[RatInTheWoods]

You may have heard the media outcry when a previous hardcore feminist researched men's rights groups with a view to making a documentary to destroy them, but actually went on a journey of listening, learning and accepting the gender bias against males.

Here is her story and she is an intelligent, rational woman who puts forward her story with honest articulate candor.

This is so powerful, but of course it will never see the daylight, and neither will her movie. Its been shut down and censored most western countries it was attempted to be screened in.

I would love every feminist to be forced to watch this and write an essay on this in their gender studies major. We know it will never happen.

[RatInTheWoods]

And WB let there be no doubt.

[Different T]

Quote:

You may have heard the media outcry when a previous hardcore feminist researched men's rights groups with a view to making a documentary to destroy them, but actually went on a journey of listening, learning and accepting the gender bias against males.

The alternative perspective would be:

A feminist indoctrinated in the liberal culture of "victim-ocracy" and who is seemingly only capable of thinking and framing issues using this perspective originally wanted to portray MRA's as fake victims and closet oppressors, unlike the group of victims she was indoctrinated to represent. But upon further review of MRA accounts, she integrated their experiences into her "victim-ocracy" framework and has concluded that MRA's are genuine victims.

And you think this is a good thing? That it's going to be "helpful?"

[RatInTheWoods]

(11-04-2017 09:32 AM)Different T Wrote:  

And you think this is a good thing? That it's going to be "helpful?"

Yeah I do.

We need to change family court laws.

We need to stop hating men and masculinity.

So this is the first step.

[h3ltrsk3ltr]

(11-04-2017 09:32 AM)Different T Wrote:  

Quote:

You may have heard the media outcry when a previous hardcore feminist researched men's rights groups with a view to making a documentary to destroy them, but actually went on a journey of listening, learning and accepting the gender bias against males.

The alternative perspective would be:

A feminist indoctrinated in the liberal culture of "victim-ocracy" and who is seemingly only capable of thinking and framing issues using this perspective originally wanted to portray MRA's as fake victims and closet oppressors, unlike the group of victims she was indoctrinated to represent. But upon further review of MRA accounts, she integrated their experiences into her "victim-ocracy" framework and has concluded that MRA's are genuine victims.

And you think this is a good thing? That it's going to be "helpful?"

[debeguiled]

The best thing about this video is that she describes in detail the defensive thought process of a feminist, how her mind automatically turns everything a man says into a competition between men and women, how her mind automatically delivers to her consciousness a counterargument to anything she doesn't want to hear.

She gave a similar talk a while back to the National Coalition for Men:

And in that video she goes even more into detail the unconscious self protective thought processes that make it impossible for feminists even to really hear counterarguments.

What struck me the most about these two talks, even more than her movie, which I ended up liking, was that Cassie Jaye is really, truly trying to communicate something valuable to men.

She is saying, look, this is how the feminist mind works, see how it deflects and minimizes and blanks out anything that goes against its ideas. This is a gift, of a sort. I have even saved her talk on my phone, the NCFM one, for study later, because she makes it really and truly clear that having the best ideas will literally have no effect on a feminist brain. It has been conditioned to dismiss, ridicule, compete, and the feminist unconscious carries out these actions automatically, delivering the perfect evasion or retort to the tiny little hearts and minds of feminists.

I got to give her credit, she is more honest than most women about the actual thought processes of a woman under the influence of feminism, and she actually as the decency to be ashamed about it too.

The only sad note is that probably the only reason she stopped being a feminist was because she set out to make this movie, and not only had the time, it took her like three years, but the constant drumbeat of information from men, to keep the pressure on her mind and never let her off the hook.

She even admits that if she hadn't made the movie, she would have been the first to dismiss, and maybe even picket against, a film about men's rights.

I always go back to things I have read about cults, and that one of the ways the group think is maintained is that whenever an outsider talks to a cult member, the cultist is told to keep repeating a phrase like "Satan get thee behind me" in their heads over and over so they aren't exposed to wrongthink.

This is not much different from what Cassie used to do, and most feminists still do. Because she committed to her movie, it was almost as if she had inadvertently designed her own deprogramming camp and stuck to it.

And if that is what it takes to deprogram a feminist, then short of reeducation camps, what chance to we have making them change their minds?

Still, good for her, she could have given up, and turned out to be an admirably stubborn little bitch.

[Laska]

MRA's are feminists who are consistent in the pursuit of "gender equality," and they have accurate data. They're certainly better than the status quo.

[Different T]

(11-05-2017 04:46 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

Yeah I do.

We need to change family court laws.

We need to stop hating men and masculinity.

So this is the first step.

I didn't see anything in the linked video or in the first of the actual "The Red Pill" movie that indicated the director is attempting to share an appreciation of masculinity. Rather, everything is framed in terms of the oppression of men through "traditional gender roles" (this is what the MRA's say themselves). As Laska said:

Quote:

MRA's are feminists who are consistent in the pursuit of "gender equality,"

and that's what all parts of the talk and movie look like, too.

Quote:

Wait, do you not?

No, I do not.

Quote:

They're certainly better than the status quo.

Except that you should've already accepted that things don't work that way. The question isn't whether you like a few points this feminist-turned-more-universal-gender-egalitarian makes, it's how is the "status quo" going to use and benefit. Though if you guys think the goal of (((them)))/the globalists/the PTB or whatever is to elevate women, good luck.

[RatInTheWoods]

I agree with Laska and Diff Ts observations and points, don't get me wrong I am not celebrating anything just yet...

I am pleased by "an intelligent, rational woman who puts forward her story with honest articulate candor" fighting the good fight against rampant male hate, and like Beguiled, I am fascinated by her journey, her explanations and her insight into the feminist army and its tactics. There is hope that others have and will continue to speak out like she has.

Laska, it might be a bit harsh to brand anyone fighting against feminism as a "feminist" with all the very negative connotations that implies. It could also be said that they are currently fighting against inequality, rather than fighting for equality, so bad things are at the moment...

Also, we have to give credit to her, and the guys climbing up bridges in spiderweb costumes, and getting on TV and facing all the hate as they try to hold back the tide of missandry sweeping western civilisation currently. Don't get me wrong, I am with you guys, I'd rather not make the effort, sit back and let them continue the overrun, but let's give them a cheer now and again.

Even if you have decided to "enjoy the decline" at least the decline taking longer gives you more time to enjoy, no?

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

Society is a social compact between the different classes. The elites and ruling classes have to deliver enough to the common folk to at least keep them from rebelling, but with modern economics and the information age, they actually need the common people well enough off to work hard and creatively to succeed in their careers and companies.

So, society should treat its citizens as well as possible so they work hard and are happy, and they create economic growth and pay more taxes. The current laws regarding family matters, and the current feminist culture are both bad for this, and should be changed for the benefit of society as a whole. Therefore, MRA's are right and deserve to win what they are fighting for.

It is true that in contrast to men who commit themselves to triumph over adversity in spite of the fucked up world, they seem weaker. However, society should be structured with the understanding that most men are followers and worker drones, and these men should be treated better by the law and the culture.

When it comes down to it, red pill men scorn MRAs because women do. We are adopting the feminine imperative by scorning the men that women find less attractive, then judging them based on whether they do what it takes to be in the 20% of men that can make women's vaginas tingle.

Yeah, I want to fuck sluts, so I know I have to make their vaginas tingle. However, I don't use that female perspective for judging other men. MRA's may not make the pussies tingle, but they are right. Supporting MRAs is actually the greater good for society.

This film maker gets it.

[Different T]

(11-06-2017 07:02 AM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  

Society is a social compact between the different classes. The elites and ruling classes have to deliver enough to the common folk to at least keep them from rebelling, but with modern economics and the information age, they actually need the common people well enough off to work hard and creatively to succeed in their careers and companies.

So, society should treat its citizens as well as possible so they work hard and are happy, and they create economic growth and pay more taxes.

The alternative perspective would be that your idea of a “social contract” is directly based upon the philosophy and anthropological account of “Classical” Liberalism which posits a bunch of “free” individuals that somehow came into being and somehow came together and somehow formed this “contract.” This philosophy was promoted by certain, usually monied, powerful members within Western society to justify the State being run for their own benefit (which you largely allude to in your post with all the talk about the “ruling class” needing to increase their “worker drones” productivity).

The alternative anthropology would look something like:

”mrscientism” Wrote:

"The individual is not prior to society" means that society is not an "intersubjective" matter of agreement. You're born into a society and in the process of becoming a mature individual you must master its norms. You take them on not by considering each one and agreeing to it (you're not yet capable of this!) but through mastery of them. Once you have become a mature individual with an identity, the norms of society are already part of you. To reject them all (if this were even possible) would be akin to self-mutiliation. Society is not something like a mutual hallucination and the concepts of agreement, consent, contract, etc, are not appropriate to conceiving of the nature of society as a whole. There are circumstances within society when we come to agreements, give consent, make contracts with one another, etc, but these are not part of the fundamental nature of society.

We don't need this myth of society being formed by the agreement - consensual or otherwise, conscious or unconscious - between individuals. Our society precedes us as individuals and it has evolved over countless generations. That's where complex societies come from: from older, less complex societies. The changes society goes through may, of course, involve voluntary decision making, agreement, etc, but this sort of thing can only take place within an existing society with a rich set of norms and traditions already in place. The kinds of highly intellectual skills liberals tend to depend on in explaining the origin of society - reasoning, bargaining, agreement, consent, etc - are only possessed by the mature individual within society.

Every individual gains tremendous benefit from being born into a society. Even if a newborn baby could survive on its own it'd have no language, no culture, etc. So we can see already, from this perspective, that this idea that society must somehow prove its worth to the mature individual is nonsensical. Under ordinary circumstances, there's really very little reason to oppose our society or its structure, certainly not in any total sense. It's very perverse indeed that revolutionary and anarchic politics has become the norm and that we feel we must always be transgressing societal norms and challenging authority. In fact, sometimes liberals and Leftists actually express frustration because most people are happy to just go along with the social status quo, but this shouldn't really surprise us. The total misunderstanding of the relationship between the individual and society we find in the liberal tradition is surely responsible for this bizarre situation.

Or more bluntly:

”Bertrand de Jouvenel, Pure Theory of Politics, 57” Wrote:

Man appears, a screaming bundle of flesh, the outcome of mating. He is utterly helpless, his existence hangs upon the nursing he receives.

”Bertrand de Jouvenel, Pure Theory of Politics, 60” Wrote:

“Social contract” theories are views of childless men who must have forgotten their own childhood. Society is not founded like a club. One may ask how the hardy, roving adults pictured could imagine the solidarity to be, had they not enjoyed the benefits of a solidarity in being throughout their growing period; or how they could feel bound by the mere exchange of promises, if the notion of obligation had not been built up within them by group existence.

[debeguiled]

To be honest, I find Cassie Jaye to be a Basic Pacific Northwest Bitch. Cute open fresh faced girl who grew up in the low crime land of people who look like you. Loved by her family, appreciated by her school and community who went to Hollywood to seek her assured destiny as a famous actress, only to find there were, horrors, type casting, casting couches, and work only as the cute girl who screamed and died in horror movies.

That was what made her a feminist. Hollywood. Life wasn't fair for cute young girls who wanted to see their name in lights. That was her political awakening. She became a documentarian because the career wasn't going so well, and made a few movies along approved social justice lines, and found success almost right away as a filmmaker.

She had cute girl privilege coming out the wazoo, and reminds me of Glinda the Good Witch from Wizard of Oz.





Whatever wrongs there are in the world, Magic Cassie will come along and wave her wand and make the bad go bye bye.

She originally set out to make a film basically mocking the evil men's rights activists, and found out she couldn't counter their arguments, had a sort of existential crisis, started out thinking they were gaslighting her, and after two or three years finally came around.

But this is why I like her.

Unlike all feminists, most women, and a lot of men, she fought through the cognitive dissonance, hung in there, and made her movie. She finally came to see, as she has admitted several times, that she would never want the burdens of being a man, and that it was she who was privileged.

Before the movie came out I was skeptical because she started talking about seeing things from "both sides" and I thought feminist views were going to worm their way into the film and take over.

But I was wrong. I liked the film, and I like that she has stuck it out even though it has damaged her career, and she has never wavered from her message and endured a lot of hostility from activists and the media.

I still think she lives mostly in the cute girl world, and this whole experience has only been a taste of what life is like for normal people, but that doesn't change the fact that she stuck it out and did some good.

[Different T]

Quote:

I am pleased by "an intelligent, rational woman who puts forward her story with honest articulate candor" fighting the good fight against rampant male hate, and like Beguiled, I am fascinated by her journey, her explanations and her insight into the feminist army and its tactics. There is hope that others have and will continue to speak out like she has.

This is not the issue. The director is still completely engrossed in a framework of "victim-ocracy." She can only see things through such a frame. If this is correct, we would expect her to accept MRA claims so long as they fit into a model where men are victims of society, but would not expect her to celebrate differences between men and women or recognize disparate privileges/rights and responsibilities/obgligations associated with them. The directors frame, and likewise the MRAs' is exactly that of feminism, but with a different object.

Consider the results of feminism for females and ask if this is likely to be helpful (you could also look at Samseau's recent big post in the MLK thread for a similar account of the Civil Rights Movement).

[Different T]

Quote:

She finally came to see, as she has admitted several times, that she would never want the burdens of being a man, and that it was she who was privileged.

Do you remember where you saw this? And doesn't she think that privilege is bad?

[PolymathGuru]

Meeting the enemy. Fuck that shit. Know Your Enemy.

[debeguiled]

(11-06-2017 04:37 PM)Different T Wrote:  

Quote:

She finally came to see, as she has admitted several times, that she would never want the burdens of being a man, and that it was she who was privileged.

Do you remember where you saw this? And doesn't she think that privilege is bad?

I think you could find it on her channel. If I remember it right, her boyfriend was on the stage with her when she said it. Otherwise it is probably from one of the discussion videos after screenings of The Red Pill.

[gework]

Someone who works for TED must have had a brutal divorce.

[questor70]

Compare Cassie Jaye's claim of having made an epiphany, being one step removed from the concerns of men, with Pew Die Pie shifting towards the alt-right after being hung out to dry by SJWs in the other thread.

It's incredibly rare these days for anyone to change their ideology in the first place, but even rarer to have it change based on the merits of the argument rather than the bias of self-interest.

[Different T]

Take note at 25 seconds.

Make any more sense, yet?

[heavy]

That was really well stated. Good for her. The second video is better. It shows how ingrained anti-men is around film-making.

I thought it was kinda gay to use domestic violence shelters as the best example, but she explains in better detail in that second video.

It's amazing when she talks about she either had to "believe you guys (MRA)" or "believe the rest of the world"...to which I think, why not just look at the facts?

It's amazing how feminism is so retarded. Or as Milo says, feminism is cancer. Sorry, it makes me think women are just stupid. No way this movie could have been made by a man, or it would have been disregarded (even more so) because it's from a man.

How much of this warped view of reality is just a function of the female brain, and how much is taught (school, society, government, etc)?

Edit: In her interview with Dave Rubin, she explains she became a feminist while trying to get acting jobs when she was 18 and film producers would try to fuck her.

If this isn't telling as to why Hollywood pushes the feminist agenda, I don't know what is.

[RatInTheWoods]

Different T,

You may need your own thread to express your idea (whatever that is) I don't quite follow what your belief system or point of view is?

In simple terms, and in 20 word or less answer these questions:

1) why do you oppose the MRA fight against inequality that feminism has produced in the last few decades (they now own the media, education and courts)

2) What's your point about the origins and evolution of modern western society and how does it relate to feminism's war against men?

3) What is the alternative course of action for men that you would prefer?

[Days of Broken Arrows]

This reminds me of Nora Vincent, a lesbian feminist who disguised herself as a man so she could absorb all that "privilege," but found to her surprise that being male was so traumatizing she needed therapy.

Vincent has been mentioned on this board before, but I thought this was a good place to bring her up again. She wrote a book in 2006, "Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man," and the media frantically swept it under the carpet after she did a few interviews where she came out as very anti-feminist.

She also got some TV coverage, like this spot on 20/20:

[Different T]

(11-07-2017 11:11 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

1) why do you oppose the MRA fight against inequality that feminism has produced in the last few decades (they now own the media, education and courts)

Your "fight" appeals to authority (i.e. State) and implies it shares your values. It does not. You will be used.

(11-07-2017 11:11 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

2) What's your point about the origins and evolution of modern western society and how does it relate to feminism's war against men?

Framing "traditional gender roles" as harmful or using "victim/oppressor" is a bastardized, poor account that necessarily denigrates humanity.

(11-07-2017 11:11 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

3) What is the alternative course of action for men that you would prefer?

Fucked over dads/boys? Don't see alternatives; it's as bad as they say, getting worse. The "role oppressed?" Shut up.

[Different T]

@RatintheWoods

In simple terms, and in 20 word or less answer these questions:

1) why do you think females joined the feminist movement.

2) Why do you think blacks joined the Civil rights movement.

3) What do you think the result has been for females.

4) What do you think the result has been for the blacks.

[Different T]

(11-08-2017 05:34 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

This reminds me of Nora Vincent, a lesbian feminist who disguised herself as a man so she could absorb all that "privilege," but found to her surprise that being male was so traumatizing she needed therapy.

Vincent has been mentioned on this board before, but I thought this was a good place to bring her up again. She wrote a book in 2006, "Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man," and the media frantically swept it under the carpet after she did a few interviews where she came out as very anti-feminist.

It's humorous that when you consider the director as framing "you" as oppressor, you write:

Quote:

But when viewing plays or movies or when reading articles, always be sure to think "WHO is telling me this -- and why?" Usually there is an agenda there that the general public doesn't get to see, but that we should be seeing...and publicizing on this board.

But when you consider the director as framing "you" as victim, nothing.