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.
First of all, rats are rats. Humans are humans. Rat brains and behaviors are not the same as human brains and behaviors. Even animals that are far more closely related to us, like chimps and gorillas have differing behaviors and brains to humans. Learn to science.
Second of all, neuroscience has grown by leaps and bounds since the 60s.
Third of all, none of this says anything about women’s ability to do science. So, what is your point?
This is so fucking stupid.
This is why I don’t care to entertain assholes who throw out ‘the banksters’ to defend their shit. Beyond the antisemitic dogwhistle nature of the whole thing, it’s just a diversion. Any discussion about the rights and struggles of LGBT+, PoC, women, immigrants, etc etc, both historically and under the current junta, will inevitably be undermined by someone going ‘buttery males’ or ‘Dioliberal Brando’ to recenter white dudes. In the end, it’s just a ‘White Leftist’TM shibboleth, and I’ve no time for it
Also relevant: Black Wall Street, Oklahoma. Disingenuous ass…
@PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
In just a few days we went from 1000 posts to nearly 1500 posts.
@weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
Yeah, almost like they’re trying to divert attention away from Trump and the other usual suspects.
I think John has stumbled into a time anomaly and is posting from Jan 2016. He doesn’t seem to have grasped that even the primary has happened yet.
Anyone but me noticing how neither of our concern trolls have called out Jerry’s posts yet?
John is pretending to be the king of progressivism and yet doesn’t seem to mind that Jerry has been spouting right wing nonsense for days now. Andy is pretending like he cares about society’s perception of men as inadequate child care providers, yet he explicitly defended Jerry and has refused to address Jerry’s stance on women being naturally inclined towards childcare.
It’s almost like they don’t have any principles other than disliking women.
@Jerry
Who are you trying to bullshit?
Humans without social consensus is not a thing.
Go have fun yelling fire in a crowded theater, you abstract is just that. An abstract that has to do with the government.
Take you chinese communist paranoia and go tell someone who cares. You haven’t had the courage to back up hyperbolic shit like that so why should I give you any consideration? Consensus also led to the American Native genocides and dead Iraqi children.
Do you think I think we’re the good guys? Or “them”? Or that I would even care how you define us and them beyond potential vulnerabilities?
You have had no substance and I no longer expect any from you. Your reputation. You did this.
@Brony, Social Justice Cenobite
Oh yeah let’s not forget the “chinese wife and korean neighbor having progressive” was just so offended at how his fictional wife was subjected to racist bullshit. Seriously, one thousand middle fingers are not enough for him the whitesplaining piece of tar. Just like Trump there’s just so much wrongness to unravel that sometimes it gets hard to keep track of it all.
@PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
Oh my stars we’re only 12 posts away from 1500, and it was mainly composed of two jack offs trying to drown people with misinformation and gaslighting.
Ooglyboggles,
Yeah, I remember Alan’s 1000 post banner; an additional 500 posts of self-aggrandizing circle-jerking with everyone shooting down their bullshit, and them skating over to the next deflection. So exausting.
WWTH, yep, that’s not been lost on me.
@Ooglyboggles
They just gotta try to use people they just can’t actually talk about, either accurately or at all. There are enough common to simplify and categorize despite the complexity.
Was that Jerry? What page? I get sucked in by some and keep learning about new stuff all the time.
@Brony, Social Justice Cenobite
Yeah that was Jerry on page 27 of this thread when people called him out on his model minority conservative shield talking point.
@John
Says: “it could be going off topic for this forum to delve deeper into the crimes of banks”.
Commences delving derper into theoretical crimes of banks.
@Jerry, How exactly does historical mistreatment of correct scientists, apply to your theory of scientists being wrong currently? Oh, that’s right… it doesn’t, and you’re moving the goalposts again.
I say “Science marches on”, and you bring in Galileo to prove my own point. In this metaphor, YOU are the Catholic Church, being dogmatic about earlier science.
Huh. In retrospect I used “good guys” unironically. There’s always a weak spot. It’s good to know. The damage from resistance to change and improvement is considerable. Certain people can only get ahead with allies and swarms.
@PeeVee
So, a fibbin’ Nazi sequence?
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants
http://i.imgur.com/2DHpmZK.png
Sorry not sorry.
Galileo as an example of how ignoring new research was bad, though.
That’s really odd. Odd to come up with that as a defense for new research contradicting old research. It’s almost conservative, somehow.
the fuck is this thread even I went away for a couple of days and it’s like +10 pages holy shit
I’m seconding the notion that anyone necroing this thread from now on will receive instant banhammer. I’ve counted at least three trolls in the last days, two of whom have been posting suspiciously close to each other, and none of them have had anything of substance to contribute, just a lot of self-important posturing.
I especially like that one thinks being bilingual makes him more eligible (or has any relevance) to the conversation at hand. Considering a whole lot of regulars on this very website are at least bilingual, it’s really not the impressive feat he seems to think it is*.
*And again, knowing more than one language doesn’t make you an expert on sociological issues, just like being in STEM doesn’t make you an expert on anything outside the STEM fields.
JS
The Galileo trial(s?) are really interesting from a legal nerd point of view. It’s completely correct to say he was convicted of heresy. But it’s a bit likes saying Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion. True, but there’s a fascinating tale behind all that.
Our scientific method fans may also be interested in the particulars of the offence. Essentially it was Galileo’s refusal to use the phrase ‘possunt salvari apparentia sensibilia‘ that kicked everything off.
Basically you could put forward scientific opinions (plenty of others, including the Jesuits, thought Copernicus was probably onto something) so long as you prefaced them with ‘not saying this is what’s actually going on, but this is what it looks like’.
@Scildfreja:
Erm, link noworky. “Latest book” looks like it should go somewhere, but is inert when clicked. (But I have Javascript disabled except if I need to edit, because leaving it enabled here seems to make pages on this site load over 10x slower and jump around by themselves for a while before “settling down”.)
@Anarchonist:
Or even an expert on other STEM fields. A biologist’s opinion on some matter geological might be likely to be a bit better informed than a lay person’s, but it won’t on average be close to as informed as a trained geologist’s, and vice versa, and so forth.
@Alan
Not personally insulting the Pope helped a lot too.
It’s definitely off-topic for you, since you keep coming back to this stinking fish to distract from the way that you made a factually incorrect, assfax statement that was based on nothing but your own assumptions, and which you tried to pass off as factual, and which you continue to not admit was wrong.
You are a child. Children don’t take responsibility for their actions – what separates children from adults is not their age, but their inability to admit when they fucked up. You claim to be 63, and maybe chronologically you are, but you are mentally a child. Keep on skating away from your glaring error. I will be here to keep zeroing back in on it.
@ dalillama
Oh yeah! Not exactly a diplomat was he?
It’s funny, Galileo was obviously a bright chap; but at times he didn’t half sound like one of those people you read on r/iamverysmart.
Come to think of it, he even took the “do your own research” approach with his critics when he told them to just look through a telescope.
@ dalillama
Oh yeah! Not exactly a diplomat was he?
It’s funny, Galileo was obviously a bright chap; but at times he didn’t half sound like one of those people you read on r/iamverysmart.
Come to think of it, he even took the “do your own research” approach with his critics when he told them to just look through a telescope.
I once briefly knew a well-parented six-year-old who would admit, unprompted, when he got something wrong. That little kid was farther on the road toward adulthood than John.
This dead horse I’m beating is important, because John wants to tar Clinton with a guilt-by-association brush, which already is not legit, but he uses as support for his position that the Good, Upstanding Civil Rights Activists never did something with the banks that Clinton has done. After all, if those Good, Upstanding People who faced great adversity refrained from asking for banker money, then by an illicit transition of very invalid logic, people who do not refrain must not be Good or Upstanding.
But it turns out that the Good, Upstanding Civil Rights Activists understood that economic justice is a required subset of justice, so even John’s illicit logic falls apart. When you can’t make an argument with valid logic, and you can’t even make it with invalid logic, maybe your argument is a special kind of shit.
John’s argument fails on multiple levels.
– Activists don’t do that — oops, but they do.
– And even if they didn’t, activists are apples and politicians running for public office, even allied ones, are oranges. Different jobs with different requirements and challenges.
– And even then, guess who that great economic reformer, FDR, carried water for earlier in his career? (citation: https://fdrlibrary.org/budget entitled “FDR: From Budget Balancer to Keynesian”) Now who in the 2016 election also said they’d evolved on some economic issues?
– And etc.
@ JS
Hey, that’s “Official” Monster Raving Loony Party. 🙂
The irony about the MRLP is that a load of their policies did end up becoming law.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/7-monster-raving-loony-party-5644717
But the rule here is that anyone can stand for election as an MP (equivalent of congressman). You have to put up a ‘deposit’ of £500. You get that back if you receive >= 5% of the votes cast in your constituency. The party that wins the most seats is invited to form a government and the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister. Although we have named parties, there’s no formal rules about how MPs might band together to form a party, but true coalition governments are rare here.
(Theoretically the leader doesn’t have to be an MP. In the past, members of the House of Lords have ended up as prime minister but they’ve usually renounced their peerage so they can sit in the House of Commons, as with Alec Douglas-Home in 1963. Some did stay in the Lords but the last time that happened was 1902.)
Forming a new party is obviously risky, especially as we have ‘first past the post’ elections; but there was serious talk of a new ‘purple coalition’ of ‘remain’ MPs from all parties post Brexit.