FWIS3

http://theredpillmovie.com/

Anyone heard of this or perhaps even seen it?
Seems to have caused a lot of controversy by a lot of people that haven't seen it.
The director, Cassie Jaye, experienced a lot of heat from it and even lost friends because she made the movie. Apparently her friends are of the belief that a feminist is not allowed to make a movie about men's issues.
It's even been petitioned against be feminist groups that stopped a screening in Melbourne Australia.

I don't know them, but I do know the Red Pill Movement and somewhat the men's rights movement. How do I put this... I do think there are legit issues to be discussed on topics like child custody often defaulting to the women, how there's a false idea that men can't be raped or be victims of domestic violence, etc. But holy fuck does the MRA attract awful people, and in large numbers. And frankly naming a documentary about this "The Red Pill" is pretty incendiary if you know much about this world- it's a sub-class of the MRA that pushes a pretty pick up artist line, and basically thinks women should be treated as children and often advocates for psychological abuse in relationships to keep men in charge. Here's a post their subreddit to give you an idea, with a thousand upvotes and was at the top of the page when I checked.

My simple reaction is one of yeah, anyone who conflates the two and doesn't bother to distinguish between them to the point of naming her movie after TRP is going to get protesters. Even if the rest of the film is focused on the normal people in the movement, that's what happens when you conflate things. Akin to not all Trump supporters are racist... but I'd do some serious eyebrow raising if someone made a documentary about them and called it The Birth of a Nation).

I had never heard of TRP, and after reading the top post in the subreddit Rommie linked, I wish I never had.

geonuc wrote:I had never heard of TRP, and after reading the top post in the subreddit Rommie linked, I wish I never had.

amen, brother. my skin in crawling.

So no one has seen the film?

vendic wrote:So no one has seen the film?

Probably not, since the only person in this thread that has heard of the movement is Rommie.

TRP on reddit is something completely different, but to answer Rommie's question on why she called it "The Red Pill", I'll just provide the directors own response, and, yes, there are a bunch of blatantly women hating men's sites on the internet as well as legitimate men's activist sites. Lumping them all together seems to be the norm, I know. I did it.I pictured them as women hating assholes and wanted nothing to so with them so really never looked any deeper.
A recent youtube video that popped into my feed (a comedy video) raised my attention to it. So, in my "mind cleanup" that I now try to regularly do, I revisit things I may have formed conclusions about without the proper research. That's how I got onto this film. IOW, I'm not buying into the view that it is women hating, misogynistic crap till I actually research it. From what I've seen, it appears to be a legitimate look at some very serious issues regarding men in society. I might even rent it just to see for myself but really wanted to know if anyone had already done so already, and if it was worth the $4.

Here's a Q/A snippet done by the director:

Hello, first i just wanted to say i am very glad to see someone, especially a feminist to actually give the Mens Right Movement a chance. Even though i don't directly call myself an MRA i believe that the movement has been subjected to a lot of misinformation and straight up slander from the media.
But onto my question. I found the name "The Red Pill" a little weird. Mainly because the term Red Pill is associated with Pick Up Artist culture. Primarily on reddit there is a subreddit known as theredpill who use PUA culture, ultra-traditionalism and sexual strategy to boost male identity. Now the thing is that MRAs are often conflated by these people by the media, even though notable PUAs have actively stated to be anti-MRA and that MRAs want nothing to do with them.
What was your decision to call it The Red Pill and do you think it won't get confused with the Red Pill as a pick up artist philosophy rather than a mens rights philosophy?

cassiejaye wrote:Hi CaptainWeeaboo, thank you so much for asking this! I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to use your question to address everything I want to say about the title.
The title The Red Pill refers to the cultural metaphor for “seeing the painful truth of reality” (which of course originated from the movie The Matrix). When I began this project in March 2013, 2.5 years ago, the MRM/MHRM was often using the term ‘the red pill’ when describing their moment of realization or enlightenment about gender politics. One of the very first articles I read on A Voice For Men was by Paul Elam called something like “red pills, blue skies, and tits”. AVFM also had the phrase, “take the red pill” as part of their logo at the time. They have since changed it.
The reason I chose this title is because early on in filming, MRAs were telling me that feminist ideology was ‘blue pill” and that they took the ‘red pill’, so while I was struggling to see and understand the opposing viewpoints, I used this terminology to compartmentalize the ideologies. I actually refer to red pill / blue pill often in my video diaries. When looking at the story arc and the journey I went on, the only title that made sense was ‘The Red Pill’ because it succinctly described my quest to understand the way MRAs (and anti-feminists) see the world.
Others have asked, do you know the difference between the MRM and TRP subreddit, yes I do and those differences will be briefly addressed in the film when describing the factions of the manosphere. However, my film’s title is not referring to TRP subreddit, it is in reference to its original popular culture usage (which is used my many other groups and conspiracists as well, it is not owned by the subreddit).
As far as why TRP subreddit appears on the screen in the sneak preview video, mainstream media constantly conflates all manosphere factions to seem as if they are all one in the same (PUA, MGTOW, MRM, TRP, etc). In the sneak preview video (around the 1 minute mark), that is an actual audio excerpt unedited from MSNBC. They did a story about the “Men’s Rights Movement’ and they said that the MRM “is a universe of message boards like reddit’s The Red Pill”. This is not me saying they are the same, it’s mainstream media, and in my film we will show what mainstream media says about the MRM before we go beneath the surface.
Whew! That was long, but hopefully we can move past the title now. Oh, one more thing: no, I’m not changing the title.

Yeah, still a dumb name. As I said, it strikes me as someone making a Trump supporter film called The Birth of a Nation and then saying "oh I know there's a KKK related thing called that, but there are also a lot of supporters who think this is the birth of a movement that'll make America great again so that's why I named it that!" Like, ok, you can of course do that if you want, but don't then be shocked that people get hella confused and prejudge your film based on how you branded it.

Note I've never seen the film either, and was careful to just discuss the men's rights movement as I know it. The Red Pill is just a very obvious example because titling the film like that will make people approach it with preconceptions, and it's naive to think otherwise.

Good way to court controversy though of course.

I'm pretty sure she was going for the controversy aspect in some way. It's hard to know how it will pay off though. Maybe her point was that people come in with pre-conceived ideas regardless so why bother trying to not do it. For example, no one would give her funding when they found out that it was not going to be a propaganda piece slamming the MRA movement.

The other interesting part is that she tried to get support from MRA groups initially but got very little since there was a huge distrust of media by MRA members. Then freedom of speech groups got involved and that's when she got enough funding to complete the movie.

I think the most fascinating aspect for me is that almost everyone seems to have universal condemnation for MRA groups. By that I mean legitimate groups as opposed to the misogynistic ones. Even I was guilty of it. My initial response was more like, "you're a man, grow a pair and get over it". That was obviously years ago when I first heard about them and I just assumed what I read was factual. I'm really trying to not take anything in anymore unless I research it, research it to death at times! I can be an asshole at times, but, I'm trying to get better. Really I am.

So I'm seriously thinking of watching the movie. At least then I can discuss it without ignorance, and tell when people have or haven't seen it. Just getting tired of people with agenda's messing up things that should be universally accepted, like equality between all people. I think I'll no longer consider myself as a feminist but rather, egalitarian. It's easier than saying I'm a feminist, gay rights supporter, black lives supporter, non racist bla bla bla. Even though that's pretty much what I always was, it seemed like if I didn't accept any particular group I'd be considered against it, which is not the case. Obviously it'll mean a lot of explaining to anyone I discuss things with, but, what the hell.

Ok, so I watched the movie. It was well done and certainly approached the issue with an open mind. The director did a great job at investigating the issues even though she initially thought they were a hate group.
I have to say, I learned a lot of things I really had no clue about prior to watching it and I try to be as well informed as I can in these things. Some very surprising things to be honest. It's hard to discuss it without spoilers but I'd rate it as a must see if you're the type that believes in social justice and hold strong opinions about such things. The director did her fact checking pretty well but could have cleared up some ambiguity in some of it. While technically correct, one of the figures disregards the details, and, the devil is in the details.
It is about two hours long. There will be some, WTF moments. Basically, for me it was a case of thinking I knew the information but I seem to have fallen for some of the same things others fell for. It was an eye opener for sure. I can understand why Cassie refused to change the title of the film after watching it. I wasn't sure if that was a wise move before, probably still don't, but I do understand it.

I think my favorite line in the movie was a guy that said something to the effect of, "I learned in math that the distance between A and B is the same as the distance between B and A. When the feminist movement says men can't understand what women go through, it also means that women can't understand what men go through."
They really do have some valuable things to say. Convincing people to listen, or even allowing them to say it, appear's to be a problem in itself.

Something to learn for everyone. I liked it, and, there was no hate mongering in it if you're worried.

Rommie wrote:Yeah, still a dumb name. As I said, it strikes me as someone making a Trump supporter film called The Birth of a Nation and then saying "oh I know there's a KKK related thing called that, but there are also a lot of supporters who think this is the birth of a movement that'll make America great again so that's why I named it that!"

I'm writing an autobiography called Mein Kampf. BUT SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE JEWS.



I'm also aware of the MRA blather and it's association with the red pill. I am not interested in it.

If I ever feel like I'm disadvantaged in the world because I'm a man, I might revisit the topic. In the mean time, when I read the odd offensive article by Clementine Ford, or hear about a "bad" feminist website, I'll just roll my eyes and get on with life.

squ1d wrote:I'm writing an autobiography called Mein Kampf. BUT SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE JEWS.



I'm also aware of the MRA blather and it's association with the red pill. I am not interested in it.

It's more like a Buddhist calling a book, "The History of the Swatstika", and then being accused of being a Nazi.
Like you, I thought the MRA had ties to the nut jobs. Seems the reality is they don't much care for each other.
Personally I think what was addressed in the movie and the data presented was far from, "blather".
But that's your right to not watch it and keep your view point.

vendic wrote:I think my favorite line in the movie was a guy that said something to the effect of, "I learned in math that the distance between A and B is the same as the distance between B and A. When the feminist movement says men can't understand what women go through, it also means that women can't understand what men go through."
They really do have some valuable things to say. Convincing people to listen, or even allowing them to say it, appear's to be a problem in itself.

Stopped clock? I mean, Donald Trump has said a few very astute things about political state of the US, and about other Republicans in particular, despite himself looking like an establishment Republican after six months of anabolic steroids and meth.

BTW, Paul Elam is a disgusting pig of a guy.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paul_Elam

So you're not going to watch the film then?

No, I am not. A few MRA complaints sometimes being legitimate doesn't mean anyone should seriously listen to these guys, any more than people should seriously listen to Ted Kaczinsky.

Edit: I also think the rule about free speech and Fascists applies. Some people just have to be denied any platform, because their arguments are not designed to defend their ideas but rather to recruit followers. Give these folks a soapbox and they will always get stronger, even if you debunk them; give them a political platform and they will win, even if they're obviously morons.

Appeals to emotion don't win arguments, but they do win popular support, and popular support is what makes MRAs and their ilk dangerous.

That's an interesting pov GJ.

So what's your primary objection?
That men can't have a voice to address their concerns because:
1) They are inherently evil
2) They are whiners and have no legitimacy
3) I read about MRA's on sites that hate them, and thus have formed a completely unbiased opinion
4) These guys just need to grow some balls and get over it.
5) I really don't want to hear their opinion because I already decided what that opinion is so don't want to know about it
6) other

For the record, lets get a few things straight. No one mentioned Paul Elam on this thread but you. He does not represent the entirety of the MRM. He did not fund the film, neither did any official MRM organisation. He was one of many people interviewed on the film, others you probably wouldn't have heard of. You also might want to read some of his work in entirety rather than out of context. I'm not supporting the guy, but, I sure have seen some deliberate attempts to demonize him based on lies. I'm not interested in anyone or any group that officially that spews lies to push their personal agenda.

Among the many MRM supporters and feminist supporters interviewed, she also interviewed Erin Pizzey, the woman who opened the first woman's shelter in the UK. You might want to read up on her and how she was demonized because she supported the idea of men's violence shelters. Now she is barred from the very organization she started and it's no longer providing shelter for men and women, it's just for women. Even though statistically, domestic abuse is roughly equal among the sexes, there is only one men's refuge in the USA compared to roughly 2000 women's. The suicides are 4/5 male. Most homeless people are male. Male rape is hardly addressed, male deaths in combat since the Korean war are about 98%. 93% of all work related deaths are men. Men get about 160% of the sentencing for the same crime committed by women. There is little men have in the way of rights when it comes to children's custody, particularly in the USA where men can be the victim and still have to pay from the system too.
You can close your eyes to it if you want, but, there are some legitimate concerns you are closing your mind to. Sure it's not easy to suddenly think, fuck, things aren't as simple as we're told. Societies ignorance can be bliss, but it comes at someone else's cost.

The film wasn't about hate, it was about hearing the legitimate issues that are present in society that really affect men. If you choose not to listen, that's your call. However, refusing to do so because you don't like some people in some movement is absurd.
Would you like me to give you links to crazy women who want to kill off men, put them in camps etc, and who are high up in the feminist movement and given public forum access?
Does that mean that we shouldn't listen to women's legitimate concerns?

For the record, whenever I bring up these women I am told that they don't represent the feminist movement. Well, no shit. I was bringing it up to point out that the feminist movement should distance themselves from them as opposed to embracing them. I never make the claim like you just did that the concept itself has little merit should be ignored. That right there is the core of the problem. Blatant and willful sexism in action bathed in self righteous legitimacy. This is why I no longer consider myself a feminist, that and the fact that anyone that says they aren't feminist is more likely than not to be labeled a liar, ignorant and a misogynist. I am and always was egalitarian and as such support both feminism and the MRM but don't identify as either. Apparently however, some think it's an either or proposition, which is ludicrous. You're either with us or against us mentality. More hate spewing crap.

So, I'll stress again, that the film was done by a feminist who started thinking exactly like you. There is no hate in the film, no agenda pushing. It is a legitimate attempt to see what the MRM is about and she spent three years doing it and did it very well.

Paul Elam was mentioned in the thing you yourself quoted above.

The film was funded in part by Milo freaking Yiannopolous. I doubt it has no agenda.

The relationship between MRA rhetoric and male victims is like the relationship between TERFs and victims of abusive trans women. They act as advocates out of political expediency. Nobody who excuses the rape of women is any damn friend of male rape victims either.

Don't automatically give idiots credence just because they say a few reasonable things. Beware being so open-minded that your brain falls out.

Gullible Jones wrote:Paul Elam was mentioned in the thing you yourself quoted above.

Grasping at straws. No one on this site mentioned him. The quote was by the author who I put on this site because she explained why she chose the title.
But, technically you didn't bring it up so I'll retract my statement that you did.

Gullible Jones wrote:Paul
The film was funded in part by Milo freaking Yiannopolous. I doubt it has no agenda.

Alan Scherstuhl's review suggested that many of those providing funding for the film may have themselves been men’s rights activists, thereby creating a conflict of interest.[10] Jaye has said that the suggestion the film was funded by MRAs (men's rights activists) is "a common lie that keeps spreading."[2] One of the largest pledges to the film was by Mike Cernovich, who pledged $10,000 to the Kickstarter project. In a blog post he stated he was "not funding The Red Pill to help MRAs" but that the film will "help all men, and all women, and all children."[5] Cernovich does not identify as an MRA.[5] Jaye stated that "our five highest backers ... are neither MRA nor feminist. I would say three out of five of them didn’t even know about the men's rights movement, but wanted to defend free speech."[5] She also stated that the film's backers and producers would have no influence or control of the film.[2][5]

As I've actually watched the film, I agree with that assessment. For the record, I will point out that Cassie rejected funding by feminist organisations because they wanted it to be a defamatory piece and she wanted it to be unbiased. Their opposition was so strong, it almost stopped the making of the movie. Let's just clear that up. The idea of a documentary that was unbiased was so repulsive that a large vocal section of the feminist community tried to stop its production. They then tried to stop the screenings. Go free speech.

Gullible Jones wrote:The relationship between MRA rhetoric and male victims is like the relationship between TERFs and victims of abusive trans women. They act as advocates out of political expediency. Nobody who excuses the rape of women is any damn friend of male rape victims either.

More political propaganda. You're conflating assholes and movements.
I guess that you believe that there are no possible legitimate reasons to have men's issues openly addressed?
Oddly, that's exactly what the MRA and Cassie's experience has been.

Gullible Jones wrote:Don't automatically give idiots credence just because they say a few reasonable things.

How many reasonable or actual facts would you like before you will allow those issues to be taken seriously?
You confuse my position on the facts and issues brought to light by these people with support of the people themselves.
If you want to ignore the message because of the messenger, that's your right. Just understand that if you do it for these people then you really should apply the same rule everywhere. Would you like me to give you some messages from radical feminists so you can dismiss feminism?

Gullible Jones wrote:Beware being so open-minded that your brain falls out.

I'm impressed. I found a liberal who thinks closing their mind on things is a good idea.

Seriously GJ, I watched the freaking film. You can sit there and tell me how it's biased, influenced by asshole misogynists etc, but I have seen it and completely disagree with that assessment. If you watched it, you might just find you have a little less hate for men.

She spent three years making the thing and 2.5 years involved with various MRA groups and individuals. Some who were instrumental in the early feminist movement till they made one flaw, thinking that feminism always was about equality. Then they saw the dark side of it. Yet, most of them don't even hate the feminist movement. They just want certain issues addressed because they got into it because they wanted equality for EVERYONE.
On the other hand, do you actually know anyone that believes that men have issues in society other than me?

But, the choice is your's. You can either pretend you know you're right or you can entertain for two hours the possibility that in some small way, you might not be completely right. Just don't try telling me what the film is "really" about when you haven't seen it and I have. That is the very definition of arrogance.

FWIW Mike Cernovich is literally the PizzaGate guy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mike_Cernovich

(I will note that RationalWiki is more of an atheist/skeptic venue, not the kind of place that attracts the more nutty radfem and intersectionalist crowds.)

There is a reason guys like him want a "neutral" view of their platform: because it will get them followers. It doesn't have to be gushing praise, just not too critical. A little open, a little waffling, a little "they have a few good points, maybe they're not crazy".

Likewise, there are reasons that feminists wanted a hit piece. Many of the MRA crowd are the gender equivalent of Nazis, and having a view of them that is both neutral and critical is just impossible.

More political propaganda. You're conflating assholes and movements.

Yes, I am. There's a point at which a political movement is so stuffed with assholeness that any member of that movement is de facto an asshole. When the leaders of a movement are assholes, and the principles as espoused by those leaders are also pure asshole... Well.

And also yes, I do think men's issues should be openly addressed. In the context of everyone else's problems, which means not permitting threats, abuse, violent trash-talk, or promotion thereof. And also not going "Waaaahhh men need sex or they go berserk and kill people, so give us sex." Seriously. This is not fucking hard.

GJ wrote:Likewise, there are reasons that feminists wanted a hit piece. Many of the MRA crowd are the gender equivalent of Nazis, and having a view of them that is both neutral and critical is just impossible.

Ok. You've convinced me. I totally agree that if MRA's have members that are just nasty haters, then any group that has nasty haters is also a hate group. So the feminist movement is a hate group, and, BOTH need to be completely stripped of any voice in the word. I hate hate groups. I found some juicy stuff that we can now agree on and so join forces in eliminating such vile groups:

I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them. Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig. Andrea Dworkin

Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage. Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist. Ti-Grace Atkinson

Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear. Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will p.6

When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression. Sheila Jeffrys

Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated. Catherine MacKinnon

The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men. Sharon Stone

The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race. Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future – If There Is One – Is Female

If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. Mary Daly

I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it. Barbara Jordan, former Congresswoman

I do want to be able to explain to a 9-year-old boy in terms he will understand why I think it’s OK for girls to wear shirts that revel in their superiority over boys. Treena Shapiro[/b]

Need to do more research. You work on finding gays that are fanatics and I'll get onto the transgender movement. Post asap and we'll work out new groups to expose. We need to stop this crazy hatred of human beings by so called liberal groups claiming they want to be heard. Fuck them. Fuck them all!!!

vendic wrote:
Need to do more research. You work on finding gays that are fanatics and I'll get onto the transgender movement. Post asap and we'll work out new groups to expose. We need to stop this crazy hatred of human beings by so called liberal groups claiming they want to be heard. Fuck them. Fuck them all!!!

Why you laugh womans?

This is very serious topic. We must stop the hate everywhere. If we do for some and ignore others based on nothing but our own discretion, then we are nothing but self righteous hypocrites. I know I'm not. I know GJ isn't. I can't convince him that there are legitimate issues, so this is the only acceptable compromise without being a hypocrite.
Actually, I like his plan. I think it has merit. Ban all special interest groups and make one good egalitarian group that has only one goal, equality between human beings.

The more I've read about Breitbart and Milo Yiannopolous's influence on the making of the movie, the more inclined I am to not watch it.

Or believe anything said in it, if I did watch it.

A documentary about Men's Right's Activists funded by Men's Right's Activists is not an objective starting point.

However, I will concede I have no real opinion on its contents having never watched it.

The only influence they had was exposure and contributing in the kickstarter fund when few people wanted to. She tried to go through the right channels. Tried getting funding, but there is no funding for men's related film making. If she wanted to do a woman's issues topic, there's plenty of funding.
As has been addressed before, 3/5 biggest contributors (under 5% each) didn't have anything to do with the MRM and likely had little knowledge about it. They supported it based on free speech.

After seeing the movie, all I can say is how sad the World is when the likes of Breitbart and Milo supported something addressing serious issues than those who spew equality and rights did. The latter tried to stop it and then tried to stop the screening of it.

Oh, when Cassie tried to get funding by posting on MRA sites regarding the kickstarter campaign, she got next to nothing financially. It was dead in the water. Which is the main reason she says it had little support from MRM groups. Some MRM groups have commented that there was next to no trust that a feminist filmaker would look at making anything other than a hit piece about the MRM's so wanted nothing to do with it.


It was vilified from the start by the MRM's, the feminists and others. It's still being vilified and mainly by people who haven't seen it but have a such strong opinions because they "know" they are right. Whatever. I've seen my personal fair share of racism and bias and don't care for it. This is nothing different. Fear, hate and ignorance making decisions for people claiming to be champions of equality and tolerance.

For the record, I'm not condemning anyone here. It's people that haven't seen the movie itself that are trying to prevent it being seen and tried to prevent it being made I have issues with. That crosses the line from having an opinion to acting on said opinion, and the opinion founded in hate.

Breitbart and Milo do not encourage the kickstarting of things they know will be detrimental to their agenda.

In other words ...



.... not objective.

Also since we're being encouraged to look into this movie, you should be encouraged into looking into men's rights movements, and how sketchy they are.