The red pill movie. A 0?!

[Combustion Kevin]

Thing is, the number of "shitposters" who stick up for Men's Rights far outnumber the number who give feminism a bad name.

Citation needed, even though comparing the amount of shitposters or even gauging the amount of shitposters is a lazy way of dodging the legit points that are being made.

And you'll never see me, or any truly intersectional feminist for that matter, claim that men don't face specific gendered problems that need to be worked on.

You know who do absolutely nothing to work toward fixing those problems, and in fact actually just reinforce the ideas that create those problems in the first place? MRAs. At least, as they exist as a "movement" on the internet. You know how feminists are always talking about "toxic masculinity", that thing that makes MRAs and RedPillers and all associates utterly lose their shit? Yeah, changing the fundamental ideals in society that create toxic masculinity would directly address basically every problem that MRAs purport to be fighting against in the first place.

You do realize that the "toxic masculinity" narrative points at men as the sole cause of society's ills, right?
I mean, sure, "Women can perpetuate toxic masculinity too.", but that makes them complicit, not actually the cause, it is men we need to FIX, right?

And this I don't agree with, the expectations of men are placed on them by both men and women alike, but the social influence of women is often disregarded and dismissed as non-existent (since they are oppressed, remember?) and as such seldom addressed, women have always had great social influence on society and I don't think downplaying them does women any favors either, they accounted for half the population and instilled the values they held dear into their children, that is an enormous influence, if there was something present in their society they didn't like they would just.... teach their kids not to engage in that.

I do. I also know that regardless of being crowdfunded, it's still difficult to remain impartial when you're receiving part of your funding from the subject of your piece, especially when you're giving a producer's credit to one of the people involved because they gave you $10,000.

She has produced several other documentaries before this one which were critically acclaimed in feminist spheres (You should look them up, those are pretty good too) but her usual sponsors pulled their funding when they heard that MRA thing she was doing was not gonna be a hit piece.

If you're uncertain of the source, check the data, the problem often comes from misunderstanding another, listening to what people have to say brings us closer to understanding and as a result: closer to a solution.

(Insert line about how Mike Cernovich "isn't an MRA" here, which, sure, he doesn't care about men's issues, but then neither do most internet MRAs so there isn't really any difference. And yes, you are right that I have "little hang ups"--I've got a lot of experience dealing with internet MRAs.)

*sigh* Look, I have no investment in what you or me call ourselves, or them for that matter, but you obviously do, having "A lot of experience dealing with MRA's" is no excuse to dismiss legitimate concerns just because you don't like the label it is presented under, MRA's are people like you and me, not any better, not any worse.

I don't care if Mike Cernovich is MRA, I wouldn't care if he calls himself a communist, a pagan or a man, I care about what he has to bring to the table so I can review it and contemplate it.

Feminism stands up for women's rights, and that is a noble goal, but I don't think feminism is what will deliver us the equality we need, it is and will always be focused on the well-being of women even if it does try to co-opt other civil concerns related to race or sexuality.

Under this model, there must be a movement that balances it out, there must be an organization that looks out for the well-being of men or they will not see an emancipation that accommodates them into this new egalitarian society, there must be an organization that stands up to the injustices they face.
Feminism has failed them in this so far, in fact, some feminists took it upon themselves to sabotage the discussion of male concerns even though I'm certain those weren't "real feminists".

I don't care if you're a feminist, I care about what you have to add to the discussion, and self-righteous indignation and finger pointing is not enough to hold my interest.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Anyway, I don't ID as an MRA, or a feminist. I'm an egalitarian. And no, I will not be told by anyone that to be a feminist is to be an egalitarian. there are too many feminists pushing for the continuance of sentencing, family court and domestic abuse disparities and "no true Scotsman arguments" are not welcome with me so I don't want to hear about "that's not true feminism," or "it's not a true MRA." I never heard of an egalitarian pushing for inequality because that is linguistically impossible. MRAs and feminists both cannot make that claim.

Certainly feminists and MRAs can favour inequality (SWERFs and TERFs come to mind). However, egalitarians (or rather, people who've adopted the label) can as well.

(And, yes, being a feminism doesn't make someone egalitarian, though being egalitarian should make someone have broadly similar views to feminism)

I would like to see all these movements combining effort under an Egalitarian mindset. The structure I would like to see is an Egalitarian organization with these movements as organs of the same whole, bringing them into contact with each other in a non adversarial way and opening the door for a mutual understanding to be formed. If this could be achieved I believe all now separate parties would become stronger and we could as human beings achieve much more than if we exist in a constant state of conflict.

In theory, that's how it works. They might not use the word "Egalitarian", normally it'd be "Intersectional" (though the concepts aren't quite the same).

In practice, there's often some reason why someone else's problems don't actually count.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Seems to me like they were soft-balling the RedPill movement. Granted they do drudge up up Paul "All women are guilty of murder" Elam, but I see no mention of Vox Day, Matt Forney, Wyatt Mann, David Duke, or other paladins of the Pills. No mention of /pol/ either. They seemed to stick to the softer and cuddlier side of the MRA's and leave it at that.

 

[one squirrel]

Seems to me like they were soft-balling the RedPill movement. Granted they do drudge up up Paul "All women are guilty of murder" Elam, but I see no mention of Vox Day, Matt Forney, Wyatt Mann, David Duke, or other paladins of the Pills. No mention of /pol/ either. They seemed to stick to the softer and cuddlier side of the MRA's and leave it at that.

The movie is about the men's rights movement (MRM). Do any of the people you mentioned have any affiliation with the MRM? If yes, please cite your sources.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Seems to me like they were soft-balling the RedPill movement. Granted they do drudge up up Paul "All women are guilty of murder" Elam, but I see no mention of Vox Day, Matt Forney, Wyatt Mann, David Duke, or other paladins of the Pills. No mention of /pol/ either. They seemed to stick to the softer and cuddlier side of the MRA's and leave it at that.

The movie is about the men's rights movement (MRM). Do any of the people you mentioned have any affiliation with the MRM? If yes, please cite your sources.

I'm going off the fact that the movie is titled "RedPill", and already acknowledged that it stuck to just the soft and cuddly side of the MRA and left whole elements of the Red Pill movement out.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

Snip

If you want to talk about concerns and issues that men face, why would you start by vilifying inflammatory bile-spewers?
Hateful characters are not a men's issue, unless men are collectively responsible for the behavior of other men and should police each other properly as such.

I mean, for example, if you want to talk about women's rights, you're not gonna start off with the white feather campaign or bra-burning protestors, you want to start the conversation about unequal liberties and interview the people who are invested in that subject matter.

 

[one squirrel]

Seems to me like they were soft-balling the RedPill movement. Granted they do drudge up up Paul "All women are guilty of murder" Elam, but I see no mention of Vox Day, Matt Forney, Wyatt Mann, David Duke, or other paladins of the Pills. No mention of /pol/ either. They seemed to stick to the softer and cuddlier side of the MRA's and leave it at that.

The movie is about the men's rights movement (MRM). Do any of the people you mentioned have any affiliation with the MRM? If yes, please cite your sources.

I'm going off the fact that the movie is titled "RedPill", and already acknowledged that it stuck to just the soft and cuddly side of the MRA and left whole elements of the Red Pill movement out.

OK great, I just think it's worth explicitly noting that the bunch of racists you mentioned are not men's rights activists.

 

[Phasmal]

I'm so glad that this website has turned to just straight up defending MRAs and Red Pillers.

Spoiler: Well it was only a matter of time

OT: Ew. No.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I mean, for example, if you want to talk about women's rights, you're not gonna start off with the white feather campaign or bra-burning protestors, you want to start the conversation about unequal liberties and interview the people who are invested in that subject matter.

Getting a bit off-topic, but the bra-burning was (originally) about beauty standards, protestors threw various things associated with a certain look into a fire. Including a push-up bra. People just ran with that when telling the story and ignored the context. So you could have that in a serious discussion about women's rights.

Getting more on topic:

If you want to talk about concerns and issues that men face, why would you start by vilifying inflammatory bile-spewers?
Hateful characters are not a men's issue, unless men are collectively responsible for the behavior of other men and should police each other properly as such.

Ah, but you can certainly argue that they are a Redpill issue. Men's issues in general and Redpill issues in particular are not the same things.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Snip

If you want to talk about concerns and issues that men face, why would you start by vilifying inflammatory bile-spewers?
Hateful characters are not a men's issue, unless men are collectively responsible for the behavior of other men and should police each other properly as such.

I mean, for example, if you want to talk about women's rights, you're not gonna start off with the white feather campaign or bra-burning protestors, you want to start the conversation about unequal liberties and interview the people who are invested in that subject matter.

If you want to make a movie investigating if any group of people has gotten an unfair reputation, you would do well to actually look at the members of the group that are generally held up as examples of tarnishing the groups reputation, as well as those that might hold themselves to a higher standard.

The double standard in this thread, where the most noxious and abusive MRAs are swept under the rug and only the most noxious and abusive feminists are held to light, is startling. Seriously people, how do you deal with this level of cognitive dissonance?

 

[one squirrel]

Snip

If you want to talk about concerns and issues that men face, why would you start by vilifying inflammatory bile-spewers?
Hateful characters are not a men's issue, unless men are collectively responsible for the behavior of other men and should police each other properly as such.

I mean, for example, if you want to talk about women's rights, you're not gonna start off with the white feather campaign or bra-burning protestors, you want to start the conversation about unequal liberties and interview the people who are invested in that subject matter.

If you want to make a movie investigating if any group of people has gotten an unfair reputation, you would do well to actually look at the members of the group that are generally held up as examples of tarnishing the groups reputation, as well as those that might hold themselves to a higher standard.

The double standard in this thread, where the most noxious and abusive MRAs are swept under the rug and only the most noxious and abusive feminists are held to light, is startling. Seriously people, how do you deal with this level of cognitive dissonance?

Who are those "most noxious and abusive MRAs" that are being swept under the rug? So far the only MRA that has been mentioned in this thread is Paul Elam. Who are you talking about?

 

[Combustion Kevin]

I mean, for example, if you want to talk about women's rights, you're not gonna start off with the white feather campaign or bra-burning protestors, you want to start the conversation about unequal liberties and interview the people who are invested in that subject matter.

Getting a bit off-topic, but the bra-burning was (originally) about beauty standards, protestors threw various things associated with a certain look into a fire. Including a push-up bra. People just ran with that when telling the story and ignored the context. So you could have that in a serious discussion about women's rights.

Beauty standards are largely decided on by women though, look at all the beauty magazines that deal with it, mostly female staffed.
Then still, it was not about RIGHTS, it was about a perceived public attitude, justified or not, this is not relevant to women's rights.
Unless public attitude is part of a rights movement, in which case... yeah, I suppose it would be relevant then.

Getting more on topic:

If you want to talk about concerns and issues that men face, why would you start by vilifying inflammatory bile-spewers?
Hateful characters are not a men's issue, unless men are collectively responsible for the behavior of other men and should police each other properly as such.

Ah, but you can certainly argue that they are a Redpill issue. Men's issues in general and Redpill issues in particular are not the same things.

You will also agree that the MRM are not RedPill, they are separate entities, one of which is defined by their function: Men's rights.
Calling the documentary "The Red Pill" refers to the sense of revelation that it had on Cassy while making the film, this sense of revelation has also been expressed in online communities long before Redpill came into existence.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

If you want to make a movie investigating if any group of people has gotten an unfair reputation, you would do well to actually look at the members of the group that are generally held up as examples of tarnishing the groups reputation, as well as those that might hold themselves to a higher standard.

The double standard in this thread, where the most noxious and abusive MRAs are swept under the rug and only the most noxious and abusive feminists are held to light, is startling. Seriously people, how do you deal with this level of cognitive dissonance?

Wouldn't that make the documentary about morally judging the movement as opposed to evaluating the legitimacy of the points they make?
That could certainly be a film of it's own, but it doesn't seem to be this one.

Also, I have not seen a single feminist name dropped throughout this thread, the entire reason we are even having this discussion is because certain names being indirectly associated with this film deems it fit for outright dismissal.

 

[Lopende Paddo]

The double standard in this thread, where the most noxious and abusive MRAs are swept under the rug and only the most noxious and abusive feminists are held to light, is startling. Seriously people, how do you deal with this level of cognitive dissonance?

Ok I'm pretty sure I have read every post in this thread and as far as i know nobody mentioned any one specific feminist by name, When toxic feminists where mentioned it was by me, I was making a point that although each movement has toxic elements (some more than other but all have them) it it no reason to ignore the underlying idea's and philosophy of a movement. Nobody has to agree with every ideal of every movement but at least acknowledging them and having a constructive discussion about them seems only prudent.

By far more has been said about the toxic elements of MRM in this thread, often purely as a stand alone argument, than has been said about feminism. I'll read the entire thread again and edit this post if I find feminist bashing (I may have missed something), if you have a second look as well than please let me know what you find that is purely an attack on feminism.

 

[Lopende Paddo]

Spoiler

"Director Cassie Jaye initially struggled to find financiers who did not have "an agenda."[5] She mostly encountered people who believed the men's rights movement was a "disease that shouldn't be given a fair hearing."[5] Jaye got the film "off the ground" with her own money as well as money from her mother, a co-producer, and her boyfriend.[2] After it became known that the film would not condemn the men's rights movement, Jaye was unable to find funding to cover the cost of the movie from traditional sources.[1][6] She instead started a campaign on the crowdfunding platform Kickstarter, which she called a last resort.[5] The Kickstarter project promised to be a "fair and balanced" look at the men's rights movement.[5] The effort was strongly criticized by some feminists and received support from Breitbart News columnist Milo Yiannopoulos.[7][8] In the end, the campaign exceeded its goal of $97,000 as well as two stretch goals to raise a total of $211,260.[9]"

Seems to me she didn't accept a bribe but started a kickstarter, If you know anything about kickstarter you know that when you fund a kickstarter project your influence in de project is minimal at best and often non existent. You also can't just reclaim your cash under duress. If you have actual proof that she took money under the table than I would be very interested to see it.

I'm not saying she took money under the table but she did take money and I consider it really naive to think that both sides wouldn't achieve an understanding on how that money was to be used. Even without any direct instructions.

Workplace fatalities, I don't remember anyone in the movie saying that the cause of workplace fatalities was feminism. They point at stereotypical roles where in males are more expendable in society than females. This is simply true and has it's origins in the far reaches of evolution, pack survival being a thing of the past they say we might want to reevaluate the roles males play in society.I personally don't see anything anti feminist in the idea. They identify a societal push for woman to avoid these jobs and men to fill them. I happily know a few woman who work in the metal industry (one as a black smith who introduced me to and taught me to work the forge.) but there are not many of them.

I also want to add that often workplace safety standards are enforced but the work itself can often never fully be safe. I used to have a colleague who made an 8 meter fall and had a pallet land on him from the same height, was a certified company and he simple made one mistake after working in the metal industry for years. The moral is that workplace safety never be fully guaranteed in certain professions which happen stance are mostly male dominated. (guy survived by the way but had to rehabilitate for years and now 8 years later he still has a limp when it's cold)

All this is a great case for more feminism. Encourage women to get into those fields! (not you personally, but, yknow, all of us collectively)

Domestic violence. Just to give my perspective on it, being someone who has been in a relationship with an abusive woman I can say that domestic violence towards men doesn't always come from other men, I believe that very often it is not the case. I believe (not because of this movie but because of my experiences) that woman are more than capable of violence. Obviously the bodily harm, on average will be worse when inflicted by a man (no matter if the victim is male or female) simply because men on average have more physical strength. Furthermore general violence outside a relationship against men (who are often not themselves violent) is often underappreciated when considering the destructive impact it can have over ones feeling of security. People are often against bullying but pretend that bullying stops when someone leaves school. I agree that men and woman who suffer from violence should have more resources made available to them.

Yeah, this is an issue very close to home for me. I'm only weeks away from finally being legally divorced after an 8-year marriage that slowly turned violent and abusive for me. I agree that society in general has some fairly hideous views when it comes to male victims of domestic abuse but once again, it is not the feminists who are telling men to stop being crybabies and "man up." I wonder how things would've turned out for me if, instead of selling the house, splitting our assets and going our seperate ways, I instead decided to assert my "masculinity" and celebrate "bash a violent ***** month" the way the subject of the documentary advocates.

Incidently, "Bash a violent ***** month" (and the incredibly violent imagery contained on the forum) is something the film allegedly omits entirely. This is kinda like if someone wrote a biography of Bill Clinton and left out the part about his affairs.

Reproductive rights are more than to abort and not to abort, although there are some moral discussions to be had there as well. An example of another reproductive right mentioned in the movie is the right to attain proof of paternity. I personally am pro abortion but more pro vasectomy. A vasectomy protects everyone involved and overpopulation is the root cause of all human problems so it's a win-win-win.

Well, yes, but I think this is getting off-track. I just use a condom and thus far, my success rate in non-impregnation is 100%.

Taking money from white nationalists... As a black man I find it sad to see people trying to further polarize and already polarized issue by making a gender thing a race thing as well. I'ts a ad-homonym and I would like to see less of these without actual proof included.

Dude, its Breitbart. When you take money from an organization that was created because it's founder believed that the first black head-of-state in his country was some sort of African Manchurian candidate, doubt about your objectivity should be the default.

Circumcision.... IT SHOULD NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE COMPARABLE IT ONLY MATTERS THAT THEY ARE BOTH WRONG AND ABHORRENT. (yes you are supposed to read that as shouting) This kind of thing really pisses me off, you are making light of people cutting a functional piece off of, often, a baby who has no choice in the matter and runs the risk of a lack of sensitivity, erectile dysfunction, severe mutilation of the phallus and sometimes death. The kicker to that is that it is AN ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY PROCEDURE 99/100 (if that) TIMES. Sorry for shouting but how can people condone such medieval medicine like idiocy.

No worries about the shouting but if you noticed, I did say that both should be illegal. I do, however, think some perspective is in order: Male circumcision is just not used as a tool of oppression the way female circumcision is. It also does not render the man incapable of experiencing any enjoyment from sex (although it does tend to reduce sensitivity so fuck that).

referenced post in quote

I just read your reply to one of my earlier posts and I wanted to address some things there. I very well may be repeating something somebody else already said but still.

I agree that workplace disparity in prevalent in many more dangerous jobs and I indeed think that feminism can do something about that. And I know that there are plenty of woman out there who if they felt they had a chance would embrace those professions.

I'm sorry to hear how your marriage turned out. It really is a shitty thing to have happen to you. I do want to clarify the "Bash a violent ***** thing".

Although I found it in very poor taste and counterproductive, it was found in a "dark satire" styled piece that was a response to a feminist blog making light and celebrating woman abusing men. I want to make it clear that I'm not defending Elam but it is a quote that is often brought forward as if he actually wants to enact such a thing while he was venting his outrage at the piece written by the blog Jezebel, I'm just informing you about this because I find the truth important.

On the whole racism thing, I know little of Breitbart. But if they are truly racist than they didn't get the movie they wanted, I suggest you watch it so you understand. If you don't want to pay for it I understand, it's on torrent sites as well.

with regards to circumcision I still believe that to compare the two and say one is worse is always a counterproductive way of approaching a problem. If you do this you automatically make the "lesser" of evils seem average. It's like saying "assault is not as bad as murder" It is true but it is completely irrelevant and if you put the two together in that way assault almost seems acceptable.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I'd just like to thank everyone in this thread that stands up for Men's Rights to be heard.

I hope the Red Pill Movie opens at least a few eyes and minds, at least enough to start a civil discussion.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

I mean, for example, if you want to talk about women's rights, you're not gonna start off with the white feather campaign or bra-burning protestors, you want to start the conversation about unequal liberties and interview the people who are invested in that subject matter.

Except that's what I've seen slews of anti feminists do. And it seems to sway people...

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Seems to me like they were soft-balling the RedPill movement. Granted they do drudge up up Paul "All women are guilty of murder" Elam, but I see no mention of Vox Day, Matt Forney, Wyatt Mann, David Duke, or other paladins of the Pills. No mention of /pol/ either. They seemed to stick to the softer and cuddlier side of the MRA's and leave it at that.

The movie is about the men's rights movement (MRM). Do any of the people you mentioned have any affiliation with the MRM? If yes, please cite your sources.

I'm going off the fact that the movie is titled "RedPill", and already acknowledged that it stuck to just the soft and cuddly side of the MRA and left whole elements of the Red Pill movement out.

OK great, I just think it's worth explicitly noting that the bunch of racists you mentioned are not men's rights activists.

But they are Red Pillers.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

Except that's what I've seen slews of anti feminists do. And it seems to sway people...

So... what?
"Slews" of feminists sway people into thinking that male rights activists are not worth consideration, sabotage rallies or even respond in an abusive manner, even so, none of these things are relevant to the issue at hand.

If the subject matter you want to talk about is male rights, you talk the people particularly active in that field and let the information speak for itself, a cathartic "get even" motive is going to hopelessly undermine that effort.

But they are Red Pillers.

Which only matter if you are invested in labels more than the issues they address.
Perhaps articles on Jezebel are more your speed.