a comedian, got over a fifth of the vote in the last election. They now lead in the polls, so could be the next government. There is a calculated process where the rich elite are engaged in wealth redistribution, from average people to the rich. 5 Star are fighting back, and they terrify the establishment. As do Podemos in Spain and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Corbyn has been as much attacked by the old guard, Tony Blair and co, as by the conservatives. It’s no surprise, for Blair and his mates in the labour party governed for the rich, and have been richly rewarded by them since they left office. In the US Clinton is as much a part of this as anyone, and even she’d become president the lot of the average American would still have deteriorated. And the threat of Trump, or someone like him, would not have gone away.
And thank you for replying in a reasonable manner. That’s rare here.
@Brony
The Chinese cultural revolution was done with societal consensus, when you have a brainwashed population the consensus can go horribly wrong…Plus its the zealots fighting for good who act first, be they Marxist Isis or whoever.
The only consequence of free speech should be more free speech, if you disagree with someone debate them, don’t kill them. (its not free if you pay the highest price).
If this guy was a declared member of the KKK and spouted race hate, around black colleagues. No one would have a problem. But to say that on aggregate males and females take different life/career paths is a legitimate opinion…. Its sexist for example to say that men and women have different external genitalia, but its also a fact, so were do you draw the line.
@Hippo…No Im quite serious, I would not accept a feminist being sacked for her opinion….Has anyone found an example yet? They seem to be the ones exclusively doing the sackings.
@Chief….No he went against their ideological position…their dogma.
@sinister….You cant get a much more hostile work environment than people living in fear of expressing an opinion in case they get sacked. When you cant reject someone elses ideology, then we are in trouble.
@ John
Sorry, I was reminiscing about real burgers, what did you say? Oh, right…
I actually spend a fair bit (certainly more than I’d want, it’s really boring) dealing with bankers. As Scildfreja says, it’s a big topic. There is a real discussion to be had. But are you really interested in that?
Anyway I think other people here have answered this much better than I could.
@POM
You duplicitous gaslighting shitbag,
That’s the most creative insult I’ve seen for a while. Did it take you long to think it up?
@Ooglboggles
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?
They didn’t.
Far less time than it took you to weasel and move the goalposts and hope that everyone forgot the thing you actually said that was completely incorrect.
@ Jerry
Yes! I wrote a frikkin novella on it two pages back.
Are you actually bothering to read any of the responses?
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/647_97_2101.html
@John Devalle
Ha ha, ha ha, refer back to Alan’s posts you disingenuous incorrect Mayfly. Seriously bouncing countries might work for proxies but not so much when you’re making an argument.
@John
Now it’s politics in Italy and Spain, or is it British political parties?
You definitely seem to have trouble making a point, John.
@Jerry
At work? Generally sexist yes, but mainly because you’re likely talking about genitalia with people who just want to get the job done. If you work making sex toys? It’s probably fine to mention that when designing a new one. If you’re designing a toilet? Important to handle both cases.
You seem to be using similar “debate” tactics to John. Keep moving things around, so when someone shows you’re wrong, you can just ask another question about something else. What are you really looking for here?