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 Google manifesto guy was murdered for his opinion? Interesting. I hadn’t heard that. By who? Feminists? Google? The Knights Templar?
@Alan Robertshaw
Jacob Mortimer Rothschild was a steadfast supporter of the civil rights movement and racial equality. As a rabbi, he spread ideals of peace and unity to his Atlanta congregation,
despite hostile public responses. Rothschild described Martin Luther King as a ‘‘spokesman who—like a prophet of ancient Israel—had fearlessly confronted the society of his day with its failures; had sought to rouse men to a vision of their own nobility,’’ and who ‘‘has earned his place as the moral leader of our social revolution’’ (Rothschild, 20 November 1963).
Are you sure he was one THAT Rorhschild family Even if he was, every rule has an exception.
The only “rule” at issue here is in your original statement that civil rights activists never asked for the banks to fund them. All of this dancing around whether they got money or whether their funders technically counted as bankers is a series of red herrings, distracting from your original, incorrect, blindingly stupid and uneducated statement.
You know, it’s totally easy to come up with things to call you when you are those things. You’re duplicitous, you attempt to gaslight, and those traits make you a shitbag.
@ Scild
Putaine et Autre chose et maintenant…….also they are not coherent sentences
Also seems only sinister has a sense of humour and got that I was joking….if it gets you off I’ll stay off for a week starting now..no tomorrow….Week. maybe. We’ll see.
@Jerry Donohue
“I-it was just a joke guis i swear”
@John Devalle
Try all you want jackass you’re not going to be able to make people forget your original premise.
Yup.
He also paid for the dinner to celebrate MLK’s Nobel Prize. And as that involved nearly 1,500 people it’s probably safe to assume he wasn’t short of a bob or two personally.
@ Scild
But doesn’t that contradict the work done in 60’s at Caltech with the discovery of the SDN (sexually dimorphic nucleus) were they found they could alter rat sex specific behaviour by changing hormones in gestation and physically change the SDN in their brains, since replicated in Humans in Holland………I’m confused please femsplain it to lilold me.
Hello Scildfreja.
I’m 63 so I’ll try to act adult. Firstly I accept that Sanders as president could not bring about over night change. The whole establishment, including much of his own party, would do all they could to frustrate him. Corbyn will find that if he becomes PM here in Britain. But they are a force for change, which the likes of Clinton aren’t. At best she’d not make things worse, and that would only delay the coming of Trump or his equivalent.
In the UK Corbyn has already caused some change, which will hopefully gather momentum. The media attack on him may be worse than that on Clinton in the US, because everybody, and I mean everybody, in the British media, including the left leaning bits, sought to undermine him. Yet labour, under Corbyn’s leadership, gained a lot in June’s election. Far from being crushed, Labour got it’s biggest vote since 2001, and though it lost, its vote almost equalled the conservatives, denying them a majority in Parliament. That ended the Conservatives stated intention of cutting welfare even further to the most vulnerable. In the election of 2010 labour was still led by the Blairites, and a conservative liberal alliance took office, and began the cruellest government you can imagine. Blairite labour figures tried to compete with the conservatives hate campaign, saying the country’s problem were caused by immigrants, welfare scrounging, to much spending on public services etc. Jeremy Corbyn challenged that, and he’s made an impact. So, in 2010 I did vote labour, but with no enthusiasm, they were a bit better, or not as bad would be a better way to put it, as the conservatives. When Jeremy became party leader I voted labour with a song in my heart. As I would have, were I American, for Bernie. Or Elisabeth Warren.
There must be a sale of movable goalposts somewhere, as much as the tag team of John/Jerry are using them.
@Jerry
Perhaps it does contradict that work, perhaps not. Doesn’t matter much, as new science contradicts old things every day. Science marches on. That’s how it works so well to understand the world.
@Jerry I did what now? Honestly no. I think maybe you THINK you were joking. Like you really do. But you were doing that kind of joke where you actually believe it. Ah yeah no. Some opinions should NOT be expressed at work. If I express the opinion that half my patrons are idiots who have no business even looking at a degree, I would be fired. On the spot. No question. No Freeze Peach to save me. Why should the “opinion” that half my co-workers are biologically inferior and incompetent be protected. It is a toxic opinion that destroys any semblance of a co-operative workplace and my only complaint there is that it took them so long.
@john. Your approval fills me with shame. As Schild said in her eloquent and concise voice that I still hope to steal one day like Ursula the sea witch, change is a slow process. Bernie would have been limited in what he was able to accomplish much like Hilary would have been. I think both of them would have been net-positives on our lives even if I think one more then the other. Now in 2016 election, there were only 2 choices. You either voted for the winner or you voted for the runner up, and unless you actually voted for the runner up, you voted for the winner. Voting for anyone other then Hillary in the general election was a vote for Trump and I would much rather do what Bernie actually did then what many Bernie bros wanted to do. He leveraged his support to push Hillary leftwards. This is generally how American politics work. So while it is very nice that you know so much about European politics and their systems you need to remember, most of them have Pluralistic systems. America does not. In most of those countries populist parties rise because someone can vote for Lord Bucket-head and if enough people do this then a party can form and can gain strength and influence. In America you either win the election, or you lose. No middle ground.
Not that I think facts or argument or pretty much anything will persuade either of you. Still I seem to be your designated “One of the Good Ones” you can pretend to engage while you ignore everyone else who is obliterating your position so, might as well try.
Edit: Also CRAP Happy Birthday Dr EJ I have no idea what huckleberry cream ale is but it sounds delicious! May your birthday be filled with exactly the right amount of frostings and burgers.
A vote for Sanders = a vote for Trump, so WWTH’s assessment of you way the fuck back too many pages ago as a fascist enabler is, again, shown by your own words to be accurate.
@John Devalle
Any vote not for Hillary was taking votes. By voting for Bernie and Warren you are crippling the chances of success for the main candidate and therefore providing benefits to the fascists in power.
@js
Isnt that what the Catholic church told Galileo…Trust me science moves backwards when ideologues get involved.
Jerry, is the RCC still hold those views today? No? Then you have no fucking point other than to try and foist your own ideology onto others in the most dishonest, non-sequiter way possible.
Get to your fucking point, because right now it appears you’re just playing pigeon chess.
I think the goalposts are on roller skates at this point.
Happy Birthday Dr. EJ!
John can’t even legally vote in US elections, so this is the usual straw man moving goal posts argument again.
@Alan I enjoy the idea that Lord Buckethead can get enough votes to be stood up next to the more likely candidates for election. It’d be much more interesting if the candidates that received any reasonable number of votes for Representative or Senator (which I think is equivalent to what “Lord Buckethead” was standing for) got invited to have the number of votes read off.
This whole “conceding the election” stuff we have in the States has so much less impact than having serious politicians standing next to people from the “Monster Raving Loony” party as vote counts are read.
@Alan
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?
Though I’ve mentioned the connection between Clinton and the banks, it could be going off topic for this forum to delve deeper into the crimes of banks. So, briefly, banks are the threat to the economy and the living standards of most. There was the crash of 2008, when bakers walked away with their fortunes, and the rest of us are still paying the bill for the mess they caused. Then there’s miss-selling of mortgage based derivatives, PPI, CPPI, interest rate swaps, libor and forex fiddling, deliberately denying compensation to those who’d been misold financial services, helping billionaires dodge tax, providing a banking service to drug gangs and people traders, or slavers to put it accurately, and more.
One example of the results. Greece is suffering terribly under austerity imposed by the European Union. People are dying there. The problem came from Greek governments borrowing more than the country could repay. In 2004 Goldman Sachs, for a fat fee, implemented a scheme to hide Greek debt, so it could keep borrowing, till 2009 when it eventually ran out of the funds to repay its debts. At the time GS implemented the scheme to hide Greek debt the CEO of GS Europe was Mario Draghi. He’s now head of the EU central bank. Naturally he hasn’t been sacked, and obviously there’s no police investigation. Equally obviously he’s handed over tax payers cash, in the hundreds of billions at time, to his mates in the banks.
I hate bankers. And I mean hate! And I hate those who take their gold!
Updating myself on this thread was like watching the iocane powder scene in The Princess Bride, except the trolls are far less intelligent than Vizzini.
What the fuck, y’all?
Darn bakers, darn you 45 Degree Bakery Cafe & your delectable Taro buns. On a more serious note are you for real, did you not just see the posts where Trump kept hiring more and more people of those groups “b-but Hillary would have done worse” tough shit the one in power deserves to have the most criticism.
@isidore13
At least Vizzini was sticking to one script.
@Alan Robertshaw
Yup
You sure? I did a search and couldn’t any relationship between him and the banking family. .
@POM
A vote for Sanders = a vote for Trump,
It does?
@John Devalle
Hmmm voting for someone who isn’t the popularly elected candidate and taking away votes from the Democratic Candidate reduces the amount of votes Trump needs to win? Whodathunk it