Categories
antifeminist women evil fat fatties gender policing harassment misogyny MRA red pill

Cassie Jaye launches devastating attack on things I didn’t say

In reality, I am not made of straw.
In reality, I am not made of straw.

“Red Pill” director Cassie Jaye has responded to what she calls my “slanderous claims” about her. You can find her video on the subject, and a transcript of it, on her Kickstarter page. (The posts that offended her can be found here, here and here.) It would be quite an effective takedown of me, if what she wrote were actually true.

I was going to write out a detailed response but instead let me give you the tl;dr version as it played out on Twitter last night:

ctw1

ctw2

ctw3

ctw4

After her video went up, a small squad of her supporters headed here to share their lovely opinions with me. Their comments went straight into the trash, but, what the heck, I thought I’d fish out a couple of them to share with you all now.

jjrockmale gravatar.com/jjrockmale jjrockmale@gmx.com Submitted on 2015/11/03 at 11:16 pm Hey you boobsie. I know you will delete this. But I know your pathetic bitch ass has watched Cassie J’s answer to you. Please, don’t try to choke on your chicken leg too much. Or do, don’t care. YOurs in ZFG, and go f yourself you pwoor oppweseed wittle feminist. Al Phamal youaretwit.com getbenttwit@fu.com Submitted on 2015/11/03 at 10:50 pm What a stunning intellect you must have to try so hard to silence dissent. You are the furthest thing from a man I have seen in quite some time.

I guess these are the heroes of truth and objectivity who are funding her documentary.

EDITED TO ADD:

But wait! There’s more! Jaye’s fans on Twitter also have some things to say.(Mildly NSFW.)

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

265 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Catalpa
Catalpa
4 years ago

But, no, you’re right, Cassie Jaye definitely has a more nuanced and unbiased view of the MRM as a result of meating the MRAs in person (and receiving a whole lot of money from them), than David does from maintaining a record of manosphere activities for FIVE YEARS.

Catalpa
Catalpa
4 years ago

*meeting the MRAs. Not meating. I’m not sure what meating an MRA would entail but I’m certain it woulld be unpleasant,

John Pavlich (@johnpavlich)

Dreamer:

Maybe MRA’s are capable of portraying decency when a camera is rolling.

Need I remind you of the “Blair Bitch Project” video and Elam’s subsequent response videos to his critics and even follow MRAs’? 🙂

John Pavlich (@johnpavlich)

*fellow. Oops.

dhag85
4 years ago

@Tim G

I read A Voice For Men quite often, including the comment section. I’ve never seen David misrepresent anything from there.

Look, if MRAs really have all these amazing arguments, why do they only reveal it in private, one-on-one conversations? Wouldn’t they be better off using those amazing arguments on their website too, instead of the crappy arguments that are there now?

Hyatt
Hyatt
4 years ago

if MRAs really have all these amazing arguments, why do they only reveal it in private, one-on-one conversations?

Because it’s easier for them to leave out the bile in private. They get to control what the other person sees more readily than online. In an in-person conversation, the other person can’t click on a related link that could lead them to seeing the nastiness.

dhag85
4 years ago

But the arguments are the same, was my point. Sure, a crappy argument paired with blatant racism is even worse. But a crappy argument on its own is still a crappy argument.

Hyatt
Hyatt
4 years ago

Hm. Well, in person, they can immediately see what the other’s responsive to and what they’re rejecting just by their body language, so they can further pick their arguments to only use the ones the interviewer finds persuasive.

dhag85
4 years ago

So, MRAs are really more like cold readers? 🙂

Kootiepatra
4 years ago

On the in-person-nuance thing—Most of the time, if you have two adults with a reasonable amount of social skills, an in-person meeting is going to be more polite than an over-the-internet point of contact. A combination of nervousness and empathy generally makes us be nicer to someone when we are staring them in the face, as opposed to railing at “whatever idiot is driving that car”, or “this politician I’ve never met,” or “this guy with the stupid user name”. Just about anyone can be on good behavior for a limited visit with someone they want to impress. Only a longer test of time reveals whether or not they are actually a poophead.

My mom had abusive parents. The other people in her neighborhood, her teachers, the PTA, etc., loved her parents and thought they had a great family. My mom and her siblings were the only ones who saw them in the day in and day out, as they verbally and mentally abused their children (and she would find out as an adult that one of them was secretly physically abused) behind closed doors. Nobody else could believe that such “nice people” could be cruel to their own kids. That didn’t change the fact that my mom’s parents were terrible.

I mean (apologies in advance for the Godwin), you can even find candid shots of Hitler where he’s playing with kids or animals, including a video clip where he’s sweet talking Eva Braun. If that’s all you saw of him, it might be tempting to go, “Aw, well, he actually seems kinda nice and non-murdery. Maybe he’s not as bad as people think…?” But the fact he had a friendly and personable side doesn’t change the fact that he was a genocidal dirtbag.

If Jaye had an interview or two with Paul Elam, and he was nice to her, and she went, “Wow, he’s not as bad as people think”—ignoring his own words on his own website; ignoring the gross behavior recorded in Sharlet’s article; ignoring the YouTube video where he proudly insults strangers by bringing up their sexual organs—it doesn’t matter how much of a perfect gentleman he was with Jaye, that doesn’t mitigate the toxic things he has done out loud, in public, numerous times over. If she can throw that all aside and conclude, “Actually, he’s not so bad!” then yeah, that is a ginormous problem. That’s not a matter of coming to a more nuanced conclusion; that’s a matter of being surprised to discover one’s opponent is a human being (which shouldn’t come as a surprise), as well as wrongly accepting one’s positive personal interaction as a concrete proof of someone’s character (and a documentary maker should be skeptical enough not to do that).

It’s fine to say, “I was surprised by how nice everyone was to me.” It raises about a gazillion red flags to say, “Because everyone was so nice to me, I began to reconsider my entire position.”

Unless your entire argument was, “Watch, these people are going to be mean to me,” the niceness (or lack thereof) of the interviewee is of no relevance.

dhag85
4 years ago

@Kootiepatra

Exactly. This idea that the only way to learn what an MRA really believes is sitting down with them in person is just wrong. In reality, a person who has only met Elam in private a few times but otherwise has no idea what he’s been saying would have much less information than someone who has been closely following for several years what Elam has been saying and doing. It’s mind-boggling how someone can basically say they don’t believe Elam is a raging asshole just because he managed to stay civil for 20 minutes while shooting an interview for a documentary.

Drezden
Drezden
4 years ago

Oh, you want to play teal deer? All right

Drezden:

Sorry to have offended you by assuming that you have not conducted multiple face-to-face interviews with MRAs. Have you?

Offend me? Please. I think it’s cute you believe you matter that much. I just find the blatant hypocrisy of you making assumptions about making assumptions laughable.

To answer your quest: yes, I speak to MRAs and assorted redpill dudes on a regular basis. The industry I work in is both very much a good ol’ boys club and extremely harsh on relationships. It is a veritable breeding ground for MRAs/Redpills. These are people I have to work with, so for the sake of work I do manage to play nice and have had plenty of exposure to MRA views. Sometimes, I can persuade them it’s not the way to go, other times I simply have to make to conscious effort to avoid them as much as possible.

Which brings me to the things said about me. When they think I’m listening, it’s that I’m too stupid or too sensitive, that I’m just trying to make people look bad. Behind my back, it gets much worse; I know of at least one threat of violence made against me.

So “perhaps” that is exactly what Cassie Jaye discovered? If WHTM focuses exclusively on the “privilege and anger” part, does that mean that Cassie Jaye must restrict her documentary to that same focus? She shouldn’t explore those potential “legitimate concerns”?

Nice red herring. Nobody has said she shouldn’t explore the legitimate concerns. Sadly, that isn’t really the stated focus of her documentary and Ms. Jaye picked the exact worst people to speak to if she wished to explore those concerns.

Seriously, do you know anything about the film? Because Ms. Jaye has given an example of the argument that shifted her views and it is neither a legit problem or particularly convincing. Even had it been, see my point 4.

Do you know that Cassie Jaye did not interview MRAs who do not reflexively blame women? If an MRA she was interviewing did blame women for a problem, do you know that Cassie Jaye did not challenge them on it?

Look, I’m not entirely certain about the non-existence of orbiting teapots, but that doesn’t mean I need to give equal probability to their existence. Maybe you could try using some of that vaunted manlogik on the situation. Have you seen the list of people she interviewed? I have, and I’ve seen their other work. The mathematical probability of them not blaming women is so low as to be statistically insignificant.

But,hey, let’s say that MS. Jaye did manage to find that mythical beast that both identifies as RedPill/MRA and doesn’t blame women for the problem. It still does not excuse the abhorrent behaviour of MRAs. Look, I know you guys like to co-opt the accomplishments of one man for the entire gender, but it simply does not work that way.

Do you know that Cassie Jaye did not confront the MRAs she interviewed with this common criticism of MRAs? Do you know that she did not find MRAs who actually do productive work to aid suffering men?

I’m detecting a pattern here. Are you perhaps a fishmonger?

Again, let me point you to the list of people she interviewed. I distinctly remember one of them saying that his organization wasn’t there to actually do any work.

Do you know that Cassie Jaye did not address the issue of whether MRAs are even necessary in her film? Do you know what answers she received?

Really? You want to keep this up? Why am I even bothering at this point?

Honestly, I don’t know that. Nor do I, despite actually having contributed to the kickstarter, particularly care. Asking an MRA whether their movement is necessary isn’t going to get an honest answer.

Do you know that Cassie Jaye does not address abhorrent behavior by MRAs in her film and confront her MRA interviewees with examples of that behavior?.

Another one?!

Ok, one last time. Addressing this behaviour, even confronting it, does not excuse it!

Regardless of what Cassie Jaye confronts or addresses in her film, if she comes out sympathetic to MRAs, then she is either ignoring or trivializing the mountains of evidence that these people are-what’s the polite way to put this- massive assholes who seek to push back equal rights in an effort to maintain privilege.

At best, she’s naive. You want more evidence? Look no further than when she describes the influx of backer following the Yianopolous article as champions of free speech or when she steadfastly claims few of her backers are MRAs when there is evidence to the contrary.

Go home, Tim. You’re neither funny or particularly good at this.

So long, and thanks for all the fish

Fnoicby
Fnoicby
4 years ago

@Judas Peckerwood, intersectionality is not new, THANK YOU for saying this. It’s something that drives me batshit as well. I often feel there’s an undercurrent of ageism in some feminist circles that like to deride second wavers.

On the naivete of Cassie Jaye, I’m of the opinion that this is people attempting to give her the benefit of the doubt in face of mouting evidence that she is playing us all. This is the best case scenario: she’s just naive.

Tim G
Tim G
4 years ago

Chiomara:

You mean unlike the fantasy-world investigation David has been doing for years?

Yes, to some degree I do mean that.

This GIF illustrates a small part of what is going on.

The world that Cassie Jaye investigated is different than the world that David Futrelle investigates. People in real life are different than people on the internet.

More important, the world that David constructs here on WHTM — a world where every MRA is essentially evil and every anti-MRA essentially good — is very different from the world that Cassie Jaye investigated.

One example: Cassie Jaye investigated a world in which MRAs both harass and are harassed. The second part of that reality is heavily obscured here on this blog.

A person who tried to use vile slander to destroy another person’s career and life — just for expressing his opinions on the internet — is portrayed on this blog first as a victim. The headline of David’s story, “Thunderf00t rebuts charges he commands a hate mob by unleashing a hate mob on a woman who made this charge,” greatly distorts Thunderfoot’s actual motivation and conceals the original wrongdoing that provoked him. The text of the article is in the same spirit, downplaying what was done to Thunderfoot (failing to mention important details such as letters to the police and newspapers) and focusing instead on the details of what Thunderfoot did to retaliate.

And of course that’s how David wrote the story. That’s what this blog is for. WHTM is like war reporting by Stars & Stripes. Wrongdoing committed by the U.S. doesn’t exactly get the focus in Stars & Stripes that it would in, say, an article by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. The goal is to advocate hard for one side of the story.

It is a very significant mistake to assume that the Stars & Stripes version of a war represents the whole story.

David and commenters here are essentially punishing Cassie Jaye for not wholly subscribing to the narrative that is the basis for this blog. They are punishing her because the reality she encountered was more complex than that narrative.

But it is not Cassie Jaye’s fault that the real world is not an ideological cartoon.

Kootiepatra:

If Jaye had an interview or two with Paul Elam, and he was nice to her, and she went, “Wow, he’s not as bad as people think”—ignoring his own words on his own website; ignoring the gross behavior recorded in Sharlet’s article; ignoring the YouTube video where he proudly insults strangers by bringing up their sexual organs—it doesn’t matter how much of a perfect gentleman he was with Jaye, that doesn’t mitigate the toxic things he has done out loud, in public, numerous times over. If she can throw that all aside and conclude, “Actually, he’s not so bad!” then yeah, that is a ginormous problem.

You are reading into Cassie Jaye’s perspective a focus that is an obsession on this blog but is not necessarily an obsession for a documentary filmmaker: whether certain people are good or bad.

Dividing people into good and bad is done routinely on WHTM. In fact, “MRAs are bad” is pretty much the subtext of the blog (and, obviously, also frequently the text). This blog is about good people and bad people, especially the bad people. It is obsessed with individual MRAs and, as David puts it, “who they really are.” And David is clearly convinced that Jaye does not know “who they really are.”

He may be right. But Cassie Jaye has said that her movie has two parts: 1. Issues. 2. Ideology.

She doesn’t include a part called “Personality” or “Good People and Bad People” or “Who These People Really Are.”

This is yet another way that the world she investigated differs from the world that is constructed daily on WHTM. Jaye is making a movie about issues and ideology, neither of which get much play here on WHTM. She’s never said that her movie is designed to reveal what truly lurks in the hearts of individuals. David believes that he has the ability to make those determinations, and he makes them daily. To my knowledge, Cassie Jaye has never even claimed to have that ability.

It is telling that the hypothetical words about Paul Elam that you put in Cassie Jaye’s mouth are, “Wow, he’s not as bad as people think” and “Actually, he’s not so bad!” Your underlying assumption is that of course Jaye’s focus must have been on how “good” or “bad” her subjects were. Because that is your focus.

But Jaye herself has said that the movie has a different focus. Just like it is possible to make a movie about feminism that doesn’t involve judgments on whether individual feminists are “good” or “bad” people in their heart of hearts, it is possible to make a movie about the MRM that doesn’t involve similar readings of the soul. In fact, Cassie Jaye’s past work indicates that is her preferred approach.

Paradoxical Intention
4 years ago

For fuck’s sake, Tim.

A person who tried to use vile slander to destroy another person’s career and life — just for expressing his opinions on the internet — is portrayed on this blog first as a victim. The headline of David’s story, “Thunderf00t rebuts charges he commands a hate mob by unleashing a hate mob on a woman who made this charge,” greatly distorts Thunderfoot’s actual motivation and conceals the original wrongdoing that provoked him. The text of the article is in the same spirit, downplaying what was done to Thunderfoot (failing to mention important details such as letters to the police and newspapers) and focusing instead on the details of what Thunderfoot did to retaliate.

You mean the same Thunderf00t who didn’t lose his job, or have any negative repercussions over anything that Laughing Witch did? The same Thunderf00t that said that he and his colleagues laughed about the letters she and the other campaigners sent?

The same article where we all pretty much agreed that what Laughing Witch did was wrong, and she shouldn’t have done it, and we were glad she apologized and backed down?

The same Thunderf00t who said that she didn’t apologize to his liking, and to this day refuses to call off his fans harassment brigade?

You mean you think that what Thunderfoot did was perfectly acceptable? Asking his followers to “post their opinions of her” on her husband’s business’ Yelp page, thus putting not only her livelihood at risk, but the livelihood of her fourteen employees and her husband? All because someone wrote letters to his employer about him, and nothing happened because of that?

Thunderf00t lost nothing because of Laughing Witch’s actions (which we agreed were wrong). He is now going for petty revenge, inciting his followers, who he knows have a history of harassing anyone he doesn’t like, to brigade the fuck out of her business, and is causing it to go under.

And even if he did lose his job, he could have gone through far more legal means (like talking to police about her harassing him, petitioning online to get his job back, talking to his employer to set the record straight) of “getting back” at her, instead of trying to destroy her business, and thus the livelihoods of everyone involved in it.

Thunderf00t isn’t just trying to destroy her anymore, he’s trying to take down fifteen other people as well, simply because they’re associated with her. And he doesn’t give a shit.

And that’s acceptable…how?

That’s the point of the article, Tim. Thunderf00t took something that didn’t even effect him negatively, and turned it into a campaign to destroy someone’s life, and the livelihoods of everyone around her.

So please, do go on about how Thunderf00t, the man who still has his job and thinks this whole thing is hilarious, is the real victim here. Not the woman with the failing business thanks to Thunderf00t’s fans trying to destroy her life.

Paradoxical Intention
4 years ago

Tim G | November 6, 2015 at 3:18 pm
Chiomara:

You mean unlike the fantasy-world investigation David has been doing for years?

Yes, to some degree I do mean that.

This GIF illustrates a small part of what is going on.

The world that Cassie Jaye investigated is different than the world that David Futrelle investigates. People in real life are different than people on the internet.

More important, the world that David constructs here on WHTM — a world where every MRA is essentially evil and every anti-MRA essentially good — is very different from the world that Cassie Jaye investigated.

I love how you completely ignore the fact that there’s a possibility that they’re only being on their best behavior because the cameras are rolling, and they think this is a great way to convince the world that they’re all right, and to “get the word out there”.

Nah, must be because offline, they’re just good people, and online, they’re vile bigots who want to rape and beat women, think that PoC are out to destroy white people by “mating with our women”, and that homosexuals are out to destroy traditional marriage and masculinity!

Assholes are perfectly capable of being kind, decent people, especially when they have some incentive to do so. This documentary (the one they’re helping pay for) is their incentive. They think this is going to be a huge boost to their publicity. They think this is going to be a gateway for people to look into who they are. And the scary thing is, they’re right.

People are going to look into them. People are going to go looking for AVfM, even if only out of simple curiosity. Though, I imagine that they’ll be shocked by what they find, as it’ll be radically different than the peaceful, polite message that Elam will no doubt try to convey.

I’ve been on the internet for a good decade or so now, and if anything, the internet shows you who people really are. The anonymity of the internet is a wonderful, and simultaneously awful thing.

People can be out of the closet on the internet, giving them a safe space to not have to pretend to be straight, or cisgendered, or who they’re forced to be in real life. They can be the person they’ve always been safely.

That also means that people like Paul Elam can come out and advocate rape and beating women, and then turn around in real life and say things like “Anita Sarkeesian needs help because she’s hurting men by doing what she does (criticizing video games)” and being polite and nice to Cassie Jaye while she’s interviewing him.

Oh, and as for the whole “black and white”, “MRAs are bad, anti-MRAs are good” view you take of this place: Lurk longer. Talk less. Read to comprehend, not to respond.

We are well-known around here for thinking that some anti-MRAs are just as much of assholes as MRAs can be. You can think that MRAs are assholes, and still manage to be one yourself. There’s a myriad of ways to be the hole of an ass.

For instance, we don’t like to deal with SWERFs and TERFs, or other radical feminists. They’re anti-MRA, but we still think they’re not good people because their feminism excludes sex workers and transpeople.

“Oh, but why don’t you talk about them on the blog then?!” I can already hear you type.

Because that’s not the point of this blog. This blog is dedicated to misogyny of the manosphere, not radical feminism. I’m sure you can find another blog that does that elsewhere on the internet.

Fnoicby
Fnoicby
4 years ago

Radical feminists aren’t good people? This is news to me.

Paradoxical Intention
4 years ago

Fnoicby | November 6, 2015 at 3:57 pm
Radical feminists aren’t good people? This is news to me.

Sorry, I should clarify: Radical feminists who exclude others out of feminism for whatever reason when said others rightfully belong there.

My apologies once again.

Fnoicby
Fnoicby
4 years ago

Ah, of course, SMURFs.

dhag85
4 years ago

@Tim G

Any relation to Ali G?

Tim G
Tim G
4 years ago

PI:

Cassie Jaye has stated that her movie focuses on issues and ideology.

Yet you continue your relentless focus on individuals, and whether they are on their “best behavior,” acting “polite,” trying to convince people that they are “all right” instead of “vile bigots.”

It’s like you’re faulting Jaye for concentrating on issues and ideology instead of who MRAs are in their heart of hearts (and of course portraying them to your liking). What’s wrong with focusing on issues and ideology instead of personality? Can you not see that there might be some value in that approach?

Re: Thunderfoot. No, I don’t think what he did was right. I also don’t think what LW did was right. My criticism was about the way it was reported by David, and you treat it the same way in your comment: You focus on the harm that didn’t come to Thunderfoot, even though the gang of letter-writers intended to cause as much harm as they could to him. LW said that Thunderfoot “has to choose between making these videos and being a scientist.” She wanted to take his career away from him, and she took active steps to do that serious harm. She accused him of being a Nazi; he lives in a country where membership in the Nazi Party is punishable by a years-long prison sentence. The gang sent the “Nazi” accusations to the local police.

You wouldn’t know this from reading David’s article.

And, contrary to your claim, LW didn’t apologize to Thunderfoot in any meaningful sense of the word. “Sorry I caused trouble for a lot of people I care about” is not an apology to Thunderfoot. She also did not specifically admit to what she did, show any understanding that what she did was wrong, or try to make amends in any way. She didn’t even offer to write any new letters admitting that what she previously wrote was false and asking the recipients to disregard her previous accusations, something that would surely represent the least she could do. To boot, soon after her “apology,” she went right back to slandering Thunderfoot publicly.

The conflict — which began with totally unprovoked, over-the-top aggression against Thunderfoot by LW — was intentionally reported by David to portray Thunderfoot as the villain, even though the real story was far more complex than that. That’s the basic nature of this blog.

Cassie Jaye is taking heat at WHTM mainly because she allows for a more complex story in the MRM than is allowed for here. For one thing, she apparently discovered that issues and ideology are actually part of the equation. They’re not an important part of the equation here at WHTM. Individuals are the main story here, even though the MRM is an ideological movement that advocates on issues.

Here at WHTM, the story of the MRM is exclusively the story of horrible individuals doing and saying horrible things.

Do you really think there’s not more to the story than that?

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
4 years ago

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/hundreds-sign-change-org-petition-calling-for-lgbti-community-to-drop-the-t/

Look at this fucking shit. I’m only posting it because fucking Milo Yiannopoulos is in it.

I am very disappointed in about 700 hundred people right now.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

Every time I challenge a troll to find me one non-misogynist MRA, they completely ignore me.

I wonder why that is?

Paradoxical Intention
4 years ago

Tim’s not even reading what anyone says anymore, and he’s tedious as fuck.

Tim G | November 6, 2015 at 5:36 pm
PI:

Cassie Jaye has stated that her movie focuses on issues and ideology.

What issues? What ideology?

Does it really matter so much to you that we’re quoting actual things these people say, and reporting on what these people do instead of focusing on what it is they supposedly do in the name of “activism” and “men’s rights”?

If someone who was anti-racism were racist against Asian people for whatever reason, and was super vocal about it, even going as far as to start a website that was anti-Asian, but claimed it was an anti-racism site, would you just want to focus on their message of anti-racism? I wouldn’t, because it would undermine their entire message.

Same thing goes for the MRM, or the MHRM, or whatever they call themselves. Their “ideology” boils down to “rights for men at the expense of women”, and that undermines everything they might say.

Yet you continue your relentless focus on individuals, and whether they are on their “best behavior,” acting “polite,” trying to convince people that they are “all right” instead of “vile bigots.”

Why not? You’ve yet to give us any damn reason why we shouldn’t be focusing on what these people say and do, and instead want us to focus on what? “Ideology”?

The “ideology” of the manosphere comes from these individuals. What they say and do represent their “ideology”.

Why should we not say anything about that?

It’s like you’re faulting Jaye for concentrating on issues and ideology instead of who MRAs are in their heart of hearts (and of course portraying them to your liking). What’s wrong with focusing on issues and ideology instead of personality? Can you not see that there might be some value in that approach?

I’m not faulting Jaye for anything beyond being slightly dishonest with people in terms of her resume, and I’m slightly doubting that she’d be willing to make a non-biased documentary because the MRAs are providing a majority of her funding, because one, they gave her the money to make it possible, and two, the manosphere has a track record of not being kind to women who cross them.

I’m not asking that she somehow portray them as nasty, violent people, I’m wondering, based on what she’s already said, if she’s willing to look deeper into their claims (because she hasn’t before), and if she’s willing to look beyond the facade of “we care about men and boys!”.

And, yet again, these men are the ones behind the fucking “ideology” of the manosphere. They’re the ones who dictate the “ideology” and and how it’s perpetuated within the manosphere, as well as dictate what “issues” are issues within the manosphere.

Why can we not focus on what they say and do to push this “ideology”, or what “issues” they focus on, and not go “Hmm, that’s actually pretty shitty of them, so why are they doing it?”

Why are you so adamant that we just ignore the shitty, misogynistic, antagonistic, anti-feminist things these men have said and done in the name of the manosphere and “men’s rights”, and just focus on the “ideology” and “issues” they present?

Because even if we sit down and do that, we’re still looking at a cesspool. The Red Pill “ideology” all boils down to “women are vile, evil creatures incapable of loving men and feminists are all out to emasculate us and punish us for being men”, and their issues are “women won’t sleep with me”, “women have rights to their bodies”, and “why can’t women just be my second mommy?”.

Unless you think that’s not the case, to which I’d offer you to provide something else.

In the mean time, this blog is still a place where we track and mock misogyny in the manosphere.

If you don’t like it, you’re more than welcome to go run your own blog discussing the “ideology” and “issues” of the manosphere.

Re: Thunderfoot. No, I don’t think what he did was right. I also don’t think what LW did was right.

Could have fooled me.

My criticism was about the way it was reported by David, and you treat it the same way in your comment: You focus on the harm that didn’t come to Thunderfoot, even though the gang of letter-writers intended to cause as much harm as they could to him.

And that makes what I said about none of us thinking that what LW did was okay different how?

LW said that Thunderfoot “has to choose between making these videos and being a scientist.” She wanted to take his career away from him, and she took active steps to do that serious harm. She accused him of being a Nazi; he lives in a country where membership in the Nazi Party is punishable by a years-long prison sentence. The gang sent the “Nazi” accusations to the local police.

How is this relevant to anything?

What, is David supposed to go “Oh, look at poor Thunderf00t, even though nothing happened to him.”? David didn’t do a good enough job for you because he didn’t present “both sides of the story”? That’s not his job.

Nothing happened to Thunderf00t. He didn’t get arrested. He’s obviously not in prison. Your point is moot. You’re literally saying “But, something could have happened, so that makes all of this okay, and we should all feel sorry for him, even though he’s destroying LW’s life as we speak!”

You wouldn’t know this from reading David’s article.

Good thing that David linked other articles that go over the same topic, and it’s a good thing that I have Google to look up more information then, huh?

Thank you for assuming that I’m a moron who can’t figure out how to do more research on a subject.

And, contrary to your claim, LW didn’t apologize to Thunderfoot in any meaningful sense of the word. “Sorry I caused trouble for a lot of people I care about” is not an apology to Thunderfoot.

She shut down her channel. She deleted everything. She even made a video saying she was wrong.

How is this not an apology? Because she didn’t bow down and lick his boots and tell him how wrong she was and plead for mercy? Because she didn’t grovel? Because she didn’t humiliate herself further for TF and his fan bases’ amusement?

What could she have done to make it better?

And better yet, why the fuck do you think he’s entitled to a sincere apology after he sicced his fanbase on her the way he did? “Two wrongs don’t make a right”?

So why the fuck should Thunderf00t be let off the hook and not have to apologize or stop his harassment campaign then?

She also did not specifically admit to what she did, show any understanding that what she did was wrong, or try to make amends in any way. She didn’t even offer to write any new letters admitting that what she previously wrote was false and asking the recipients to disregard her previous accusations, something that would surely represent the least she could do.

Considering nothing happened, and that no one took her letters seriously, what would this have accomplished besides humiliating her further?

To boot, soon after her “apology,” she went right back to slandering Thunderfoot publicly.

After he rejected her apology, further harassed her and her family on twitter, and tried to make her beg for his mercy.

The conflict — which began with totally unprovoked, over-the-top aggression against Thunderfoot by LW

And is continuing with over-the-top aggression against LW by Thunderf00t and his fans.

— was intentionally reported by David to portray Thunderfoot as the villain, even though the real story was far more complex than that. That’s the basic nature of this blog.

Nevermind the fact that Thunderf00t and his fans are out to destroy LW’s livelihood, and no amount of “well, I don’t agree with it, but she did it first!”s are going to make it any different.

No harm came to Thunderf00t, and now he’s trying to destroy LW and the livelihoods of everyone around her for no other reason than petty revenge.

How is he a victim beyond LW trying to go after his job and say he’s a nazi again? Because, again, he suffered no repercussions from her actions, and he even went on to say that he and his colleagues had a little laugh about it.

However, and I did say this to another person who tried to argue that what TF was doing was justified, TF had so many other options to defend himself. He could have gone to police, he could have spoke to his university, he could have just run damage control.

Instead, he went after LW personally, and the lives of people around her.

Again, we all agreed that what she did was wrong, but he’s not off the hook either.

Cassie Jaye is taking heat at WHTM mainly because she allows for a more complex story in the MRM than is allowed for here. For one thing, she apparently discovered that issues and ideology are actually part of the equation. They’re not an important part of the equation here at WHTM. Individuals are the main story here, even though the MRM is an ideological movement that advocates on issues.

Good lord, you are willfully ignorant, and there is nothing I can say that will make you stop whinging and bloviating about “issues” and “ideology” is there?

You are more than welcome to provide things about their “ideology” and “issues”, if you want us to talk about them. You’re whinging that we’re not talking about their “ideology” and “issues”, instead of providing something for us to talk about (though, keep in mind, we’ve discussed their “ideologies” and “issues” before. Again: Lurk more, talk less, read to understand, not to respond.)

Cassie Jaye hasn’t taken “heat” at WHTM for anything beyond being slightly dishonest about her award (and David was even called a “misogynist” by Jaye for that, and for David expressing concern that she’s getting involved with people who have, can, and will shred their “friends”.), and people raising concerns that she’s not out to present an unbiased story now that the MRM is pretty much funding her documentary.

Feminists, including David, have raised legitimate concerns about getting involved with the MRM due to their track record, and they’re not wrong to do so. Hell, Jaye herself recently admitted to being stalked by someone she interviewed.

We don’t care if she wants to make a Red Pill documentary, we care because she said she wanted to make it “ideologically unbiased” and is now accepting money from people looking to profit off of her and use her to try and make themselves look good in the face of their prior behavior.

Here at WHTM, the story of the MRM is exclusively the story of horrible individuals doing and saying horrible things.

Do you really think there’s not more to the story than that?

You’re more than welcome to provide alternatives.

But, you have yet to do so, instead choosing to whinge that we’re not focusing on what you want us to focus on.

And, again, why is it so fucking important that we ignore misogynistic, violent actions taken and misogynistic, violent things said by people in the manosphere who represent them?

Why are you so adamant that this has nothing to do with anything?

NothingClever
NothingClever
4 years ago

Obviously Tim G. is in the right here. Imagine if someone wanted to make a documentary about Hitler and focused on the menial things like what he did and said instead of his ideological qualities. You’d probably get a skewed picture of the guy!

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
4 years ago

PI, you have the patience of a saint!

Pandapool — the sad part is that that change would be very much in line with what LGBT activists usually mean. The amount of fucking shit I’ve seen that’s BLATANTLY transphobic… I’m not even talking lesbian TERFs here (though they do have the most vocal and most horrible “anti-MRM” among them). Just a casual pervasive “same sex lovers only” sign hung on the door. My bi/pan genderqueer ass is sure as shit doesn’t feel terribly welcome.

Also, if anyone wants to call for the banhammer, you have my preemptive vote. Tim’s tedious and not saying anything new.

Fruitloopsie
Fruitloopsie
4 years ago

PI
Geez you are on a roll.

Pandapool
That’s just sad but I believe it wont come true. Yes it does happen when guys dress up in women’s clothing and calls themselves women to be total creepy a-holes but just stop with the transphobia seriously enough is enough I can’t believe gay people are doing this. Guys you hated others discriminating against you don’t do it to others.

Gays and lesbians hate each other? What? Why?

I’m ready for the banhammer too.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
4 years ago

@Argenti

That’s why I’m disgusted myself. Most of my friends trans and agender, I know more non-binary people than cis, hell, I just figured out/accepted that I, myself, am genderfluid – they’re also all not straight. FFS, I can’t walk a foot or get a internet friend (who are within driving distance) without coming into contact with a trans, non-straight individual, how the hell are those assholes not drowning in trans peeps, for real? Gay and non-binary people are, like, fucking magnets or hydrogen and oxygen, they just fucking find each other like that.
comment image

There’s over 600 gay peeps (who are probably mostly white men and women, LBH) that are trying to exclude a part of the community for what reason? What benefit would they get excluding such a chunk of the community? Do they think that getting rid of trans peeps would make them more legitimate in the eyes of the straight, cis community? Are they just afraid that they might end up in a bed of someone who has the “wrong” set of genitals? What the hell are they thinking?

I just don’t understand some assholes, I swear.

Tim G
Tim G
4 years ago

PI:

You seem to think you already know what kind of movie Cassie Jaye has made. You seem quite sure that she could not have made a compelling movie about the issues and ideology of the MRM because there are no real issues there as well as no coherent ideology.

Wherever you got this idea, you definitely didn’t get it from the 100 hours of interviews that Cassie Jaye says she did for her documentary. Only she and her crew have seen those 100 hours.

And I hope didn’t get that idea here at We Hunted The Mammoth. Because this blog pretty much excludes issues and ideology from its focus. Trying to determine the ideology of the MRM and the validity of the issues it addresses would be virtually impossible by reading WHTM. It would be like trying to figure out the ideology of modern Hollywood cinema by reading the National Enquirer. You’d get a few scattered clues, sure, but the stories simply aren’t about that. The stories are about gossip and scandal.

Here’s an idea for a Mammoth article that you’ll likely never see:

Determine the Top Five issues that the men’s rights movement says it cares about. Then list all of the accomplishments that the feminist movement has achieved on behalf of those specific issues in the past twenty years. This list of accomplishments would go a long way toward supporting the often made assertion that the MRM is not necessary because feminism already is successfully doing the work of the MRM.

It is almost impossible to imagine this article appearing on We Hunted The Mammoth. This blog simply doesn’t do articles that examine the issues that the MRM says it cares about. It doesn’t publish articles that mainly focus on issues at all. The blog’s focus is squarely on the individual personalities in the manosphere, particularly the worst aspects of those personalities.

That’s an editorial decision on David Futrelle’s part that is of course his right to make. And in terms of traffic and activity, it is probably a shrewd editorial decision. This site gets clicks. Personalities generate more interest and excitement than issues do.

But when Cassie Jaye, unlike David, does want to get into the specific issues? She is pilloried for it. And the main complaint is that she fails to focus on the individual personalities of certain MRAs and how horrible they are. In other words, her movie does not have the same focus as David’s blog.

It’s as if the personality-obsessed narrative promoted here, at a blog that pretty much admits that it has an extremely narrow focus, must be the narrative adopted by all others who discuss the men’s rights movement. Or else you’re the enemy, and you get targeted for attack.

Contrary to what you repeatedly claim, I’m not saying that We Hunted The Mammoth should change its focus. It is what it is. I’m saying that David and the commenters here shouldn’t be so defensive about someone else having a different focus. The issues and ideology of the MRM are not the primary topics of WHTM. Why not let Cassie Jaye release the first-ever documentary that does focus on MRM issues and ideology before attacking the film sight unseen?

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
4 years ago

This blog simply doesn’t do articles that examine the issues that the MRM says it cares about. It doesn’t publish articles that mainly focus on issues at all. The blog’s focus is squarely on the individual personalities in the manosphere, particularly the worst aspects of those personalities.

http://i.imgur.com/veowOVI.png

I wonder fucking why.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

Can we have a troll challenge for Tim? No more posting until he names one MRA who isn’t a misogynist.

Catalpa
Catalpa
4 years ago

I don’t even understand what Tim is rabbiting on about. The ideology of the MRAs is pretty well represented in their vitriolic screeds about how women control the world with our butts, etc, I would think. How does this obvious hatred and resentment of women (that is displayed by the most well-known MRAs) get categorized as merely ‘personality foibles’, things that can be safely left out of the MRA ideology as a whole? The movement is made up of people. People with personalities and biases and agendas. It’s not an independent entity.

It’s almost like you’re saying “well, yes, the KKK is known for having many toxic people, but when they were sat down and interviewed, they talked about how their goals were to make America a better, safer place! That kind of ideology seems perfectly reasonable!”

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
4 years ago

I’m just ignoring Tim, the LGB(T?) thing is way more interesting.

“Gays and lesbians hate each other? What? Why?”

If that was directed at what I said, I’m sorry for the confusion, I didn’t mean to imply that. Other than the radical feminist lesbians who hate men in general (a small sect with one VERY obnoxious spearhead) I’m not aware they hate each other.

“Do they think that getting rid of trans peeps would make them more legitimate in the eyes of the straight, cis community?”

In a word, yes. In more words, fuck the fuckers who think that acceptance of gay marriage hinges on the “fact” that (let’s be real here) middle class white gay men are just men who love each other, there’s nothing depraved here! *gags*

“Are they just afraid that they might end up in a bed of someone who has the “wrong” set of genitals?”

Oh, almost certainly, but the discussion of trans women as lesbians is not one I’m up for reopening! The public face of it though? Including trans people means trying to educate people, I guess it’s easier for people to grok that adults can consent regardless of the gender of their partner than trans people are palpable as human fucking beings?

Gay marriage is officially legal in the US, and “bathroom panic” is still very much a thing, makes a sick sort of calculated sense why the socially acceptable gays and lesbians (cuz damn, biphobia is alive and well in LGBT communities) would want to distance themselves from the, at best, laughingstock of the comedy show. I’m always amused by what letter is added to the queer umbrella next, seeing as how the (middle class white) cis gay guys holding it are really only accepting of sharing it with (white) cis lesbians. Add asexuals, intersex people, those of us who ID simply as queer, adding damned letters to the acronym means fuck all when the fucking communities that, by any logic, should support us are willing to shove us aside the moment it’s politically convenient.

/gets off soap box

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
4 years ago

Catalpa — I’m reminded of the video below, where Louis Theroux hung out with neonazis and, iirc, explicitly notes how at odds they are day to day with what they believe — they’re nice to him, a white guy, and Not Thrilled that he’s Jewish. But overall? Decent people to have a beer with… as a white guy. Because just because someone has abhorrent views doesn’t mean they’re an absolute shit 24/7.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
4 years ago

“Gays and lesbians hate each other? What? Why?”

If that was directed at what I said, I’m sorry for the confusion…

That was actually a Tweet of Milo’s in the article say gay men and lesbians hate each other. No reason given, of course.

I’m only out to a handful of people offline – I’m open about my identity online – and I’ve never experienced any sort of transphobia first hand from anyone I know that’s part of the LGBT+ community. Mostly because they’re trans themselves. So, any transphobia I’ve heard about in the gay community has been second hand. (Although, who the fuck knows now that I’m leaning more towards masculine lately.) Same with biphobia (I’m pan). I’m lucky and never experienced it first hand, never been directed at me. Not that I haven’t seen it or had it effect me but yeah.

You know, the funniest thing about the gay community is that they’re pretty accepting of drag queens and kings (at least gay men seem to like drag queens), but, you know, actual trans people just seems a step too far.

Paradoxical Intention
4 years ago

Tim G | November 6, 2015 at 11:28 pm
PI:

You seem to think you already know what kind of movie Cassie Jaye has made. You seem quite sure that she could not have made a compelling movie about the issues and ideology of the MRM because there are no real issues there as well as no coherent ideology.

Did…did you not read anything I wrote? At all?

Where the fuck are you pulling this shit from?

I don’t know what kind of movie Jaye has made, I only expressed legitimate concerns judging from her actions, the source of her donations, and the track record of MRAs shredding anyone who says anything that’s not super positive about them that there is a possibility that this movie is going to be pro-MRA.

That’s literally all anyone here has said.

You keep rattling on about the “issues and ideology” about the MRAs, but you don’t say what the fuck that is.

So, tell me, what the fuck is the “issues and ideology” of the MRAs you want to talk about Tim? I’m waiting.

Wherever you got this idea, you definitely didn’t get it from the 100 hours of interviews that Cassie Jaye says she did for her documentary. Only she and her crew have seen those 100 hours.

Yes, Captain Obvious, we know this.

And I hope didn’t get that idea here at We Hunted The Mammoth. Because this blog pretty much excludes issues and ideology from its focus. Trying to determine the ideology of the MRM and the validity of the issues it addresses would be virtually impossible by reading WHTM. It would be like trying to figure out the ideology of modern Hollywood cinema by reading the National Enquirer. You’d get a few scattered clues, sure, but the stories simply aren’t about that. The stories are about gossip and scandal.

THEN WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO TALK ABOUT TIM?

Maybe if I shout it in bold, italic caps, you’ll actually read it instead of just pretending it’s not there.

What the fuck are these “issues and ideologies” you want to see so fucking badly? You’ve done nothing but repeat this phrase and say we’re not talking about it, and you’ve yet to define exactly what the fuck it is you mean by this.

Here’s an idea for a Mammoth article that you’ll likely never see:

Determine the Top Five issues that the men’s rights movement says it cares about. Then list all of the accomplishments that the feminist movement has achieved on behalf of those specific issues in the past twenty years. This list of accomplishments would go a long way toward supporting the often made assertion that the MRM is not necessary because feminism already is successfully doing the work of the MRM.

Tim: Lurk more, talk less, read to comprehend, not to respond.

We talk about this shit. All the time. Sometimes, we talk about this shit on other sites, because we don’t only exist in this comments section, Tim. Nor is this the ONLY blog on the internet that discusses the manosphere.

Believe it or not, us feeemales are human beings with complex brains, and are capable of caring about and talking about more than one issue at a time. Just because we don’t discuss it at this moment on this site doesn’t mean we give no fucks and don’t want to talk about it ever.

However, while we can and do talk about what the manosphere says they want, this isn’t the focus of this blog specifically. The tagline reads “Misogyny. Tracked and mocked.”

The purpose of this blog isn’t to debate the manosphere or talk about why it exists or what they’re doing wrong. It’s a safe place for women who suffer this kind of sexism in real life to sit down and laugh in a place where they won’t be attacked for it, and can relax. It’s like a place where PoC can sit back and laugh amongst themselves about racism.

I don’t see why you seem to think we only need to be talking about “issues and ideologies”, nevermind the fact that “issues and ideologies” are directly related to how the faces of the manosphere act. If they’re sexist, racist, and homophobic, chances are their “issues and ideologies” reflect that.

You’ve still yet to explain why only talking about “issues and ideologies” only is so fucking important, or even what “issues and ideologies” we should be discussing.

It is almost impossible to imagine this article appearing on We Hunted The Mammoth. This blog simply doesn’t do articles that examine the issues that the MRM says it cares about. It doesn’t publish articles that mainly focus on issues at all. The blog’s focus is squarely on the individual personalities in the manosphere, particularly the worst aspects of those personalities.

Uh, Tim? We do actually post articles about articles in other places of the manosphere, so I think that would qualify as “talking about the issues within the manosphere”.

If they’re talking about it, it’s an issue within the manosphere. It’s not a “focus on personality/individual personality”, it’s literally David going, “Look, Roosh V/AVfM//r/TheRedPill/ect. have posted an article about this thing. Here are my thoughts, and share yours in the comments section.” Sometimes this leads to mockery, sometimes this leads to serious discussion. Sometimes it leads to me wasting my time with someone who likes the sound of his own keyboard.

David’s also posted articles about events in the manosphere, like AVfM’s conference, and Roosh V’s “world tour”.

Again, Tim: Lurk more, talk less, read to understand, not to reply.

That’s an editorial decision on David Futrelle’s part that is of course his right to make. And in terms of traffic and activity, it is probably a shrewd editorial decision. This site gets clicks. Personalities generate more interest and excitement than issues do.

“David’s not doing the blog the way I, the Almighty Tim, Lord of WordPress, want him to, so I’m going to come in here and Teal Deer all his readers to death because I don’t understand basic concepts like how feminists can talk about more than one thing at a time on their own.”

This is literally how you sound right now.

But when Cassie Jaye, unlike David, does want to get into the specific issues? She is pilloried for it. And the main complaint is that she fails to focus on the individual personalities of certain MRAs and how horrible they are. In other words, her movie does not have the same focus as David’s blog.

TIL: Pointing out that Paul Elam and several other members of the manosphere can be, have been, and will continue to be really awful people and worrying for Jaye’s safety should she not do an adequate enough job in their opinion is somehow equal to attacking Jaye (and her movie somehow) for not focusing on how they’re awful people who might do her harm if she slips up because she’s taken their money to make a movie about them, and if they perceive any of said movie to be a hit piece after they’ve given her their money and admiration, they’ll make her life a living hell.

It’s as if the personality-obsessed narrative promoted here, at a blog that pretty much admits that it has an extremely narrow focus, must be the narrative adopted by all others who discuss the men’s rights movement. Or else you’re the enemy, and you get targeted for attack.

It’s as if Tim doesn’t read anything anyone says and just continues the train of thought that’s slowly sliding out of his ass without allowing any room for interjection from anyone else whatsoever.

You just refuse to read anything I have to say, I guess.

Contrary to what you repeatedly claim, I’m not saying that We Hunted The Mammoth should change its focus. It is what it is.

Then why come into the comments section and raise such a huge fucking stink about it? Why make a huge deal about this? Why bring it up at all?

In fact, why are you even here?

I’m saying that David and the commenters here shouldn’t be so defensive about someone else having a different focus.

Which we never did.

The issues and ideology of the MRM are not the primary topics of WHTM.

HOLY SHIT YOU ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND.

However, I have to ask again, then why make such a big deal out of this point?

And what exactly are these “issues and ideology of the MRM” that you think are so damn important?

Why not let Cassie Jaye release the first-ever documentary that does focus on MRM issues and ideology before attacking the film sight unseen?

We’re not attacking the film, you cucumber and pumpernickel sandwich.

We’re raising legitimate concerns based on her actions as of late, and one of the major sources of funding for her film that it won’t be neutral at all. We’re also raising concerns for her safety should it be anything but pro-MRA because MRAs have donated to it and don’t treat people (especially women) kindly if they are anything but absolutely positive about them.

They have been known to harass, doxx, threaten, and attack women for saying bad things about them, even if it’s as mild as “I don’t like MRAs harassing women”.

The conclusion that I and several other commenters have come to in the Open Letter thread is: The best-case scenario for Jaye is that the film turns out pro-MRA because if it doesn’t, Jaye will only be attacked for it by MRAs, and harassed and doxxed, and possibly harmed.

We’d rather see a pro-MRA movie than see Jaye be attacked and harassed by MRAs for not being perfectly positive about them.

How do you not understand this? How is raising a few legitimate concerns akin to attacking everything Jaye does? Are you really that sensitive, Tim?

Paradoxical Intention
4 years ago

Fruitloopsie | November 6, 2015 at 10:47 pm
PI
Geez you are on a roll.

The cold’s not helping. Both the temperature and the oncoming illness that I might have.
comment image

Bina
Bina
4 years ago

Every time I challenge a troll to find me one non-misogynist MRA, they completely ignore me.

I wonder why that is?

Oh! Oh! I do! I do!

Because (a) trolls be trollin’, and (b) there are no non-misogynous MRAs. None! Nada! Zippo! Zilch! Bupkus!

All their “issues and ideology”, as our troll keeps saying (without expanding one iota on the subject), are “women are bitches”, “we hate women (because bitches)”, “women have too many rights (and that means we have too few, waaaaa!)”, “Bash a Violent Bitch Month”, and “Amanda Marcotte’s pussy stinks”.

I’m pretty sure I’ve missed several, but that’s the general gist of it, anyway.

And that’s why Timmeh the Tedious Troll won’t talk about what he means by “issues and ideology”. It’s because the issues are woman-hatred and misogyny, and the ideology is pure sexism, undiluted, and downright violent at its core. They want one thing, and one thing only: Male supremacy, and a boot stomping on a feeeeeemale face, forever.

No wonder Timmeh ignores all that, and acts like they’re all just victims of a gross misunderstanding. They are…but it is not we who have misunderstood them.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
4 years ago

Trigger warning: discussion of RLAN (Real Life Actual Nazis.)

Dear Tim,

Firstly, fuck you. You don’t get to walk into a feminist space and talk the way you have: that’s simply bad manners. I understand that you’re not used to being called on your manners, especially by women; but I’m male, and I’m hoping that perhaps we can communicate via Y-chromosome telepathy on this matter in order to make you realise that you’re being inappropriate.

No more on that though, because WWTH makes a good point. I’ll defer to her as to whether or not said MRAs are misogynist or not: I’m terrible at recognising misogyny because as a man, it’s often kept hidden from me.

That’s what I wanted to talk about, in fact.

I have been approached by neo-Nazis and other fascist groups numerous times in my life. Sometimes these are literal German-, Afrikaner- or white-supremacist groups. Once it was a Jewish-supremacist group who thought that I was Jewish. Twice it was #GGers (including once by someone who’s been featured on this very blog.) A few times it’s been #braveheros. Once it was Lesswrongers. In every case, the approach has been similar.

At first, they ask you to hang out and “see that we’re not all like that.” This often works very well because a) most people are fun to hang out with, and b) for young people starved of friendship this can be a huge change to their normal lack of socialisation.

Pretty soon, if you don’t have a lot of other social connections, their social mores become your own, and that’s a problem because such groups tend to have a morality which is tied more to in-group loyalty than to any concept of universal human behaviour. You start to lose contact with objectivity.

If done deliberately this is known as love-bombing and is a standard piece of radical and cult recruitment fare. It’s very effective, too.

One of the best signs that someone has fallen for it is that when they encounter outsiders pointing out the less-nice aspects of their new friends, they panic. Humans aren’t very good at holding contradictory thoughts in our heads at the best of times and are very bad at morally grey areas, so it’s very difficult for people to reconcile themselves with the fact that their new friends, who showed them love and acceptance for possibly the first time ever, could be capable of such deeds. As with so much of this, the response is fairly predictable: panic, blind stony-faced denial, tu quoque or subject changing. The one thing that never seems to happen is an acknowledgement that their new friends’ behaviour is problematic.

From the fascists’ point of view this is good, of course, because it causes new recruits to alienate and distrust their more mainstream friends and sources of information. From an epistemological point of view it isn’t.

From here it’s only a short step to blaming the targets for what gets done to them. It must be their fault because one’s new friends are never at fault.

My own experience of Nazis has been that they are extremely friendly and welcoming (to me, a white man, because they want me as one of them.) Likewise, my experience of #GGers and Jewish fundamentalists and so on has been similar. This has made me profoundly distrustful of any group who come across as friendly and welcoming, and similarly distrustful of anyone who claims that they’ve started talking to a group they heard bad things about but have found them to be awesome people.

(On the other hand, when I started hanging out with feminists I got called out a lot, which was great. I can trust that sort of community immensely. It’s up front with me and isn’t trying to love-bomb me.)

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

Then list all of the accomplishments that the feminist movement has achieved on behalf of those specific issues in the past twenty years. This list of accomplishments would go a long way toward supporting the often made assertion that the MRM is not necessary because feminism already is successfully doing the work of the MRM.

You know, if I wanted to list the top five issues MRAs pretend to care about and then talk about how feminism helps solves those problems, I could. I could do it easily. Everyone here probably could. But I’m so turned off by all the demands men constantly give feminists to prove that we’re doing something to men in order to legitimize our existence, that I’m not going to it right now.

What Tim either doesn’t understand, or pretends not to understand, is that nobody here would have a problem with a group that tackled some of these issues Tim keeps bringing. What we have a problem with is the specific groups that call themselves MRAs or Red Pillers. Because they are misogynists, don’t do anything to help men who need it while expecting feminists to devote all their energy to helping men, harass people who disagree with them, etc.

and “bathroom panic” is still very much a thing

What’s interesting – and gross – about bathroom panic is that in addition to being transphobic, it’s very patriarchal. It’s not generally trans men using the men’s room that people are panicking about. It’s trans women in the women’s room that everyone talks about. The concern being that “a man in a dress” will assault the “real” women and girls the bathroom is intended for. It reminds me a lot of the old racist trope that black or brown men will carry off and sully the nice white women who are supposed to be the property of white men. In addition to the transphobia, it’s misogynistic when men try to protect me from sharing a bathroom with trans women. Particularly since I don’t feel threatened and don’t care if I share bathroom with a trans women.

Bathroom panic is definitely one of those issues that illustrates why intersectionality is so important.

Fruitloopsie
Fruitloopsie
4 years ago

Argenti
No need to apologize I was asking becuase I have heard “gays and lesbians hate each other” before and I don’t know why where does it come from?

PI
Hope you get better

Bina
“there are no non-misogynous MRAs. None! Nada! Zippo! Zilch! Bupkus!”

I have seen at least seven MRAs who are not misognists at all but most of them already left becuase they been harassed by other MRAs and all they do is whine about feminists and women and actually don’t care about men and boys at all but to be used as weapons. Most of them even became feminists themselves. Not only they think feminism helps men and boys but they realize what a sh*tty world it is to women and girls.

WWTH
Everything you said I’m seconding.

Tim G
Tim G
4 years ago

weirwood:

I actually don’t know how to determine if an anti-circumcision activist is a misogynist if all he talks about is circumcision.

I don’t know how to determine if an advocate for Family Law reform is a misogynist if all he talks about is Family Law.

I don’t know how to tell if an activist on the issue of male suicide is a misogynist if all he talks about is male suicide causes and solutions.

I am also far from certain that The Most Important Thing in a discussion of circumcision, Family Law and male suicide is whether any of the participants have a fear of women lurking in their heart of hearts.

Let’s say I do what Cassie Jaye did and I actually get up, leave my house and interview an activist in person. Let’s say he is an anti-circumcision activist. He spells out why he believes that slicing off the foreskins of babies is wrong. Facts, figures, arguments, all that stuff. Then I talk with him further, about his personal life, and I discover that he has some serious mommy issues as well as a deep fear and mistrust of all women. Although he is straight, he has never had a relationship with a woman because he believes that the only thing women will ever do is hurt him. I even discover that his anti-circumcision activism is related to his attitudes about women — his mother made the decision to have him circumcised, and he feels that she gave him a wound that will never heal. He resents her deeply.

Does that invalidate everything he says about banning the practice of circumcision?

Bina:

All their “issues and ideology”, as our troll keeps saying (without expanding one iota on the subject), are “women are bitches”, “we hate women (because bitches)”, “women have too many rights (and that means we have too few, waaaaa!)”, “Bash a Violent Bitch Month”, and “Amanda Marcotte’s pussy stinks”.

Thank you for spelling out so clearly your impression of what the MRM claims to be its core issues and ideology.

Your conclusions are pretty much what I would expect a person to reach if their source of information about a movement were mainly a collection of ad hominem attacks. And I would guess that many readers of We Hunted The Mammoth have reached similar conclusions. Cassie Jaye herself had a similar impression of the MRM before she made her film.

But then she sat down with self-identified members of the MRM and asked them to explain their movement from their point of view. And to her surprise, she discovered that this list…

“women are bitches”
“we hate women (because bitches)”
“women have too many rights (and that means we have too few, waaaaa!)”
“Bash a Violent Bitch Month”
“Amanda Marcotte’s pussy stinks”

…actually doesn’t fully represent their point of view.

And she is being punished for making that discovery.

Jaye’s method isn’t exactly unique in documentary filmmaking. When seeking to figure out what a social movement wants, she went to the source. She asked the people in the movement what they cared about and what they wanted to do about it. And she gave them plenty of time to tell her. And she listened. She also sought out and listened to their opponents.

And then she considered what everyone had to say. Not only did she consider it, but also she taped video diaries in which she documented her thought process as she confronted the ideas she heard directly from MRM figures and their opponents.

And with Jaye’s film yet to be seen, and her specific conclusions yet to be known, her enemies seem absolutely certain that she got it wrong.

Because if Cassie Jaye did not come to the conclusion that this…

“women are bitches”
“we hate women (because bitches)”
“women have too many rights (and that means we have too few, waaaaa!)”
“Bash a Violent Bitch Month”
“Amanda Marcotte’s pussy stinks”

…is everything that anyone needs to know about the men’s rights movement, then she got it wrong. She doesn’t know “who they really are.”

The 100 hours of interviews she did? The long process of consideration, documented on video? The 2.5 years of shooting and editing? Doesn’t matter. She got it wrong. She got tricked.

Either that, or she did discover “who they really are,” which is this and only this…

“women are bitches”
“we hate women (because bitches)”
“women have too many rights (and that means we have too few, waaaaa!)”
“Bash a Violent Bitch Month”
“Amanda Marcotte’s pussy stinks”

…but she will be too terrified to reveal that truth in her film. Because everyone already knows that MRAs are so scary and violent when they don’t get their way. Poor Cassie Jaye must have been coerced. She is therefore in need of Concern Trolling.

dhag85
4 years ago

TIL

Reading a person’s arguments gives you an incomplete understanding of their arguments. For fuller understanding, you need to have them read the arguments to you, out loud, in a closed room.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

I actually don’t know how to determine if an anti-circumcision activist is a misogynist if all he talks about is circumcision.

I don’t know how to determine if an advocate for Family Law reform is a misogynist if all he talks about is Family Law.

I don’t know how to tell if an activist on the issue of male suicide is a misogynist if all he talks about is male suicide causes and solutions.

None of this describes anyone who identifies as either an MRA or a red piller. Try to keep up.

isidore13
isidore13
4 years ago

Why are you talking about activists, Tim? No one in the MRM is an activist. To be an activist, you have to have made concrete steps toward achieving your goals. In fact, Paul Elam is super proud about the fact that he is not an activist and that the MRM is not about activism. Literally all the MRM has is rhetoric and threats. I challenge you to point out any concrete steps anyone in the MRM has made to achieve their goals – which will be very difficult since neither you nor they can actually elucidate what the goals of the MRM are beyond ‘females should be declared property again’.

Paradoxical Intention
4 years ago

Tim G | November 7, 2015 at 6:22 pm
Let’s say I do what Cassie Jaye did and I actually get up, leave my house and interview an activist in person. Let’s say he is an anti-circumcision activist. He spells out why he believes that slicing off the foreskins of babies is wrong. Facts, figures, arguments, all that stuff. Then I talk with him further, about his personal life, and I discover that he has some serious mommy issues as well as a deep fear and mistrust of all women. Although he is straight, he has never had a relationship with a woman because he believes that the only thing women will ever do is hurt him. I even discover that his anti-circumcision activism is related to his attitudes about women — his mother made the decision to have him circumcised, and he feels that she gave him a wound that will never heal. He resents her deeply.

Does that invalidate everything he says about banning the practice of circumcision?

No, because those are two entirely different topics. See, this is where your little analogy falls apart, Tim. Sexism against women and circumcision have little to nothing to do with one another. It’s more of a religious matter, and a matter of men going “Well, I want my son’s penis to look like mine”, and a matter of a lot of medical misinformation being taken as dogma.

The man in your situation is still in obvious need of some counseling (just not from Elam) to maybe deal with his so-called “mommy issues”, but that doesn’t even prove he’s sexist against women as a whole. Just that he’s got some issues he needs to work out with his mother and possibly a therapist. Abuse can manifest so that men are afraid and wary of women, and that’s not sexist, just a sign of trauma. I’m wary of men as a whole because I was abused by my step-father as a child, and I still flinch whenever a man raises his hand sharply or yells. That doesn’t mean I hate men, just means I’m afraid of them.

The MRAs are “advocating” for men’s rights and for “sexism” against men (which is really just toxic masculinity in action) to stop, but they’re doing it by being sexist to women and denying them their rights. They want “men to be men”, but at the expense of women’s safety and personal freedom.

So let’s say the hypothetical anti-circumcision activist demanded that vaginas get mutilated at birth like in so many other countries to make things “fair”, or demands that vaginas SHOULD be mutilated at birth, because that’s what “god intended” or some other reason, but still thinks that circumcision is bad for babies with penises. THAT would invalidate everything he says about anti-circumcision, because he’s advocating for the rights of babies with penises to not be circumcised by trying to destroy the rights of babies with vaginas to not have their genitalia mutilated.

THAT is what’s going on here. MRAs are advocating for men’s rights by stomping on women’s rights and feminism, which is advocating for women’s rights, and that’s why we take what they say (and do) seriously.

Tim G
Tim G
4 years ago

None of this describes anyone who identifies as either an MRA or a red piller. Try to keep up.

According to Google:

Pages about circumcision on A Voice For Men: 971

Pages about Family Law on A Voice For Men: 2990

Pages about suicide on A Voice For Men: 2590

That’s just on one MRM site.

Not all of the pages are entirely devoted to the topic, but it’s clear that a substantial amount are.

You may not think that MRAs are interested in these topics, but they appear to think they are.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

Stop goal post shifting. You asked what if someone only talked about circumcision/child custody issues/male suicide. AVFM also defends Bill Cosby, had Bash a Violent Bitch month, had a holocaust denier write posts, calls women whores constantly etc.

You can’t just constantly shift goalposts.

I mean, you can, but it will cause everyone to think you’re a disingenuous fuckwit.

I don’t give one shit if AVFM posts about those issues. For one thing, nobody there has done one thing to change it. For another thing, they wrongly place the blame on feminism and use it as an excuse to spew toxic misogyny.

I seriously don’t even know what your point is anymore. Are you arguing that AVFM isn’t misogynist? Because that’s laughable. Are you arguing that they are misogynist but it doesn’t matter because they talk about issues sometimes? WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

Tim G
Tim G
4 years ago

I challenge you to point out any concrete steps anyone in the MRM has made to achieve their goals – which will be very difficult since neither you nor they can actually elucidate what the goals of the MRM are beyond ‘females should be declared property again’.

Goals: AVFM’s Mission Statement

Steps: For some reason, AVFM is seeking volunteers in 11 different categories of specific tasks. That seems kind of strange if they don’t want to do anything to achieve their goals.

Again, this is just at AVFM. It took seconds to discover this apparently impossible-to-find information.