The red pill movie. A 0?!

[Amaror]

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.

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.

Do you also refuse to use roads, because at least one of the guys that payd taxes for it is most likely an MRA or a trump supporter or something. You do know what kickstarter is, right? There's not really communication between the backers and the creators and you can't control who gives you money and who doesn't. When the campaign is over there is nothing that any backer can do to bring her to do something with it that they want.
I have breitbart, but maybe it would be funny if the just gave small donations to stuff like feminist frequency and stuff like that. They would be supported by Breitbart, they must be horrible.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

Perhaps articles on Jezebel are more your speed.

That is the most scathing insult I've ever seen on this site.

It's not an insult, they really do have the kind of content Smithnikov seems to be looking for.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

And here I was expressing my appreciation for your repartee.

I'm admiring the astute observation then.

Why, thank you, sir.

 

[Geisterkarle]

One thing ahead about the name and all the talk here about "redpillers" and "red pill movement": While they share the same "base" for the name, Cassie mentioned again and again, that Matrix is the reason for the name and NOT the movement/subreddit or anything else! The movie has nothing to do with the movement! Common mistake ... that some critics happily make...

But Ok, here is so much going on, I have to get back to topic. Yes, I saw the movie!

Basically it is (most of the time) "just" interviews with different people. Both MRAs and Feminist(supporters). And sometimes you hear Cassie asks a question, but most of the time you just see her just sitting there and listening. To both sides!
Some critics say that MRAs have a lot more screen time then the feminists; but - duh - it's a movie about MRAs and - according to Cassie - many feminists didn't want to speak to her, because she also talked with MRAs (if this is true or not, we will never know; because I doubt any known feminist will tell you now if she was approached by Cassie or not...).
But that is actually the important part! Because we have kind a "two-sided" topic here. And actually checking both sides and not just one is the thing a documentary has to show IMHO! If you want to know something about fans of the football(soccer you US guys and girls...) team Manchester City and only talk to Manchester United fans about them ... well the result is probably "quite" different as if you actually talk to ManCity fans too!
Maybe the - as mentioned - not heared questions are the reason. But the MRAs are talking about the things they do and work for, like raising awareness to male suicide, workrelated deaths, domestic violence, ... And the feminists are talking about the people/MRAs but NOT their work or if anything they say is wrong - maybe because it isn't...

The whole movie is very open! You get information and you have to put it into context for yourself. It doesn't tell you what's wrong or right. You have to check yourself!
There is a German blogger known as fefe [https://blog.fefe.de/] (yes, this is his blog. And yes, he is one of the most-read bloggers in Germany and not just one with 10 hits a day!). He always talks about that all the entries in his blog could be wrong or right and you, as a reader, have the obligation of something he calls "medienkompetenz?bung". Translation is difficult; basically he means something like: "Here you get information from ONE source. Can you confirm, that it is right or wrong? Try to find out!" Find the things and check it and don't take anything for granted!
And THAT is this movie for you! WATCH IT! TAKE THE INFORMATION! FIND OUT IF THIS IS SOMETHING FOR YOU!

If you haven't seen this movie and think it's a 0, because MRAs are wrong or thinking about "redpillers", then this movie is NOT for you, because you are missing the point!
If you have an open mind, check it out! Maybe it is still a 0 after that. But at least you heard "the other side" and could dismiss all the information, because you found out, that the opposite is true; good for you, you learned something! Because if you can "kill" arguments of a person it is a much more powerful weapon, as if you just say this person is stupid. Because if you can show someone where he/she got wrong, maybe (MAYBE) this could change his/her mind! But if you don't even go there and call someone just stupid (or worse) ... well why should he/she change his/her views?

So, all said and done. What rating would I give it? Mabye an 8-9. Because of all that, what I just said! Some "difficult" parts of the MRM are not asked and so missing and we don't know how they would handle it. But overall totally worth your time to watch!

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Dat title tho...I mean really? Would you call a film about socialist movements in your country the National Socialism Documentary? (Awareness Programme, added for extra lolz)

 

[jademunky]

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.

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.

Do you also refuse to use roads, because at least one of the guys that payd taxes for it is most likely an MRA or a trump supporter or something. You do know what kickstarter is, right? There's not really communication between the backers and the creators and you can't control who gives you money and who doesn't. When the campaign is over there is nothing that any backer can do to bring her to do something with it that they want.
I have breitbart, but maybe it would be funny if the just gave small donations to stuff like feminist frequency and stuff like that. They would be supported by Breitbart, they must be horrible.

Well look at it this way. Suppose you were a CEO for Pizza Hut and I was a filmmaker looking to make a documentary about your corporation. If you funded my film and the gist of my film was 'Boy, that Pizza Hut place sure is awesome'.

Now how seriously would you take my claims of objectivity?

 

[Namehere]

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.

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.

Do you also refuse to use roads, because at least one of the guys that payd taxes for it is most likely an MRA or a trump supporter or something. You do know what kickstarter is, right? There's not really communication between the backers and the creators and you can't control who gives you money and who doesn't. When the campaign is over there is nothing that any backer can do to bring her to do something with it that they want.
I have breitbart, but maybe it would be funny if the just gave small donations to stuff like feminist frequency and stuff like that. They would be supported by Breitbart, they must be horrible.

Well look at it this way. Suppose you were a CEO for Pizza Hut and I was a filmmaker looking to make a documentary about your corporation. If you funded my film and the gist of my film was 'Boy, that Pizza Hut place sure is awesome'.

Now how seriously would you take my claims of objectivity?

The situation you describe as an example is far from the reality of what occurred. In fact she got money originally from feminist sources who assumed she'd make a hit piece, they withdrew that funding when they found out it wasn't one. And then she crowd funded. In essence the feminist organisations and groups would be Pizza Hut. Breitbart merely stepped in to cover post production work along with other individuals when she had to crowd fund. The movie was already made when they stepped in, so no it's not like that at all.

It's like making a wild life documentary in a national park, meant to show how great the national park is, how effective it's conservation techniques are, only to find that they aren't and have to get funding from someone else to get the word out, because the park won't fund a film that portrays it badly.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

*snip*

Here's the trick, mate: everybody who's ever been in an Internet debate about anything regarding feminism has already heard all of these points. They're invariably brought up every single time there's a feminist complaint about anything.

The problem is, these areguments are used as a rhetorical bludgeon against feminism and nothing more. Internet MRAs such as Elam may talk a lot about the problems facing men, but they do nothing to actually address said problems besides "raise awareness" in arguments against feminism. Women want to be in combat rolls? "Well women don't need to sign up for the draft!" Campus sexual assault? "False rape allegations ruin men's lives!"[footnote]Sidenote: in a lot of cases, actual rape convictions don't ruin men's lives, so I doubt it[/footnote]. Sexual assault of women in prisons or the military? "Well men get raped in the military and prison too, why aren't feminists talking about that?" Prenatal care, maternity leave, or access to abortions? "Why do women have the final say about pregnancy? Men should be able to be deadbeat dads financially abort!" Domestic abuse shelters? "Why do women get then but men don't, and it's feminism's fault. (Just don't ask us to fund one)"

They talk, a lot, but they place the onus for action on anybody else. They don't actually do jack or shit about the problems men face. So then there's this "documentary" that by your explanation doesn't' attempt to get to the truth of the situation, instead saying people should figure it out for themselves, and features these people who I'd rather not advocate for my rights as a male (because they're shit at it), doing the only thing they're good at: just talking.

 

[McMarbles]

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

I know right? I'm so shocked.

-_-

This is my shocked face.

-_-

See how shocked I am.

 

[one squirrel]

*snip*

Here's the trick, mate: everybody who's ever been in an Internet debate about anything regarding feminism has already heard all of these points. They're invariably brought up every single time there's a feminist complaint about anything.

The problem is, these areguments are used as a rhetorical bludgeon against feminism and nothing more. Internet MRAs such as Elam may talk a lot about the problems facing men, but they do nothing to actually address said problems besides "raise awareness" in arguments against feminism. Women want to be in combat rolls? "Well women don't need to sign up for the draft!" Campus sexual assault? "False rape allegations ruin men's lives!". Sexual assault of women in prisons or the military? "Well men get raped in the military and prison too, why aren't feminists talking about that?" Prenatal care, maternity leave, or access to abortions? "Why do women have the final say about pregnancy? Men should be able to be deadbeat dads financially abort!" Domestic abuse shelters? "Why do women get then but men don't, and it's feminism's fault. (Just don't ask us to fund one)"

They talk, a lot, but they place the onus for action on anybody else. They don't actually do jack or shit about the problems men face. So then there's this "documentary" that by your explanation doesn't' attempt to get to the truth of the situation, instead saying people should figure it out for themselves, and features these people who I'd rather not advocate for my rights as a male (because they're shit at it), doing the only thing they're good at: just talking.

Well, if that is your standard: nothing less than rock hard political involvement and personal finacial investment, fair enough.

Looking forward to seeing you disavow the Women's-march, He-For-She, and the myriad of feminist journalists and authors who make a living out of writing about women's rights and rape culture. Because, you know, raising awareness of problems that exist in society and appealing to the government to do something about it is not a legitimate form of activism.

But of course you are not going to do that, it's only pointless bitching and whining when others do it, right?

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

It's not an insult, they really do have the kind of content Smithnikov seems to be looking for.

And what content, pray tell, am I looking for? I'm rather curious, as you fancy yourself either a telepath or know me well enough to know my motivations and beliefs like that...

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

They talk, a lot, but they place the onus for action on anybody else. They don't actually do jack or shit about the problems men face. So then there's this "documentary" that by your explanation doesn't' attempt to get to the truth of the situation, instead saying people should figure it out for themselves, and features these people who I'd rather not advocate for my rights as a male (because they're shit at it), doing the only thing they're good at: just talking.

THANK YOU.

And this, ladies and germs, is why I was finished with the MRA after spending the bulk of my college life in one.

Yes folks, I was MRA before the term was even coined.

I actively petetioned for a men's domestic violence shelter in the SW Virginia region. Myself and a group of like minded students single handedly maintained a phone based service for counseling, referrals, and support for male victims of dating violence. I straight up got into a screaming match with a feminist professor (probably the only one in Old Dominion) over the encouragement of violent behavior in young boys and what constitutes it.

And did we get support from the anti feminist right wing? Did the MULTIPLE Republican clubs who were anti feminists and vocally so give us the time of day? Hell no.

I wasn't as mad as perhaps I should have been, but I could see right away where the priorities lay. Mud slinging against feminist if not women as a whole always trumped actually DOING SOMETHING to help men.

I refuse to believe that the seemingly endless phalanx of anti feminists, including the ones in this film, are so penniless and so powerless that ONE SHELTER can't be opened, or that massive improvements to support networks for men can't be improved. These things I have never stopped wanting, and still want to this day, but no, the main concern then and now seems to be simply telling people how rotten feminists (if not women in general) are, and it pisses me off.

Okay, rant over.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Duplicate post. Please delete if you would.

 

[Namehere]

They talk, a lot, but they place the onus for action on anybody else. They don't actually do jack or shit about the problems men face. So then there's this "documentary" that by your explanation doesn't' attempt to get to the truth of the situation, instead saying people should figure it out for themselves, and features these people who I'd rather not advocate for my rights as a male (because they're shit at it), doing the only thing they're good at: just talking.

THANK YOU.

And this, ladies and germs, is why I was finished with the MRA after spending the bulk of my college life in one.

Yes folks, I was MRA before the term was even coined.

I actively petetioned for a men's domestic violence shelter in the SW Virginia region. Myself and a group of like minded students single handedly maintained a phone based service for counseling, referrals, and support for male victims of dating violence. I straight up got into a screaming match with a feminist professor (probably the only one in Old Dominion) over the encouragement of violent behavior in young boys and what constitutes it.

And did we get support from the anti feminist right wing? Did the MULTIPLE Republican clubs who were anti feminists and vocally so give us the time of day? Hell no.

I wasn't as mad as perhaps I should have been, but I could see right away where the priorities lay. Mud slinging against feminist if not women as a whole always trumped actually DOING SOMETHING to help men.

I refuse to believe that the seemingly endless phalanx of anti feminists, including the ones in this film, are so penniless and so powerless that ONE SHELTER can't be opened, or that massive improvements to support networks for men can't be improved. These things I have never stopped wanting, and still want to this day, but no, the main concern then and now seems to be simply telling people how rotten feminists (if not women in general) are, and it pisses me off.

Okay, rant over.

It's a complicated issue. As you yourself said there was no political will to assist your efforts. That's a major problem. And it isn't the fault of MRAs. Surely you wouldn't have held yourself accountable for a lack of political action from your local representatives while an MRA, so you can't really hold the lot of them accountable for it either. Political will in the US and most western states is based on public will.

Feminists have been shutting down MRA talks, gatherings, and efforts since before the term was coined. Feminists have accrued a great deal of political will and until fairly recently enjoyed a great deal of public support that MRA causes have never had.

I also think the general model feminism provides is actually ill suited to MRA projects and aims. Men aren't going to get behind the same sorts of projects feminists inspire for women, the way they will get behind feminist projects. It's not in our nature.

When I saw the film screened I recall feeling very awkward as it started. And I realised that if everyone feel's this way, if everyone feels like they're sitting here watching the sort of film you'd watch if you were a feminist only about men? Men aren't getting behind it. They'd just as soon get on with their lives by and large. It's about as close to defining toxic masculinity as I can get.

I would further submit that feminism itself has been in mortal combat with the MRA movement since it's inception and have tared it and slagged it from large public platforms that MRAs don't get. So between the difficulty of getting men interested and comfortable lobbying in that fashion, and the constant assault from feminists and the abject lack of public will - again, resultant from feminist attacks and suppression of the issues men face - there's no political will. Feminists and other activists meet with government MRAs meet with each other, at best. This movie is starting to change that in Canada thankfully. So actually getting private funding for anything with MRA underpinning it is likewise challenging because the feminists will attack the private donors as well as the project itself.

I think that's the most important part of the movie, the awareness it's raising and the idea that maybe things aren't exactly as we've been told. This CBC interview with a Gender Studies Professor says it all about public perception: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/mra-political-parties-1.4016680

Do note that she claims MRAs are dangerous, want nothing but sex with who and when they want it, and equates them with pickup artists and she isn't once corrected. This is the image they have to contend with. If that wasn't you as an MRA you ought to have a few issues with being characterised that way.

 

[Amaror]

Well look at it this way. Suppose you were a CEO for Pizza Hut and I was a filmmaker looking to make a documentary about your corporation. If you funded my film and the gist of my film was 'Boy, that Pizza Hut place sure is awesome'.

Now how seriously would you take my claims of objectivity?

The thing is that your scenario only makes sense in a traditional way of funding. If the movie funding comes from kickstarter, you could have a bit of money backed by Pizza Hut on there, but they will only see what the gist of the film is AFTER they allready gave it the money. You might find pizza hut on that list of backers with McDonalds and Burger King and a bunch of other random people. How do you know who that filmmaker was more biased towards? The one that gave it more money? The dozens of random people that most likely contributed by far the most people to the whole thing?

 

[Wrex Brogan]

It's a 0 because, frankly, the rating system can only go so low.

(my actual criticisms of the film is that it's too soft, but Smithnikov beat me to that point.)

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

*snip*

Here's the trick, mate: everybody who's ever been in an Internet debate about anything regarding feminism has already heard all of these points. They're invariably brought up every single time there's a feminist complaint about anything.

The problem is, these areguments are used as a rhetorical bludgeon against feminism and nothing more. Internet MRAs such as Elam may talk a lot about the problems facing men, but they do nothing to actually address said problems besides "raise awareness" in arguments against feminism. Women want to be in combat rolls? "Well women don't need to sign up for the draft!" Campus sexual assault? "False rape allegations ruin men's lives!". Sexual assault of women in prisons or the military? "Well men get raped in the military and prison too, why aren't feminists talking about that?" Prenatal care, maternity leave, or access to abortions? "Why do women have the final say about pregnancy? Men should be able to be deadbeat dads financially abort!" Domestic abuse shelters? "Why do women get then but men don't, and it's feminism's fault. (Just don't ask us to fund one)"

They talk, a lot, but they place the onus for action on anybody else. They don't actually do jack or shit about the problems men face. So then there's this "documentary" that by your explanation doesn't' attempt to get to the truth of the situation, instead saying people should figure it out for themselves, and features these people who I'd rather not advocate for my rights as a male (because they're shit at it), doing the only thing they're good at: just talking.

Well, if that is your standard: nothing less than rock hard political involvement and personal finacial investment, fair enough.

Looking forward to seeing you disavow the Women's-march, He-For-She, and the myriad of feminist journalists and authors who make a living out of writing about women's rights and rape culture. Because, you know, raising awareness of problems that exist in society and appealing to the government to do something about it is not a legitimate form of activism.

But of course you are not going to do that, it's only pointless bitching and whining when others do it, right?

One major difference: the Women's March, He-for-She, and the myriad feminist journalists and authors who make a living out of writing about women's rights don't exist merely to bash MRAs and comment that men aren't the ones who're actually oppressed.

It's a context thing.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

It's a complicated issue. As you yourself said there was no political will to assist your efforts. That's a major problem. And it isn't the fault of MRAs. Surely you wouldn't have held yourself accountable for a lack of political action from your local representatives while an MRA, so you can't really hold the lot of them accountable for it either. Political will in the US and most western states is based on public will.

That we didn't get widespread support doesn't surprise me, but what did annoy me was so many anti-feminists and people proporting to wanting to address it, INCLUDING people who claim to be MRA's even to this day. So yes, I still blame the movement as a whole. You telling me Paul Elam can't shell out a few bucks?

Feminists have been shutting down MRA talks, gatherings, and efforts since before the term was coined. Feminists have accrued a great deal of political will and until fairly recently enjoyed a great deal of public support that MRA causes have never had.

And the Republicans and conservatives opposing them? Were THEY helpless and powerless, especially in areas where feminists held far less sway like here?

I would further submit that feminism itself has been in mortal combat with the MRA movement since it's inception and have tared it and slagged it from large public platforms that MRAs don't get. So between the difficulty of getting men interested and comfortable lobbying in that fashion, and the constant assault from feminists and the abject lack of public will - again, resultant from feminist attacks and suppression of the issues men face - there's no political will. Feminists and other activists meet with government MRAs meet with each other, at best. This movie is starting to change that in Canada thankfully. So actually getting private funding for anything with MRA underpinning it is likewise challenging because the feminists will attack the private donors as well as the project itself.

So again, where are the evangelical Christians, the conservatives, the other anti feminists all over? You know, people WITH money and influence to help us? I notice you excuse them of any guilt in the sad state of support for men...

Do note that she claims MRAs are dangerous, want nothing but sex with who and when they want it, and equates them with pickup artists and she isn't once corrected. This is the image they have to contend with. If that wasn't you as an MRA you ought to have a few issues with being characterized that way.

Again, when Paul Elam is declaring all women to be murderers, and not a single MRA is calling out people like RooshV and Ann Coulter, they have it coming.

There was a time I would have been upset, but that's not that time anymore. The movement, when it decided that screaming about how shit feminists and women are by nature was more important than building support for men who are actually suffering, was when it lost me. I'll be a part of it again when it decides this is more important than flinging pig shit at left wingers.

I'd rather light a candle than curse the darkness.

 

[one squirrel]

snip.

Can you please provide a link to Paul Elam's statement about how all women are murderers?