Award winning feminist filmmaker began to doubt her beliefs while making "The Red Pill"… now funding
151 replies, posted
Why would she name her documentary about the worst aspects of this movement though
Like that'd be the same as saying scum manifesto represents femenists
[QUOTE=sgman91;48989081]Is that inherently a problem? There are a lot of women who want to do that.
One of the foundational fallacies in much of feminist thought is that an ideal world without social pressure would result in absolutely equal results in every field. The problem is that there's just no evidence to support that assumption.[/QUOTE]
Are you trying to imply biotruths?
[QUOTE=sgman91;48989081]Is that inherently a problem? There are a lot of women who want to do that.
One of the foundational fallacies in much of feminist thought is that an ideal world without social pressure would result in absolutely equal results in every field. There's just no evidence to support that assumption.[/QUOTE]
I definitely don't think it is an issue, I just think it's a talking point when debating gender politics. Earnings and employment numbers absolutely make sense when accounting for the variables.
Right now there's legislation being introduced in the UK publishing wages between male and female employees. This could be either really really good, or really really bad if mishandled no matter what side you're on.
Up until now, the "studies" have been "male doctor makes X and women doctor makes Y" without accounting for the fact that men traditionally open up their own practices, do paid lectures, take less vacation and sick days (meaning they can cash out), go for higher paying specialties while women gravitate towards psychology and pediatrics.
If handled correctly, we'll see the "gender pay gap" explained by numbers. If there truly is financially punishing gender bias, it will be addressed. If it's not handled correctly, we're going to have another decade of the president of the United States saying women get paid 23 cents less for every dollar a man makes.
[editline]26th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;48989122]Why would she name her documentary about the worst aspects of this movement though
Like that'd be the same as saying scum manifesto represents femenists[/QUOTE]
Provocative titles do rather well. Anyone involved in gender politics knows exactly what this is about.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48989081]Is that inherently a problem? There are a lot of women who want to do that.
One of the foundational fallacies in much of feminist thought is that an ideal world without social pressure would result in absolutely equal results in every field. The problem is that there's just no evidence to support that assumption.[/QUOTE]
You really hit the nail on the head here, there is in fact a much greater chance of us not being equal in every field because men and women are different and that is ok. There are still issues feminists bring up that are worth fighting for though.
[QUOTE=maeZtro;48989212]You really hit the nail on the head here, there is in fact a much greater chance of us not being equal in every field because men and women are different and that is ok. There are still issues feminists bring up that are worth fighting for though.[/QUOTE]
I'll agree with no reservations that women have been mistreated. The fact that women couldn't vote was a travesty and sexist without question, for example.
My issue is with the conflagration of fighting for women's rights (real, actual rights) and feminism. People throughout the US's history have fought and argued for women's rights without ever calling themselves 'feminist' and without accepting the assumptions generally found within it.
Feminism doesn't have a monopoly on equality.
The director should stay away from the angel investors. They almost consistently fuck people over.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48988939]if she had named this film after anything other than a vehemently anti-feminist movement, she wouldn't have lost her feminist-backed funding. i am very liberal and i would not fund a filmmaker to make a film about the devilish liberal media lies and how reagan is the god of politics. why is this different in any way?[/QUOTE]
this kind of reaction is just embarrassing
I get that people love to go into cringe fits when people irl mention words that have a negative connotation on the internet but to say something is "a film about the devilish liberal media lies and how reagan is the god of politics" just because they used a single phrase is infantile
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48989383]this kind of reaction is just embarrassing
I get that people love to go into cringe fits when people irl mention words that have a negative connotation on the internet [B]but to say something is "a film about the devilish liberal media lies and how reagan is the god of politics" just because they used a single phrase is infantile[/B][/QUOTE]
Hey now, trigger words exist! Maybe that's just one of them for a lot of people.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;48989419]Hey now, trigger words exist! Maybe that's just one of them for a lot of people.[/QUOTE]
people rightfully love to bitch about conservatives autotranslating everything bernie sanders says into "I want to hatefuck the constitution and brand the ass of every business owner with a hammer and sickle" because he uses the "socialism" no no word
but then they turn around do the exact same thing without missing a fucking step. It's mind boggling.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48989383]this kind of reaction is just embarrassing
I get that people love to go into cringe fits when people irl mention words that have a negative connotation on the internet but to say something is "a film about the devilish liberal media lies and how reagan is the god of politics" just because they used a single phrase is infantile[/QUOTE]
it's the title of the film, dude, not "a single phrase."
it's a vitriolic group that I used to take part in with shit that supports blatantly emotionally abusive relationships on their frontpage [i]regularly[/i]. They have an article on their frontpage right now saying that the idea that "we're both equal" is a "tacit admission" that the woman is in control in the relationship.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48989473]people rightfully love to bitch about conservatives autotranslating everything bernie sanders says into "I want to hatefuck the constitution and brand the ass of every business owner with a hammer and sickle" because he uses the "socialism" no no word
but then they turn around do the exact same thing without missing a fucking step. It's mind boggling.[/QUOTE]
they're still conservatives in a way, they don't want her to speak because it goes against the status quo of the movement. they don't want someone shining a light at the flaws because that would mean changing, dare i say progressing past them
it has always seemed strange to me that the only time i see followers of popular feminism mention that it applies to men's issues as well is in defense
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48989057]Pretty much, feminism has never been and I don't see why it would ever be about men's issues. Sure, some feminists are aware of men's issues, but they don't really care, not on a large scale. I bet even saying that will get you burned by other feminists. If it's about men in a good light, it's patriarchy by default and need to be removed. No one cares about men passing college less, or men getting fucked by the law or men dying in coal mines.[/QUOTE]
the term "patriarchy" is not "men in a good light."
it's a male-centric society. that's it. men can be (and a majority are) good people, nobody is arguing that all men are evil.
Question - feminists fought (and still fight) for women to serve in wars. How does this effect men? It lowers the death rate of men in wartime. Whoa! Now men are benefiting from feminist actions! Women want that equal opportunity to get shot in the face, but they don't care about men at all, not a bit. Even though that by pushing for equality in the military, men benefit by dying less and women actually benefit less because they now get to die more.
Painting it as "men v. women" is just dishonest - if you do that, you come to conclusions like "women just want to die more!" rather than "women want an opportunity to be equal to men even in environments where they are at a far higher risk to die or be injured."
[editline]26th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Scot;48989050]you dont have a fucking clue what youre talking about[/QUOTE]
Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I'm glad to see that the call for having academic debates and discussions about men's issues in the context of feminism and gender equality is being taken seriously. Wait - let's just get aggressive and angry about it and shout eachother out instead of figuring out how we can bring these issues to greater light with the massive support environment that already exists in the feminist movement, instead of pitting men and women against eachother for no reason.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989500]it's the title of the film, dude, not "a single phrase."
it's a vitriolic group that I used to take part in with shit that supports blatantly emotionally abusive relationships on their frontpage [i]regularly[/i]. They have an article on their frontpage right now saying that the idea that "we're both equal" is a "tacit admission" that the woman is in control in the relationship.[/QUOTE]
Notice how the title isn't "r/TheRedPill is right about everything". It's just "The Red Pill".
if you can't even take someone mentioning a phrase that's tied to a group you hate without immediately declaring them and everything they're involved with disgusting heretical filth, the problem is with you. Not them.
Now if you were criticizing something she's said, or some aspect of the movie, that'd be one thing. But you're literally just jumping to conclusions and going on tirades based on three fucking words, like, come the fuck on man.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989500]it's the title of the film, dude, not "a single phrase."
it's a vitriolic group that I used to take part in with shit that supports blatantly emotionally abusive relationships on their frontpage [i]regularly[/i]. They have an article on their frontpage right now saying that the idea that "we're both equal" is a "tacit admission" that the woman is in control in the relationship.[/QUOTE]
She started making a documentary about these kind of people, and in the process found they aren't bogeymen and started to sympathise with them changing her own views a bit.
So when anyone hears this, they assume she is now allying with those horrible bogeymen because one article on the subreddit tells you all you need to know about a complex group.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48989558]Notice how the title isn't "r/TheRedPill is right about everything". It's just "The Red Pill".
if you can't even take someone mentioning a phrase that's tied to a group you hate without immediately declaring them and everything they're involved with disgusting heretical filth, the problem is with you. Not them.
Now if you were criticizing something she's said, or some aspect of the movie, that'd be one thing. But you're literally just jumping to conclusions and going on tirades based on three fucking words, like, come the fuck on man.[/QUOTE]
I would not be interested in funding a film from an outspoken socialist who decided to detail their changing of opinions in support of fascism. She's stated that her beliefs were called into question and her opinion changed on the matter - I'm assuming that means she's more supportive of the group that her film is titled after. If that just means that she's recognized the issues that men have in our society, great, I recognize those too and I want more action for men's issues in our society. But if that were the case, why would she title a film after such a vitriolic, backwards group of people?
[QUOTE=Devodiere;48989601]She started making a documentary about these kind of people, and in the process found they aren't bogeymen and started to sympathise with them changing her own views a bit.
So when anyone hears this, they assume she is now allying with those horrible bogeymen because one article on the subreddit tells you all you need to know about a complex group.[/QUOTE]
It's not one article. I was heavily into /r/seduction and /r/theredpill for almost a year.
It's not a complex group, either. The very basics of their complaints are genuine and I recognize that and I entirely suppor those few basic complaints - but it's an echo chamber that breeds contempt for women and has gotten increasingly radicalized over time.
Here's a couple comments lifted straight from the TRP thread on this documentary:
"Why would you want to support anything a feminist is doing?"
"I don't give a shit that some dumb blonde bimbo wants to "enlighten" herself."
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989605]I would not be interested in funding a film from an outspoken socialist who decided to detail their changing of opinions in support of fascism. She's stated that her beliefs were called into question and her opinion changed on the matter - I'm assuming that means she's more supportive of the group that her film is titled after. If that just means that she's recognized the issues that men have in our society, great, I recognize those too and I want more action for men's issues in our society. But if that were the case, why would she title a film after such a vitriolic, backwards group of people?[/QUOTE]
It's like you never even wanted to read the article but just wanted to make it clear that ANY AND ALL uses of the phrase indicate someone's a die hard supporter.
She titled it that when she was vehemently against MRAs, maybe she did some research and saw something you don't? Oh she's wrong and she can't have seen that because of how YOU define a term for her is great logic man.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989605]I would not be interested in funding a film from an outspoken socialist who decided to detail their changing of opinions in support of fascism. She's stated that her beliefs were called into question and her opinion changed on the matter - I'm assuming that means she's more supportive of the group that her film is titled after. If that just means that she's recognized the issues that men have in our society, great, I recognize those too and I want more action for men's issues in our society. But if that were the case, why would she title a film after such a vitriolic, backwards group of people?[/QUOTE]
have you ever considered she might explain why she changed her views and they may have logical consistency that you never might have considered if you didn't watch it? you're right now completely dismissing her without knowing anything more than the title and her saying it changed her point of view. honestly a bit disturbing how easily you toss away someone's viewpoint
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989652]It's not one article. I was heavily into /r/seduction and /r/theredpill for almost a year.
It's not a complex group, either. The very basics of their complaints are genuine and I recognize that and I entirely suppor those few basic complaints - but it's an echo chamber that breeds contempt for women and has gotten increasingly radicalized over time.
Here's a couple comments lifted straight from the TRP thread on this documentary:
"Why would you want to support anything a feminist is doing?"
"I don't give a shit that some dumb blonde bimbo wants to "enlighten" herself."[/QUOTE]
We both know extremes of both sides exist and you are using cherry picking to ignore that for yourself.
You do that a lot.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989605]I would not be interested in funding a film from an outspoken socialist who decided to detail their changing of opinions in support of fascism. She's stated that her beliefs were called into question and her opinion changed on the matter - I'm assuming that means she's more supportive of the group that her film is titled after. If that just means that she's recognized the issues that men have in our society, great, I recognize those too and I want more action for men's issues in our society. [B]But if that were the case, why would she title a film after such a vitriolic, backwards group of people?[/B][/QUOTE]
That's what you're concerned about? Super Size Me wasn't about his feeder fetish and naming it after the group you're investigating is a lot more neutral than naming it "Horrible Internet Misogynists".
I think it's actually as you describe, she just recognised various issues men face due to being exposed to opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately everyone else had an allergic reaction to the idea of opposing viewpoints and that's where this clusterfuck has come from.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989605]I would not be interested in funding a film from an outspoken socialist who decided to detail their changing of opinions in support of fascism. She's stated that her beliefs were called into question and her opinion changed on the matter - I'm assuming that means she's more supportive of the group that her film is titled after. If that just means that she's recognized the issues that men have in our society, great, I recognize those too and I want more action for men's issues in our society. But if that were the case, why would she title a film after such a vitriolic, backwards group of people?[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but she hasn't said jack shit about supporting MRAs or identifying as one. I think that's just an invention of your "with us or against us" mentality.
Sometimes it feels like people think feminism is a fucking magical fairy, and if everyone doesn't clasp their hands together and loudly proclaim their belief in it it'll wither away.
Even if this film is total bullocks and she's secretly ann coulter in disguise it doesn't excuse the reaction it's gotten.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48989654]have you ever considered she might explain why she changed her views and they may have logical consistency that you never might have considered if you didn't watch it? you're right now completely dismissing her without knowing anything more than the title and her saying it changed her point of view. honestly a bit disturbing how easily you toss away someone's viewpoint[/QUOTE]
I would hope so - I'd have to see the movie to make any judgments on it, but from what I've read it doesn't seem that way to me.
I'll stop making judgments until I know more about the actual film - should've done that in the first place.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48988939]
TRP does the exact opposite for men - it criticizes and humiliates "beta" guys and praises ultramasculine alpha "real men." if you switched the roles of TRP's stereotypical "beta relationship" type shit, it's about a man controlling a woman through manipulation and even force. it's not about masculinity - it's about nostalgia for early-1900s hypermasculinity.
if she had named this film after anything other than a vehemently anti-feminist movement, she wouldn't have lost her feminist-backed funding. i am very liberal and i would not fund a filmmaker to make a film about the devilish liberal media lies and how reagan is the god of politics. why is this different in any way?[/QUOTE]
I think it's a pretty smart title considering the entire concept is "once you take the red pill, you'll never think the same way and see how slanted everything really is". Sure, it some ties to the gender politics culture, but that's why it's a great title. Provocative too since you'll likely go in not knowing what to expect.
I don't pay attention to the subreddit too much, but I do feel they have been misrepresented in the media as misogynists, a very serious allegation that requires intensive psychiatric evaluation, conveniently by so called "progressive" websites that are notorious for pushing narratives down people's throats.
Sure, they have some rather controversial views on the sexual marketplace and relationships and marriage (which I'll admit I agree with) but a lot of content on there relates to discussion that has nothing to do with gender politics.
Until they're advocating that women continue getting circumcised in third world/middle eastern nations, I don't think you can call them anti feminists or anti women. They're anti radicals that are against the false statistics and false narratives being pushed on them. I wouldn't consider the majority of self identified feminists of today as feminists. They're overzealous regressive leftists.
Breitbart is some reactionary conservative shit news site comparable to Fox News but even worse, it's the Huffington Post of conservative internet media
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48990307]Breitbart is some reactionary conservative shit news site comparable to Fox News but even worse, it's the Huffington Post of conservative internet media[/QUOTE]
There are a few gold nuggets in the opinion section.
It's nice what happens when you challenge your held views against those contradictory to your own instead of just reinforcing what you already think in an echo chamber. You don't come to the truth by refusing to listen to what might contradict your beliefs, you come to it by slamming your beliefs against everything that goes against it and seeing if it still holds together.
I can't wait to watch it after it comes out, I hope it's similar to Harald Eia's "Brainwashed" documentary in that it cuts through all the bullshit and presents a neutral look at both sides of the issue.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48988939]The naivete of trying to explore gender issues by associating yourself with a rapidly-radicalizing borderline hate-group.[/QUOTE]
if i took this sentence at face value with no context i would have no clue which side you were referring to
you are free to interpret that as you will
[editline]27th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989605]But if that were the case, why would she title a film after such a vitriolic, backwards group of people?[/QUOTE]
idk sounds like she made the title up when she began as a way to poke holes at people like this like "these are the red pillers, this is a documentary about redpillers" and the name just stuck as her views changed
like if she made a documentary called christians intending to deconstruct christianity but she accidentally became christian along the way and kept the name
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48990307]Breitbart is some reactionary conservative shit news site comparable to Fox News but even worse, it's the Huffington Post of conservative internet media[/QUOTE]
:ok:
This article is almost all direct quotes and citations and paraphrasing. I think we're all aware of what the site is, but I guess some people just judge a book by its cover, huh?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48989533]the term "patriarchy" is not "men in a good light."
it's a male-centric society. that's it. men can be (and a majority are) good people, nobody is arguing that all men are evil.
Question - feminists fought (and still fight) for women to serve in wars. How d-[/QUOTE]
It didn't and still doesn't until a recent US court case gets to the Supreme Court.
It took 50 years after Veitnam for a woman to challenge the use of the Draft. Meanwhile the only courtcases we've seen haven't been about women enlisting or joining active service, its about climbing the command chain. Two of the most important cases of for American Service women were about, 'How can I get promoted and get a bigger check'.
Don't ever say that shit again. If women were so keen on making an equal territory, it should not have taken nearly a century from the start of feminism to now, to fix the fucking draft.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.