The story of Cassie Jaye and her Red Pill documentary gets curiouser and curiouser. In an interview with Tracy Clark-Flory of Vocativ she admits that she’s actually a bit scared of the MRAs whose cause she now seems to be championing.
As Clark-Flory puts it:
It turns out Jaye understands fear of MRAs. “I luckily moved recently,” she said toward the end of our nearly three-hour-long conversation, explaining that some of the men she interviewed had her home address. “I was really glad to move.”
Indeed, Jaye told Clark-Flory that during the course of her interviews one of her subjects evidently became smitten with her, and, in classic MRA style, treated her to numerous late-night phone calls of an apparently amorous nature.
On nearly a dozen occasions, she received calls in the middle of the night from one of her MRA subjects. (There were multiple emails, too.) Jaye implied that her repeat caller had on the mind what one might charitably call romance … .
She acknowledges to Clark-Flory that with her film “kind of being funded by men’s rights advocates,” she worries a little bit about what they might do if her final product is not to their liking.
“I think any bad seeds would probably want to see the film first before taking me down,” she said with a laugh. What if they do see the film and view it as unfavorable, though? “I guess I could go into hiding,” Jaye said.
But she apparently isn’t too worried that her new MRA fans and financial backers won’t like her film.
“Do I want to have any kind of allegiance to them to make sure I’m not harmed in the end?” She paused, the question lingering, and then explained that her video diaries show her reacting negatively to the MRAs, but that those clips were part of her early “evolution” on the subject. “I think that protects me from people wanting to attack what I said then,” she said.
The implication seemingly being that the position she ultimately came to would not make MRAs angry with her. “I think it’ll be OK,” she said.
You can read the full piece here, and I really suggest that you do. Because WTF.
In related news, the Red Pill lawyer and juice salesman who apparently bought himself an Associate Producer credit for The Red Pill with a $10,000 donation is bragging that he “cuckolded” Seth Rogan … on Twitter. By which I mean not that he’s boasting about this on Twitter, but that he thinks he actually did the cuckolding on Twitter.
What about relationships where one partner might as well be from a Hollywood romance and the other partner cheats? You can’t fault Faithful Partner for not being able to read Cheating Asshole Partner’s mind. Humans aren’t psychic.
This paragraph is just gross, ignores everything we know in favour of “Autosoma must be in the wrong because I said so,” and can generally fuck right off. No, I’m not going to mince my words; it’s victim blaming right to the victim’s face.
A lot of good supportive advice from everyone. I’d like to thsnk you all. J was all at sixes and sevens last night, and as many of you know this isn’t the first time it’s happened.
well twelve hours of “thinking / not thinking” has got me to the point where. I’m going to say thank you again, thank you all for letting me talk and being honest with me.
Hi
Just to chip in about the children thing. Matters have really moved on in the court system. Bit tied up but some bullet points that no doubt others with experience can chip in on.
There’s now no such thing as “custody”
Courts can only make an order relating to children if there’s no alternative to not making one (i.e.orders are now a last resort rather than a standard thing)
Orders can only relate to residence and contact or prohibited steps
They don’t have to be specific. The most common order is for “reasonable contact”. They prefer the parents to sort that out themselves and discourage a dogmatic clock watching approach
Courts won’t interfere where bright kids ” vote with their feet” unless there’s an impact on the child’s welfare
In child cases, whilst parents have some procedural rights (e.g to be heard in court) they have no substantive rights. Only the children do. The welfare of the child is paramount so courts don’t take into account the conduct of the parents unless it directly impacts on the child.(so if someone is a terrible and violents pouse but is safe with the kids that won’t be a factor the court takes into account. Courts will not refuse contact with kids to punish bad behaviour. Parents will be expected to cooperate in relation to the kid’s even if they’re at war with each other.)
Glad you’re feeling a bit more settled, autosoma.
And a big Thank You to orion. I meant to say something about mrs a’s family but somehow omitted to. The fact that she has serious issues and the way auto describes what happens when she rings them pushed all my Captain Awkward buttons. I might like them if I met them, but that’s irrelevant, (my great-aunt had friends and she was poisonous within the family). What matters is what kind of parents were they as they raised her and have they found a way to support-encourage-backstop her and her family now regardless of the good, bad or indifferent job they did back then.
I suspect not, but then, as I said, my Captain Awkward antennae are quivering and I might be reading too much into what autosoma said.
Ugh this is disgusting. Have you seen the men who make up the Manosphere? Ouch, my eyes! Not that being stalked by a looker makes it any less of a crime. But Cassie’s very pretty and those slugs should stay in their lane. Hell, they’ve got Karen Straughn and Judgy Bitch to ring up ’round midnight and yap with until the wee hours.
Cassie might some day seriously regret her ever having met any of them. It sounds like she’s already beginning to.
@Orion thank you. My husband had a drug and alcohol problem and his perceptions were often incorrect. Objectively incorrect. @mrex, saying someone has a right to their perceptions is completely meaningless, and is of no help when they’re banging on your door in the middle of the night, certain you’ve done something you absolutely haven’t because their substance-addled brain has confused you with someone else. (I had moved out at this point… we were apart for about 2 years, until he got clean.)
@autosoma all the hugs. I’ve been there, albeit without children involved, and what I had to learn (and it was a difficult lesson, but worth it) was what some others have already said here: you can’t change her behaviour, only your own and how you look after your own well-being (and that of your children). Are you able to get counselling at all for you and your kids, to help you with coping skills and setting loving boundaries, that sort of thing?
@Virtually
Seriously? Cut it out.
“Depression will give you a hell of a “perception problem.” In some ways, depression *is* a “perception problem.””
Yep. He said it.
OK. This thread has been the opposite of uplifting for various reasons.
Happy, happy, joy, joy. The world’s richest handicap race, the Melbourne Cup, was yesterday won by an outsider, a horse ridden by a woman jockey. The first time ever.
Pure serendipity dictated that she was wearing Green, White and Violet colours — suffragettes forever!!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-03/michelle-payne-rides-prince-of-penzance-to-melbourne-cup-win/6908594
@orion “Mrex has given you some really useful advice, and the charity of their perspective is admirable, but there are some parts that gave me serious pause. Given how hard on yourself you seem to be, I feel that I should try to take the edge off the parts that seemed overharsh.”
Fair enough. Autosoma *is* a great guy. But IMO he *is* wrong in some ways, as human nature is to make mistakes. Which may be harsh, but IMO is a *much* more empowering place to be, because it gives him the power to change and effect the whole situation, regardless of whether or not he can change *her*. IMO sitting on his thumbs because the other person is “the one at fault”, is the epitome of foolishness. Regardless of who’s at fault, he can honestly only focus on changing himself, changing *his* mistakes, and focusing on his *own*a happiness. This includes getting to a place where he accepts that making mistakes does not make him a jerk. I mean, how the fuck is he supposed to listen to her nondefensively and with a open mind if he thinks mistakes=OMG I SUCK!!!! I think he should love himself despite his mistakes, not because he’s made none.
But, everyone has their own view.
” I really don’t think destructive people are all that rare.”
To be clear, I said that evil people are rare, not that destructive people are rare. There’s a big difference in intent, and there’s a big difference in how one draws boundaries with a problematic yet well intended FIL, and an evil FIL who’s sole motivation is ruining his SIL and not protecting his daughter . (That’s how Auto described him; evil, which even if 99% spouting off does reveal some deeper beliefs). Both scenarios are possible, but the latter is pretty rare.
Don’t you think that Auto’s wife knows Auto’s opinions of her father? Put yourself in her shoes. Boundaries with parents are needed for a relationship to thrive, but this is still her father. Again, put yourself in her shoes.
“Some people, drunk or not, persistently misunderstand the world around them. I don’t know what kind of “perception issues” are in play here, but there are plenty of people in the world who habitually see threat where there is none, insult where there is none, betrayal where there is none, and so on”
Well, I agree that there’s probably people that see betrayal where *you* see none, threat where *you* see none, and insult where *you* see none. Where I disagree is with the idea that *you* get to be the judge of what *they* do or don’t see, or that *they* get to be the judge of what *you* do or don’t see. Fuck that.
Let me ask you a question, look at this dress and tell me what colors you see.
[link]
Let me tell you what I see; a off-white and gold dress. When I first heard about dressgate I thought it was a big joke because I literally could not see the black no matter how hard I looked. What can be more basic than color perception in noncolorblind people, right? So I tried an experiment; I.asked one daughter what color the dress was with no explanation. She said it was black and blue. Ditto went for other daughter. Literally everyone else in my household sees blue and black.
Humans literally cannot deal in reality. They deal in their brain’s Interpretation of reality. The greatest strength, and the greatest challenge, of marriage is that you will be we’d to someone who will look at something and literally see something completely different than you.
“I should add — pervasive misperception can be caused by drugs (inc. alcohol), but more often it’s caused by the underlying problem that drives the drug abuse. Depression will give you a hell of a “perception problem.” In some ways, depression *is* a “perception problem.”
Humans, as a group, have perception issues. That’s why debates are so important. And that’s why friends so often give biased, shitty relationship advice in an attempt to protect their friends feelings.
I think you *really* need to step back and take stock of what you’re saying. Telling someone that they’re guaranteed wrong because of mental illness is textbook gaslighting. I was stuck in an abusive relationship because of my mental illness and other people’s gaslighting . My sister was as well, and although she legitimately suffers from psychosis and paranoia, it wasn’t her mental illness that sent her to the hospital beaten to a pulp. That was the day I learned to trust my instincts, and let other people trust theirs.
@SFHC “What about relationships where one partner might as well be from a Hollywood romance and the other partner cheats? You can’t fault Faithful Partner for not being able to read Cheating Asshole Partner’s mind. Humans aren’t psychic.”
Well Hollywood romance isn’t real outside of Hollywood, so you may have well asked me “what if aliens landed, who would be at fault then?” Regardless, it’s still very simple. Cheating partner would be 100% at fault for cheating. Perfect partner would be at fault for, according to you, believing that the only option for discussion is mind reading. What a stupid gotcha.
But really, the perfect partner/asshole partner only exists in Hollywood. There’s a reason why couples who survive divorce often refer to the affair as the best thing to happen to their marriage. Because there are no out of the box perfect partners .
“This paragraph is just gross, ignores everything we know in favour of “Autosoma must be in the wrong because I said so,” and can generally fuck right off. No, I’m not going to mince my words; it’s victim blaming right to the victim’s face.
There’s no need to mince your words sweetheart; I’m blunt and I can take bluntness back. What you don’t get to do is tell me what my intentions are. I’ve been (kinda) divorced with kids, I know the MO of how things go and how things reconcile. Divorce can be what’s best, but its never what’s ideal. You think my bluntness is abusive and gross, and I think asskissing when he needs straight talk is abusive and gross. You don’t get to tell me my intentions.
“@mrex, saying someone has a right to their perceptions is completely meaningless, and is of no help when they’re banging on your door in the middle of the night, certain you’ve done something you absolutely haven’t because their substance-addled brain has confused you with someone else. (I had moved out at this point… we were apart for about 2 years, until he got clean.”
Ok, people repeatedly seek to think that saying “you don’t get to tell them their reality” with “you have to agree with them”. To be clear, as I have repeatedly said, them having their perceptions *does not* mean that you give up yours.
In short, when your ex was banging on your door accusing you of something you didn’t do, did you;
1. Kindly but firmly assert your own reality that it wasn’t you? Good.
2. Agree with him? Unhealthy, yuck yuck boundaries, yuck yuck.
3. Imply, or outright tell him that he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about because he’s a drunk? Fuck you.
Hopefully this has cleared things up?
@mrex
On the dress… that analogy really doesn’t work. See, the dress got analyzed by a computer. It was blue and black, though the black was a very dark brown-gold in the light. (Since that’s how blacks are usually made, there not being very many pure black things.)
Reality is, no matter what one sees.
@mrex
Sorry, was writing while you responded. I think it’s more that you’re coming across as saying that all interpretations are equally valid than that you’re saying that people can’t tell other people what they think.
The part about the analogy saying the opposite of what you seemed to be going for still stands, though. >_<
“The part about the analogy saying the opposite of what you seemed to be going for still stands, though. >_<"
If the dress had to be analyzed by a computer to “prove” reality than my point about the human brain stands. The colors on the dress were an optical illusion because the picture was shitty and had a lot of visual noise. The differences in color perception were caused by different people’s brains making different choices about what wavelengths of “noise” to filter, based on the brains assumptions on the environment that the dress was in, whether it was in the light or the shade, etc. It’s a split second decision that the brain makes based on experiences with color it’s had in the past. The computer no doubt used some technical algorithm that the human brain doesn’t use. 😉
So, uh, what colors do YOU see? 🙂
If there was any doubt about Cassie Jaye’s integrity, this video makes it clear that she’s a piece of work. “Blogger David Futrelle has waged a misogynistic smear campaign against me. He has waged unfounded and baseless attacks against my character and reputation.” Etc. She actually accused him of lying about the CIFF award and defended it. o_O
Anyway, I’m bowing out of the advice-giving. I think I’ve more than made my point, and have crossed into pushiness.
@WWTH said something earlier about male mammals living shorter lives than female mammals. This is true, and is *one* reason vets suggest castrating males when young, as this extends their lives to that of females. The same goes for humans.
“This scenario predicts that removal of the testes (castration) might extend male lifespan. This possibility is supported by a study of mentally disabled men who had the misfortune to live in the USA in the early-mid 20th century, where sterilization of the “genetically unfit” was common as a result of policies initiated by the eugenics movement [36]. Analysis of mortality data from 297 castrated men, and 735 age-matched intact controls revealed a significant increase in lifespan in the former (70.7 vs. 64.7 yrs, p < 0.001) [37]. If only those castrated earlier in life were considered, the effect on lifespan was more profound: an increase in median lifespan of 11.6 years.
Although the Hamilton and Mestler study supports the idea of a life-shortening effect of possession of testes, it remained possible that such benefits of castration are peculiar to institutionalized mentally handicapped males. Notably, the life expectancy of intact control males was considerably lower than that of the general population [37]. Moreover, there is no clear relationship between testosterone levels and lifespan in intact men in retrospective studies; one of US veterans over the age of 40 found an association between low testosterone and increased all-cause mortality, even after adjustment e.g. for age, medical morbidity and BMI[38].
This issue has been explored further through studies of eunuchs (castrated men) who historically were a significant presence in a number of societies, from Yugoslavia to China [39,40]. Notable eunuchs in Western Europe included the castrato singers, who underwent prepubertal castration to retain in adulthood their prepubescent vocal range (e.g. soprano and mezzo-soprano). One study compared the lifespans of 50 Italian castratos with a set of intact male singers of the same period, and detected only a 1.2 year increase in mean lifespan in the castratos, that was not statistically significant (65.5±13.8 yrs vs. 64.3±14.1 yrs) [41]. However, the lack of statistical significant here could reflect the small sample size [42]. A further possibility is that some would-be castrates were in fact intact men whose voices had not broken at puberty.
This long-standing controversy appears to have been resolved by publication in 2012 of a study of eunuchs at the Imperial Court of the Chosun Dynasty in Korea [43]. There, eunuchs could attain high official ranks, and genealogical records of eunuchs exist that include birth and death dates. From such records of the period 1556-1861, 81 eunuchs were identified, with a mean lifespan of 70.0±1.76 years (range 27-109). This compared to mean lifespans of intact men of comparable social status ranging from 50.9-55.6 years, i.e. eunuchs lived 14.4-19.1 years longer than intact men. Moreover, three of the 81 eunuchs became centenarians, living to 100, 101 and 109 years, a frequency that is at least 130-times higher than in contemporary developed societies [43]. This new study confirms the conclusion of Hamilton and Mestler (1969), that the presence of testes markedly shortens lifespan. It is also consistent with the idea that the testes are a determinant of the gender gap in lifespan.b
I wonder how the hell MRAs can complain about the lifetime gap given that the cause is that men have testes, and women don’t? :/ That’s about as far from sedism as one can get.
mrex,
I’m sure MRAs are going to spin your post as “David Futrelle and his feminazi minions want to castrate all men!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
@autosoma – my best wishes and support. I hope you and your kids can find some stability and safe space and that your wife can recover.
@Virtually Out of Touch – maybe I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’re saying being “pretty” makes you a better person somehow, and that pretty people don’t deserve bad things, and that MRAs are all ugly… This just doesn’t make sense to me. Anyway, I don’t think Karen Straughan’s ugly – hell, if I didn’t know anything about Roosh V I’d find him pretty to look at too, but that doesn’t stop me from finding his words and actions utterly repulsive.
(Sorry if I’m being too touchy about an offhand comment.)
@Auntie – Ew.
@Auntie – I may mangle these quotes some, but:
“David Futrelle has launched a misogynistic attack against me.”
I’m a woman and he’s criticized me, therefore – MISOGYNY.
Also, I think that enough people who watch this are either inclined to agree with my assessment or won’t bother to look into what Futrelle’s written. Either way, this is some GREAT fuel for a Twitter war.
“Self-identified MRAs are in the minority of my backers […]”
This duck has waddled over and quackingly assured me that he is NOT a duck. I believe him.
“And even if they were MRAs, it would be moot because Kickstarter backers have no creative control.”
That’s why I’m scared of what one subset may do to me if they don’t like my movie.
“There are many events that take place in Cannes, France […]”
So, yes, I do pretend that the award given to my earlier work has actual merit.
—
Okiedokie, I only watched a clip or three and she’s adequately conveyed that David’s criticism was probably more spot on than my and others defense and/or benefit of the doubt.
At this point, we can just call her a feMRA, right? A feMRA of the opportunistic sellout variety rather than a true believer, but a feMRA nonetheless.
@SFHC – I mean *waves hand at video* damn.
At the very least, she’s an opportunist who’s done a remarkably good job of adopting MRA tactics and verbiage.
@Orion
Actually, people with depression tend to be more realistic in their perception of the world and themselves. It’s just that the world really is a shitty place, so the brain tends to delude itself that the world is less shitty than it is to make it possible for you to feel happy.
Also, depression isn’t caused by how we perceive things, even if it can have an effect on that, so please don’t talk like that. When people call depression a perception problem they’re basically telling me that if I just change how I think, all of the crippling pain I’m in that makes it difficult to do every single mundane task you take for granted every single day of your life will magically go away because I’m somehow willing myself to have this disease. It’s like saying a broken bone is a perception problem. You tend to not be chipper when in agony, regardless of the source.
The future Honeybadger says the 5 people who donated $10k are not MRAs. But we know that one of them is Juicebro fucking Cerno. That’s like saying “I promise I’m not a shoplifter! I’m just a thief!”
@Virtually
Could you maybe start taking some time to read through your comments and think carefully before clicking post comment? Or just take a time-out for a while? I’m one of those people who when they facepalm they actually facepalm, and I don’t wanna end up with a permanent handprint on my face. Thanks in advance.