“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:
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.
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.)
The attacks on me by @Cassie_Jaye 's fans on Twitter are reaching new heights of sophistication. pic.twitter.com/0lMglv0lz3
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) November 4, 2015
And here's another @Cassie_Jaye fan resorting to Argumentum ad David is Fattum. pic.twitter.com/WJhWhDzpMs
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) November 4, 2015
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.
*meeting the MRAs. Not meating. I’m not sure what meating an MRA would entail but I’m certain it woulld be unpleasant,
Dreamer:
Need I remind you of the “Blair Bitch Project” video and Elam’s subsequent response videos to his critics and even follow MRAs’? 🙂
*fellow. Oops.
@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?
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.
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.
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.
So, MRAs are really more like cold readers? 🙂
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.
@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.
Oh, you want to play teal deer? All right
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@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.
Chiomara:
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:
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.
For fuck’s sake, Tim.
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.
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.
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.
Ah, of course, SMURFs.
@Tim G
Any relation to Ali G?
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?
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.
Every time I challenge a troll to find me one non-misogynist MRA, they completely ignore me.
I wonder why that is?
Tim’s not even reading what anyone says anymore, and he’s tedious as fuck.
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.
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?
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.
Could have fooled me.
And that makes what I said about none of us thinking that what LW did was okay different how?
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!”
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.
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?
Considering nothing happened, and that no one took her letters seriously, what would this have accomplished besides humiliating her further?
After he rejected her apology, further harassed her and her family on twitter, and tried to make her beg for his mercy.
And is continuing with over-the-top aggression against LW by Thunderf00t and his fans.
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.
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.
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?
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!