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
@IP
That sounds horrible, but thank you for sharing it here.
@Petal
Cool. Thanks again!
Yeah, wasn’t really expecting a panacea. Your points are plenty grand. Just a matter of working thru specifics. Food for thought…
The other reason is if the preview screening is in advance of a major festival world premiere, in which case the film might actually be quite good. But that’s clearly not the case here.
And in my experience embargos are rarely part of the deal, and of course they have no legal force whatever. I kept to them because I didn’t want to piss off the relevant PR company and possibly lose some free stuff as a “punishment”.
@Cassie Jaye
.
It’s obviously slipped your mind that Cassie Jaye has an award from the Cannes Film Festival.
No, not the famous one.
Some other Cannes Film Festival.
As Cassie Jaye informed us — how long ago it seems now! — Cannes is a place.
Although her film sounds odious, I hope that she is and stays okay. I hope that her supporters don’t turn on her for presenting them in any way that resembles the truth, thus alerting the world to what these individuals are like.
@Joekster
I’m certain that you could.
Estimated time on task: 5 minutes, tops.
I hope that your new job is going spendidly!
@Kat
You mean there are people who *don’t* already know they’re great big whiny man-babies upset at the world for all the privilege they don’t acknowledge getting in the first place but claim to have been robbed of by feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemales all the same?
@Imaginary Petal
When I read about things like that, it makes me think that maybe Trump has the right idea on immigration.
I mean… it’s clearly a sick culture.
@Wetherby:
Freemage implied this earlier, but yes, there’s a whole lot of case law regarding ‘unsolicited goods’. Legally, if they send something to you without prearranging a contract, they can’t really control what you do with it after the fact. Socially, of course, anybody who gets known as a ‘leak’ is unlikely get pre-release stuff again.
And in practice, the industry has a whole lot less control over movie reviewers than it does over game reviewers. People are a lot less likely to find their jobs threatened over negative reviews.
Imaginary Petal,
TW: rape and injustice
In 1994 a local woman was gang raped in a bathroom by members the local college football team. The coach bailed them out and the judge found them innocent because the 8 guys said she consented and he refused to take her word against that of 8 good men.
I started school there in ’95 and rape culture was strong. The school advertised itself as “The safest school in the state”. They can back that claim up too. No convictions = No rapes, right?
You aren’t funny, Roger.
@ jenora
I’ve watched quite a few DVDs where “This is a review copy. Not for resale” flashes up on screen every 10 minutes.
Hee, I was wondering when you would show up again. So, do you want to try to give us the reason for the statement there, or would you just like to skip ahead to the part where you admit that you don’t have any good reasons, he just makes you feel good? ‘Cause that’s where we left off in the last thread, and at first glance of this, it still applies.
It’s fear.
Fear can make you cautious. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
So, I think because I’m unsure, because I’m uncertain, I find the guy saying “Let’s be careful” more attractive than the one saying “I know everything, and this is going to be alright”.
At least on this issue. (Immigration)
And, yes, I’m sure you can argue rings around me on this topic – but I feel like it’s my duty as an informational node to stand up for how I feel on this issue, even if I’m ignorant.
Or is it a failure of democracy to give a vote to people like me?
Being blanket afraid of brown people because they are different from you, and being willing to harm brown people living within your country and without in order to foster a sense of security – based on emotional reasoning, not actually being safer – is a bad thing.
I’m not afraid of brown people, just the one’s who get up to mischief.
It’s like – if I was told that I could choose from two groups of people to be my next door neighbour, and one group had a 5% chance of being a murderer and the other group had a 4% chance of being a murderer, if I know nothing else about the groups, I’m going with the 4%.
Seems rational to me (but maybe I’m completely wrong).
I think there would be a lot less disagreement on this issue, one way or another, if we all lived perfectly non-segregated lives. If we all had the same interest in the actual community.
Fuck off, Roger. You racist piece of shit.
Although, this part was kinda funny:
Ummm, and which one of these is Trump again?
@Roger
I feel like it’s your duty as an “informational node” to inform yourself on these issues so you’re not voting out of blind ignorance and fear.
P.S. The issue Petal brought up exists in the U.S. today and has zero to do with immigration.
Edit:
So you refuse to have white, male neighbors then?
@Roger
Well, you’ll be happy to know that they have done research, and the vast majority of crimes are committed against people who are in the same racial group. So if you’re not a brown person then rationally you should be happy to live next door to them. In fact, you should prefer it!
@Roger
1) Congrats. You are now another person who hinders dealing with the rape problem by distraction with your own personal bullshit. I think I’m going to start calling your category “rape enablers”.
2)That is also literal bigotry as described. An intolerance of an out-group based on superficial exposure to negative characteristics associated with some members of that group. So because Trump hears that there have been rapes by migrants, “they’re rapists”, even though there is far more chance of being raped by a native that you personally know. (In fact there is less externalized crime associated with these communities because they don’t want the outside attention and I would predict rape is included.)
Edit: ninja’d by Schnookums Von Fancypants. Probably an adorable ninja.
I’m pretty afraid of young white guys, because 100% of the rapists I’ve known have been white and young or relatively young. I reckon this means I should advocate deporting white guys under 25. That’s Roger’s reasoning, right?
90% of murders are committed by men. Maybe we should just deport all men, regardless of age or race.
@Roger
The correct solution is to let your neighbors show you what kind of people they are and then react accordingly. You should give people the opportunity to show you who and what they are. You can know group level information, but it is not reasonable to use it to make assumptions about individuals.
For example I believe that Trump supporters contain the most racism, sexism, and other actualized bigotries. But I let individual Trump supporters reveal themselves to me. In that case it rational to use the group level data to consider why Trump attracts so many bigots.
Hey, Markov, you know what’s infinitely more common than Islamic terrorist attacks? Rape. In 2010, for example, four people died in attacks on US soil, while approximately 1.3 million women were raped. But you think that fearing men is “Irrational,” don’t you?
EDIT: Ninja’d!
@Rogark
Says the guy who wants to eat mystery pizza, cos it doesn’t smell like poison
No. It’s the triumph of democracy that you get a vote. It’s your failure, and the failure of every deplorable human being that supports Trump, that you can prove yourself consistently and wholly unworthy of it and still proudly use it
@Brony
Yep
I have felt the least safe, subjectively, around straight white men in their 30s and 40s. Send them all away. Make them move out of my neighbourhood. Prioritize my comfort over their lives and homes and safety.