The Pledge Drive continues! If you enjoy this blog, and can afford it, please click on the “donate” button below! Thanks!
The reviews are in! Well, technically speaking, a review is in.
The Village Voice’s Alan Scherstuhl has posted his review of Cassie Jaye’s The Red Pill, her totally objective documentary about the Men’s Rights Movement that was funded in part by some of the people featured in it and that will be opening in theaters a theater Friday
Let’s just say he didn’t like it:
[F]or two agonizing hours, Jaye tumbles slowly down America’s stupidest rabbit hole, discovering that Men’s Rights Activists are actually just dudes who have been dicked over by a culture that punishes masculinity. …
Jaye acknowledges in the opening and closing minutes that MRAs sometimes spew nasty garbage online, but she never presses them on this in her many interviews. Instead, she lets them moan about how hard it is to be a dude in 2016, endorsing their anecdotal complaints about unfair family courts, incidents of men being tricked into being fathers and — I didn’t quite follow this one — one father’s conviction that the women who had custody of his son were systematically trying to make the boy fat.
One can only assume that they are fattening him up before they EAT HIM.
Confused MRAs, apparently unable to understand how anyone could possibly hate a film they’re pretty sure they’re going to just love, have responded to Scherstuhl’s review by crying “conspiracy.”
In a comment on the Village Voice, MRA David King (presumably the same David King who is the “Chief Information Officer” for A Voice for Men) suggests that “[s]omething definitely stinks, and it’s not the film under review.”
He submits these, er, facts to a candid world:
• September 29, Cassie Jaye tweeted “Events surrounding The Red Pill documentary are getting curiouser and curiouser”, the same day Scherstuhl tweeted that he’d “agreed to review” TRP, the same day Scherstuhl invited a well-known anti-male MRA antagonist to DM him via Twitter.
Just FYI, the “well-known anti-male MRA antagonist” in question is apparently little old me, though I’m pretty sure I am not actually anti-male. I didn’t DM Scherstuhl, though I think I retweeted a couple of his Tweets.
King continues:
• October 4, HP and Village Voice publish this hit piece using present-tense language (“this movie is playing in two American theaters”) strongly implying that the author has seen a film which doesn’t debut for another 3 days on October 7,
HOW ON EARTH DID A FILM REVIEWER SEE A FILM BEFORE IT WAS EVEN OUT oh wait that’s how film reviewing works.
• so Scherstuhl has not seen it at a theatre and cannot have seen it anywhere else unless either a) invited to by CJ (in which case HP and Village Voice, at which Scherstuhl is an editor, have violated the embargo such previews usually carry) or b) he has acquired a copy illegally.
Since both HP and VV have published this review already, since embargoes on unreleased films are the norm, and barring decent evidence of mismanagement on the part of CJ and her team, that rather heavily points at the latter. Whichever the case, violation of contract (best case) or breaking the law (worst case) doesn’t look good for either HP or Village Voice.
Yes, because films are NEVER reviewed before they hit theaters oh wait.
• If the author has not seen it, then he’s lying through his teeth both in the article’s content and about its provenance. He misrepresents the review as being based on an alleged viewing post public release but, owing to an editorial screw-up, the copy got released days before it should have been, proving that his article is a premeditated and contrived attack motivated by political animus.
• There are numerous tells in the language used in this article that strongly hint at an agenda and a prior conclusion (read: closed mind) so it almost doesn’t matter whether Scherstuhl did see it or not because the actual content of the film would make no difference to the content of the article.
King blathers on for a while along these lines, and even mentions me by name once! It’s good to be noticed.
Meanwhile, on Twitter, the lovable Dan Perrins seems to suggest that I might have actually paid Scherstuhl for his review.
A ? for the lawyers.
I'd also suspect some payola for the review as well.
Given @DavidFutrelle lack of integrity— Dan Perrins (@BlackBeard20096) October 4, 2016
Apparently Dan lives in an alternate universe in which men are oppressed and I am filthy rich.
Speaking of films, here is a short documentary about a capybara who jumps into a pool and plays with a pool noodle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=291Bry2FlsU
@ Axecalibur
The interrupting was dumb. It never wins any points. That said, Pence consistently went way over his time, and talked over Quijano way more than Kaine.
And…yep. That was a truly depressing discussion. Pence seemed absolutely convinced at one point that the fact that a black officer shot a black man proved that race has nothing to do with the issue. Like, you have seriously got to be fucking kidding me.
And then, when Kaine brought up Philando Castile, and did so in the politically correct way of, “I’m going to hold your hand here…don’t worry, I’m not going to call anyone a racist…I’m just going to poignantly explain how this bias and fear (that we all are a part of) has disastrous consequences (and again, don’t you worry, I’m saying we’re all a part of it)”, Pence still felt the need to counter with, “The police are the saintliest of the saintly saints; how dare you suggest that they are ever anything less than the pillars of our communities”.
For all the talk about, “We can’t afford to be politically correct anymore”, they really can’t handle politically incorrect opinions like:
Racism still exists.
Kaine even threw him the bone of, “Building better relationships between communities and the police makes the job of policing safer”, and…nope. Literally, the only thing they care about is: Police = human perfection; those who say racial bias in policing exists and should be addressed in some meaningful way = racist scum. What the ever-loving fuck.
Oh, and I loved his bowl of Skittles moment, too. Dark lord, indeed.
@Snowberry
Wow! Didn’t think of it that way. You got it 🙂
@littleknown
Yeah, probably. But it didn’t feel like way more, ya know? The difference wasn’t stark enough. And they both dodged questions like a muffuga. Nobody came outta this looking super good
It’s exactly the same as any other time white dudes deflect from the issue by talking about ‘black on black crime’. Excepting that Pence doesn’t consider it a crime when it’s a cop doing the shooting
Oh. My. God.
I was looking at old WHTM posts last night and realized something that scares me: during the last presidential election, Heartiste may have predicted the rise of Trump.
(of white men becoming irrelevant as a voting bloc)
Source: https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2012/11/06/election-day-open-thread-plus-some-inane-crap-from-heartiste-on-the-single-white-woman-vote/
If that particular misogynistic POS was actually right about something, I’m starting to think the apocalypse may be upon us.
Hello.
So, Dan Perrins is Blackbeard featuring a white beard person. He is going to call that irony, i guess.
> Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
It is quite not a prediction, because populism is steadily growing since a long time, thanks to almost all politicians being unable to attend to the wishes of the people. Well, it is quite impossible to govern so many people because each person is different, and thus you can not satisfy all of them at the same time. The populism is just more visible nowaday because of the multiplication of media and easiness to access them.
Or maybe you were making sarcasm ? And in that case, i am sorry to have miss it.
Have a nice day.
@occasional reader
Thanks for the explanation. I wasn’t really being sarcastic, but I also don’t really believe that Heartiste actually predicted Trump. I just noticed that the current political climate bore some similarity to his prediction/fantasy and probably overreacted to it.
Oh dear, this saddens me. I sorta hoped Cassie Jay would actually reveal them for who they are; nasty, selfish, entitled and lying.
> Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
It is ok, i am also falling for the “prediction trap” more than often. After all, that is what the “seers” make their business of. 🙂
Make a test : say something that is statistically having a high chance of occuring to a bunch of your friends, and when the something actually occurs, see how somes of them may think that you have foresee it.
Or maybe it may have occur to you that when playing, with dice as an example, you think “i do not want a 1 because that make me lose, but i am sure that i am going to hit one”, and if you hit 1 you say yourself and/or to the others “See ! I am cursed !”.
So, do not worry, it was clearly not overreaction.
Freakin’ best part of the review’s comments:
Gary Constanza: “How did the author see the film, as it’s not played anywhere yet?? Has he really seen it?? It premieres Oct. 7, today is the 4th. Has this pre-written hit piece been published early by mistake??”
Alan Scherstuhl (the author): “yeah, i just *guessed* that she includes footage of herself driving past a Supercuts”
Paul Elam: “Alan Scherstuhl Maybe you were just thinking about where you got your last haircut.”
Sherilyn Connely: “Paul Elam Sick burn, bro!”
This is their level.
Frankly, I’m almost disappointed they did not resort to calling the author Alan ScherSTOOL and high-fiving each other about it.
OT, TW for rape and rape apologism
There’s a case here in Sweden that is massively pissing me off right now. Last Saturday night, a disabled woman (wheelchair user) in Visby went out to a restaurant with a man. After dinner, they shared a taxi. When they dropped off the man at his home, the woman asked to use his bathroom. When the disabled woman was using the bathroom, the man entered the room and raped her. At this point, four other men appeared. Presumably they had been waiting/hiding in the apartment for this opportunity? The five men brought the woman out of the bathroom and continued the rape.
Early Sunday morning, the woman contacted the police and reported the five men. The men were taken into custody, and today they were all released. The prosecutor defended his decision to release the group, saying “the palintiff’s story differs too wildly from the suspects’ story”. Oh really? He also said that “the action was not based on violence or threats, but simply taking advantage of the woman’s situation”. In other words, if you’re disabled you can expect to get raped. One of the men acknowledge having sex with the woman, but claims it was done with consent. At least one additional man has been shown to have penetrated the victim, even though he denies it.
Although the woman has received documented (unspecified) physical injuries, the prosecutor thinks she didn’t put up enough resistence during the “incident”. So I guess it’s totally the default position to assume she was up for having sex with this man and his four buddies who were hiding around the corner while trying to use the bathroom.
Fucking hell.
@rugbyyogi
If you think about it, maybe she unintentionally *did* just that. To the mras it looks like a documentary that presents them as the manly victims they believe themselves to be…to others? Not so much.
Ok, msexception that cheers me up a little bit, mayeb, but I think there are too many men, who ar vulnerable to this message and especially when it comes from a woman –
Paul Elam is making fun of men who get inexpensive haircuts now? I thought part of their schtick was that working class white men are the winners of the oppression Olympics and feminists are pampered rich girls with first world problems?
@Nikki: I’m pretty sure Trump gaining the republican nomination was one of the signs of the apocalypse. If I cared to, I could probably find something in Daniel or Revelations that I can make to sound that way 🙂
@ jokester
I’ve mentioned before that in the eschatology that ISIS subscribe to one of the precursors to the Fitnah (end times) is:
“The worst of all men shall be elected leader”
No need to panic though, the final apocalypse can’t take place until there’s a big battle at a place called Dabiq; and ISIS forces are still three miles away from there.
@Petal
That’s horrifying. And how much of a struggle is a disabled person expected to be able to put up? Holy crap.
Nikki the Bluth Wannabe: my SO believes I’m some kind of weather genius. My trick: I pull out my phone, tap the “weather” app, and read what it tells me. (Ok, I also sometimes look at the radar image, which is something everyone knew about in my US circles but literally nobody I’ve met in Canada knows about.)
Political radicalization has been written up in mainstream news since the 2007 crash — as reactive pieces on the front page of the dailies, and as long-form articles in thinkier parts of the news industry (Krugman for example has written plenty on his blog, and NYRB, and the Economist, etc)
Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are a part of that movement, as are Corbyn in the UK, the golden dawn and siriza parties in Greece, Orban in Hungary, and generally the rise of right-wing nationalists throughout Europe (largely due to racism against refugees), and Trump, Johnson and Stein in the US presidential election.
So if heartiste was reading anything vaguely analytical he was just repeating what he’d read. That or it’s the usual wishful thinking of the radical.
@IP: That’s horrible. ‘didn’t put up enough resistance’? WTF!
@Petal
Well, it’s 1 against 5. Who do you expect them to believe? /s
Literally impossible. Rape is inherently violent and threatening. That’s why it’s a crime. Jackass
1)not the defense attorney, the prosecutor. Let that sink in…
2)OK. How much is ‘enough’ resistance? Quantify that for me, will ya?
@Axe
The woman’s attorney said “we could really use that ‘yes means yes’ law right about now”. Yupppp.
@Petal
We’re they speaking generally, or is there a specific bill waiting in the Riksdag or summat?
So that’s what a pool noodle is. I was wondering.
I’m a bit late with that, but:
Peeps, please note that the whole “witches eating children” thing is antisemitic. The trope originates from retargeted blood libel.
(Also note, however, that I’m gentile, so this is second-hand information.)
@Axe
Yeah, sort of. Literally today, like 6 hours ago, the attorney general (Social Democrat) was handed a suggestion for a law change, by a Social Democrat led committee.
These ideas have been discussed for years already. In the past, it’s been suggested that a new law should focus on “consent”. This new suggestion is instead based on the concept of “voluntary participation”. The gist of it is that merely being passive would no longer count as consent. Voluntary participation would mean that all involved must have expressed, in one way or another, that they want to participate. Normally, this would be expressed through physical response, i.e. participants take some form of action showing that they are consenting to what is happening. Of course, it can also be a verbal action. Or even a written contract, as MRAs are so fond of. Needless to say, this is not a fool proof way to settle all rape cases, but at least rapists can no longer use the excuse “she didn’t protest” or “she didn’t struggle”.
These suggestions have support from every single major party, i.e. they will almost certainly pass. However, it will take a few years (2018, probably).
@Petal
OK, thanks 🙂
If I can bother you again, kinda deep question:
Is there a foolproof way? Or, failing perfect, is there a way that’s close enough? Just curious…
@Axe
I can’t imagine there’s a fool proof way of solving all cases of any crime, really. I only added that part so that nobody would get the impression that I was saying this law solves all rape. The way I see it, the legal system can do at least three things:
1. Make sure rape victims are treated with respect. Make the process of reporting less stressful and traumatic.
2. Use proper definitions in the legal text. As it stands right now, it’s possible for a rapist to rape and admit to raping, as long as they don’t use the word rape. I.e. they can describe actions that amount to rape, but are not covered by the legal definition.
3. Change attitudes, in favor of victims.
That last one is tricky. Of course, we can’t assume guilt. We also can’t assume innocence. We can only adjust the way in which we evaluate evidence and testimony. I expect that a lot can be gained from properly understanding the various ways in which rape can affect the victim. How many times have we heard idiots say things like “why would she still be calling him if he raped her?” or “why would she go buy new shoes the next day if she had just been raped?”. In order to reasonably evaluate the trustworthiness of any testimony, we need to understand human behavior. Human behavior surrounding the action of rape is extremely complex, so perfect judgement might be unattainable. But more education is the part forward, I guess?
Major caveat: I’m not a legal expert or an authority on sexual assault in any way. Other commenters will no doubt have much more insightful things to say.