[runsonmagic]

Watch the full documentary here:
http://www.vice.com/read/the-women-of-th...vement-804

VICE generally makes well produced documentaries, but their choice of music, interview locations, and editing makes me think they are trying hard to make MRM members look bad. The MRM interview subjects don't do themselves many favors either, but in their missteps are some good lessons for redpillers considering stepping into the media spotlight. A bit painful to watch, but interesting.

[runsonmagic]

For an interesting junxtaposition, VICE published this a year ago:
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/we-went-t...in-toronto

The MRM has gone from "losers" to "dangerous."

Maybe they are making progress.

[StrikeBack]

Ignore -> Laugh At -> Fight -> Victory.

We're between Laugh ("losers") and Fight ("dangerous").

[iamdegaussed]

pretty much everything men's rights or red pill related is going to be made to look bad in the media. you'll notice what happens when they can't do that, they just pull the idea like ABC News or whatever did last year.

[Big Country]

I thought Vice was alright a few years ago, but the tone of articles has been steadily moving to the left. I also don't like the way in which they judge things, as opposed to being unbiased journalists. They are now just another tool used for indoctrination. Even their HBO show has gone downhill.

[Quintus Curtius]

VICE is sometimes an odd bird. I mean, hard to get a fix on.

They have brief flashes of red pillism every now and then. But then a dose of neck beardery drowns it out.

They have brief flashes of independent thought, and then that gets overwhelmed by PC bilge-spewing writers from hotbeds of leftist NYC fuckery.

Then there are the undercurrents of drug use, gay propaganda, and the usual laundry-list of leftist knob-nibblerism.

Can't really figure them out.

[El Chinito loco]

(08-06-2014 12:11 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

VICE is sometimes an odd bird. I mean, hard to get a fix on.

They have brief flashes of red pillism every now and then. But then a dose of neck beardery drowns it out.

They have brief flashes of independent thought, and then that gets overwhelmed by PC bilge-spewing writers from hotbeds of leftist NYC fuckery.

Then there are the undercurrents of drug use, gay propaganda, and the usual laundry-list of leftist knob-nibblerism.

Can't really figure them out.

They are staffed (for the most part) by hipsters, artists, and alternate media activist people. A few of the people on their staff are fairly red pill..David Choe is an example of that. However, they also have a lot of social justice warrior and activist types working there. That's why they are based in New York. All in all i'd take all their documentaries with a grain of salt. They have a few good pieces out there but they still mostly toe the mainstream media line even when they try to be different.

I think the VICE founder got his ideas from reading alternate media publications like exile and Answer me! The other co-founder (not Shane) left Vice because he disagreed with the direction it was going.

[Feisbook Control]

(08-06-2014 12:11 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

VICE is sometimes an odd bird. I mean, hard to get a fix on.

They have brief flashes of red pillism every now and then. But then a dose of neck beardery drowns it out.

They have brief flashes of independent thought, and then that gets overwhelmed by PC bilge-spewing writers from hotbeds of leftist NYC fuckery.

Then there are the undercurrents of drug use, gay propaganda, and the usual laundry-list of leftist knob-nibblerism.

Can't really figure them out.

Neck beadery, knob-nibblerism. You are certainly a man of letters.

As for Vice, I believe Robert Conquest's second law of politics applies:

Quote:

Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.

[Captain Gh]

As soon as you read an article with the word Toronto in it you know you'll be reading some dumb shit!! Funny cause at work a future up and comer in the game was trying to sell me on the idea of staying put in Toronto! He's about half way in on the Red Pill journey but doesn't know it yet! He'll be the one leaving that shit hole after I tell him to stash his bonus $ to travel hehe!!

[Constitution45]

I can't even get round to reading vice any more, the Vice magazine UK section is just perfect. Full of these hipster whores and weak males who are trying to deal with their self hate for living in a gentrified area; while preaching all that bullshit their lecturers taught them in a second tier university.

Shane Smith's original documentaries were fantastic, really impressive; especially the one in Liberia, but everything else is just blatant propaganda.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

You guys are having a hard time figuring out where Vice is coming from because this article is your standard media feminism, but it's cleverly disguised as an article "praising" the Men's Rights Movement.

The piece was written by a female writer, Alex Brook Lynn, as a tribute to a bunch of women she considers pioneers -- so much so that in her mind, they're better than the men themselves who invented the MRM.

The giveaway paragraph: "As I read their posts and watched their vlogs, it struck me that the feMRAs, especially Karen and Janet, were articulating their theses surprisingly well, more so than many of their male equivalents."

She leaves out the fact that these ideas were men's to begin with, specifically Roissy/Heartiste, Rollo Tomassi, Roosh, and F. Roger Devlin, from his "home economics" essays of ten years ago. And before that, there was Warren Farrell and a radio host named (no kidding here) Jack Hammer. And I'd also argue most of the ideas were "articulated" better by these writers, esp. Roissy/Heartiste.

So what we have here, in essence, are a bunch of women who get the media spotlight because they've become the "spokesmodels" of a movement. Have I supported the ideas of these women? Yes. But I did so knowing that I found them to begin with through blogs by men who came before. People who read this article and (especially) see those photos won't get that.

This is a deliberate attempt to make the MRM -- and those associated with it -- look like a bunch of inarticulate losers who flailed away in obscurity until those brilliant, strong women came along. It's a way to recast reality to serve "the narrative," in other words.

The article also spins the ideas we talk about here to make them seem worthwhile so long as they serve "the female imperative" -- i.e. how can this all benefit women better? This was never the focus of the MRM.

We've also a similar thing happen in the female-dominated publishing industry, where women like Dr. Helen Smith are getting book deals with books that recycle what we come up with here -- but the actual men who invent the ideas and the community have to self-publish their books.

It's surprising these women and Paul Elam don't see this, but I guess they like the publicity. The media is spinning this and making it into something it isn't: a women's movement. This is typical for Vice, whose focus can loosely be described as "women are empowered for doing porn but men are pervs for looking!"

If Heartiste or Rollo Tomassi are reading this, the proverbial ball is in your court and the backboard is waiting to be smashed.

[runsonmagic]

^^^

Well, said.

The MRM believes it needs female spokeswomen because they get the spotlight and media attention. They can say, "see, we're not misogynists, because a lady agrees with us." They don't realize the label misogynist makes them dangerous and that creating an environment where people are judged based on their ideas and results, rather than their gender, is what is actually needed.

It's interesting that "you-go girlsim" has gone so far that women can even do no wrong as Men's Rights Activists. Paul Elam is attempting to leverage this and turn it against itself, not realized that it is the thing he should be attacking. Perhaps it'll break under it's own weight.

[Firescirocco]

I don't really see the point of MRM. At no point will men's rights be accepted as anything more than a joke. If you want men;s rights move to the UAE. Good money, great cities, gorgeous women (if you can get one, ratios are bad) and sharia law.

Only recently a western woman lost custody of her child because she had been working without her husbands permission and had gay friends. ha.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28638553

[Kid Strangelove]

I rather enjoyed the article and the video - and looking around I am apparently the minority.

there are many entry points to the "Red Pill" movement - mens rights, PUAs, haters, mainstream, etc, and this is the first thing I've seen that didn't try to paint a mens movement as a caricature, so more power to it

[Tuthmosis]

Like Roosh, I wouldn't fully trust Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat) if I were in the men's right movement--if for no other reason than she has short hair and I don't trust any chick with that configuration. I also sometimes get a vibe like she's doing this for opportunistically. She found something that was taking off, grabbed a sign, and jumped to the front of the parade.

I agree that those MRM guys are likely in for a big surprise down the line:

   

[soup]

Her skin in the game is her son apperently. Concerns for his future are what drew her to the movement, so she says.

Maybe she will be a "turncoat" but she does articulate the points pretty well, at least from what I've seen, even if the ideas aren't original.

I know some of the vice people. There is definitely a punk mentality that they are coming from, which could be seen as left, but also an irreverent side, and a definite no-white-wash take on the issues. They could use a little more redpill like Gavin Mciness was.

I actually sort of know the author of that article She's a wild one hahah.. or was

[soup]

(08-06-2014 05:42 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

You guys are having a hard time figuring out where Vice is coming from because this article is your standard media feminism, but it's cleverly disguised as an article "praising" the Men's Rights Movement.

The piece was written by a female writer, Alex Brook Lynn, as a tribute to a bunch of women she considers pioneers -- so much so that in her mind, they're better than the men themselves who invented the MRM.

The giveaway paragraph: "As I read their posts and watched their vlogs, it struck me that the feMRAs, especially Karen and Janet, were articulating their theses surprisingly well, more so than many of their male equivalents."

She leaves out the fact that these ideas were men's to begin with, specifically Roissy/Heartiste, Rollo Tomassi, Roosh, and F. Roger Devlin, from his "home economics" essays of ten years ago. And before that, there was Warren Farrell and a radio host named (no kidding here) Jack Hammer. And I'd also argue most of the ideas were "articulated" better by these writers, esp. Roissy/Heartiste.

So what we have here, in essence, are a bunch of women who get the media spotlight because they've become the "spokesmodels" of a movement. Have I supported the ideas of these women? Yes. But I did so knowing that I found them to begin with through blogs by men who came before. People who read this article and (especially) see those photos won't get that.

This is a deliberate attempt to make the MRM -- and those associated with it -- look like a bunch of inarticulate losers who flailed away in obscurity until those brilliant, strong women came along. It's a way to recast reality to serve "the narrative," in other words.

The article also spins the ideas we talk about here to make them seem worthwhile so long as they serve "the female imperative" -- i.e. how can this all benefit women better? This was never the focus of the MRM.

We've also a similar thing happen in the female-dominated publishing industry, where women like Dr. Helen Smith are getting book deals with books that recycle what we come up with here -- but the actual men who invent the ideas and the community have to self-publish their books.

It's surprising these women and Paul Elam don't see this, but I guess they like the publicity. The media is spinning this and making it into something it isn't: a women's movement. This is typical for Vice, whose focus can loosely be described as "women are empowered for doing porn but men are pervs for looking!"

If Heartiste or Rollo Tomassi are reading this, the proverbial ball is in your court and the backboard is waiting to be smashed.

My take on it as that what we are doing isn't for the benefit of any one particular gender, like how feminism is. It's for the general benefit of everybody to recognize the truths I believe and to be at peace with all of it.

Women suffer by going crazy after hitting the wall because they aren't prepared for what life as in store for them- they are emotionally and mentally coddled by our culture and put on pedestals like spoiled brats. Most men are blue pill clueless.

Both of those sides are lost. It's like a bunch of children with no direction.

What we are doing is recognizing the reality of what nature is and wants, what we can change, and what we can't. I think it's both the male and female imperative- it's the human imperative.

I also believe that politically, this is the only frame that the other side is going to be able to connect with. Otherwise it will be tit for tat fighting like what goes on over by Israel.