The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:09 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Honestly, it looks like the point of the documentary is to find the biggest MRAs and interview them. So from that perspective, I think that yeah, having a face-to-face interview with him sounds like the very point of the documentary.
If the point of the documentary is talk about MRAs, then sure, interview Paul Elam (and make sure to ask him about all those times he's publicly threatened women).

But if the point of the documentary is to provide a positive perspectives on MRAs, then no -- you do not interview Paul Elam.


The main problem here, is that I'd have to watch the movie to figure out which direction they're trying to go. And I'm not entirely sure if I want to watch another political documentary.

All I'm saying is: lets not judge the documentary on a singular trailer. I think most of us here have admitted that we have no interest in watching this movie for various reasons. But... by publicly stating that we don't want to watch the material... we sorta lose an ability to properly criticize the movie.

I mean, maybe she does a good job at discussing all the issue. Maybe she doesn't. But the only way to find out is to watch the movie ourselves and then form an opinion. Forming an opinion before watching the movie is wrong IMO.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6872
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:14 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The main problem here, is that I'd have to watch the movie to figure out which direction they're trying to go. And I'm not entirely sure if I want to watch another political documentary.
Here's the wikipedia article. The documentary is clearly attempting to present a positive image of MRAs, as a counter-point to the image we (in more liberal circles) commonly entertain.

Which, y'know, I'm actually not opposed to; I'm deeply skeptical about MRAs, but I'm always willing to find out that I'm wrong. But if your aim is to dispose of the stigma surrounding MRAs, you don't interview Paul Elam. Not unless you're sticking him in the part of your documentary where you explain where that stigma came from.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:19 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:But if your aim is to dispose of the stigma surrounding MRAs, you don't interview Paul Elam. Not unless you're sticking him in the part of your documentary where you explain where that stigma came from.


I do accept the Wikipedia article to be a valid source for discussion material. However, it doesn't seem to have any insight to the point you have laid out here.

I haven't seen the movie, and it sounds like you haven't either. Maybe she does discuss Paul Elam's issues, maybe she doesn't. Its hard to say unless we watch the movie. The Wikipedia page says they were trying to go for a 'fair and balanced' view into MRAs after all. Maybe there's a degree of criticism in the full movie.

EDIT: Wikipedia seems to reference this review: https://heatst.com/culture-wars/new-fil ... e-a-point/

Ironically, Jaye’s journey of discovery began with stumbling on a men’s rights website, A Voice for Men, which has often been denounced as a hate site — and being shocked by its inflammatory language on such topics as rape and domestic violence. Yet, instead of fleeing, she decided to try to understand what motivates the men (and, often, women) who create and read such material. As a result, her own perspective began to change, a process she documents in brief video diaries included in the film.


So it does seem like the inflammatory language of "A Voice for Men" is discussed in the movie. At least, to some degree.

EDIT2:

One valid criticism of The Misogyny Kool-Aid is that it soft-pedals or evades the extreme, even genuinely misogynist rhetoric spouted by some of its subjects — such as the prominently featured Paul Elam, founder of A Voice for Men. Jaye defends an infamous post of his proclaiming October “Bash a Violent Bitch Month” (in lieu of Domestic Violence Awareness Month) as a satirical rejoinder to a post on the feminist blog Jezebel that treats women’s violence toward men with humor and bravado. But even accepting that argument, there are other Elam posts that are hard to dismiss as satire, including one declaring that women who “taunt men sexually” are “begging” to be raped.


Okay, looks like we got a valid source on this subject.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:27 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6872
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:25 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I haven't seen the movie, and it sounds like you haven't either. Maybe she does discuss Paul Elam's issues, maybe she doesn't. Its hard to say unless we watch the movie.
I've read two reviews of the documentary; both mentioned she she never brings up Register-Her.com, nor asks Paul any questions regarding the various threats he's made toward women. The wikipedia artlce clearly explains that the narrative thrust of the documentary is pro-MRA (which, again, in of itself, I don't take issue with).

I get that you aren't comfortable making an assessment with what you know; I respect that. However, I am very comfortable making an assessment with what I know. And I honestly can't be bothered to prove what I know is right by watching a documentary that will probably just depress the shit out of me.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:29 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I haven't seen the movie, and it sounds like you haven't either. Maybe she does discuss Paul Elam's issues, maybe she doesn't. Its hard to say unless we watch the movie.
I've read two reviews of the documentary


Readings of secondary material (ie: movie reviews) are acceptable evidence.

Of course, direct experience with the primary material (ie: watching the movie directly) is preferred. But there's nothing wrong with basing your opinion on reviews (that is the point of reviews after all). Generally speaking, if someone makes a claim that they watched the movie directly however, I'll probably slant my opinion in their favor.

But yeah, there's nothing wrong with secondary material. Its just "weaker" evidence.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4390
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:04 am UTC

For the sake of interest, I found an extensive YouTube interview with the film's director, Cassie Jaye. I'm going to assume that the host doing the interview was himself an MRA (looking at his other content, I'm guessing he's a Bill Maher-style libertarian, but I didn't peruse anything further), or at least really sympathetic to the cause judging by the softball questions he was lobbing to her, but I have no reason to doubt the director's authenticity in her responses.

A few things I noticed:
-She has a weird understanding of feminism. First, she seems to believe that feminism only really became "mainstream" with in the past 10 years or so with the rise of social media, and prior to that point, calling yourself a feminist or believing a lot of the things she seems to think feminists believe wasn't really all that common. She likens feminism to a religion, though the only question that really throws her is when the interviewer asks her to define feminism, which she's unable or unwilling to do, though she does say (at an earlier point) that feminism is not simply a belief in equality of rights between men and women, but rather a particular ideological position (though she doesn't ever specify what that ideology is). I'm not really sure how to resolve the contradiction here, and she's never pressed to do so. A better interviewer would have explored this further.

-Her views on MRAs are extremely sympathetic. She claims to have never read or experienced any misogyny on any of the MRA websites she visited or any of the people she interviewed, though she allows that the men who write on these cites are sometimes uncouth, but claims that a lot of what people believe is misogyny on these sites is either attempts at humor or irony, if not outright distortions by the media who bother to actually report on MRAs. This latter point is illustrated by a favorable anecdote about Paul Elam. So definitely no commentary on misogyny in the movement, as she claims it doesn't exist. The most generous interpretation I can give to this is that she's basically saying that she's seeing a hatred of feminism, but not a hatred of women or women's rights, which are entirely different things.

-As I noted in my earlier post, the specific issues that MRAs claim to want to deal with don't seem particularly unreasonable--she mentions differences in male/female suicide rates, service deaths and the draft, prison rape, etc., which all same perfectly legitimate topics to be concerned about. What seems to have really seeped into her thinking is that even if it is not the cause of, at least the main impediment to, resolving any of these issues is feminism, and most of what is discussed is framed in that lens. This again, despite the fact that she isn't really able to clearly identify (at least in the interview) what feminism actually is or what it stands for, beyond its role in suppressing the MRA movement.

It sounds like that's really the gist of the movie.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3604
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby eSOANEM » Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:18 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
-As I noted in my earlier post, the specific issues that MRAs claim to want to deal with don't seem particularly unreasonable--she mentions differences in male/female suicide rates, service deaths and the draft, prison rape, etc., which all same perfectly legitimate topics to be concerned about. What seems to have really seeped into her thinking is that even if it is not the cause of, at least the main impediment to, resolving any of these issues is feminism, and most of what is discussed is framed in that lens.


Tbh, this seems to be endemic in mra circles. They claim to care about these issues but only ever to use them as a card to play against feminists. They never seem to actually go out and so their own activism or actually take any steps to improve this stuff; they just bitch about feminists and the women in their lives.

The only people I've ever seen or heard of actually campaign for these issues are feminists.

The only people I've ever seen or heard of actually suggest concrete ways of tackling toxic masculinity (or demonstrating these techniques in their parenting) are feminists.

If mra's want to be taken seriously, they need to actually start doing activism rather than just hating on the people who could be their allies in a broader intersectional social justice movement
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7560
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby Zohar » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:42 pm UTC

Xanthir wrote:Sexual assault that targets men is laughed off not because of feminism, but because of toxic masculinity - (a) men are strong and women are weak, so it's impossible for a man to be raped by a woman, and (b) men always want sex, so anyone claiming they didn't want it is joking or a weirdo - which is largely maintained by us men.

The amount of men that have suffered actual sexual assault and classify it as "bad sex" or (I shit you not) "some sort of allergic reaction because I was feeling bad", because they have no tools to process their experience, is staggering.

Millumi wrote:You know that the creator of The Misogyny Kool-Aid movie was a feminist when they started looking into it, right?

Mind. Blown. OK you've convinced me let me go suck Paul Elam's cock (it's just bros being bros though, no homo right man?)
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6872
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:54 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:(looking at his other content, I'm guessing he's a Bill Maher-style libertarian, but I didn't peruse anything further)
I really hope "Bill Maher-style libertarian" catches on as an insult. That man makes me feel ashamed to call myself an atheist.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby Liri » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:57 pm UTC

He is lumped together in my head with the likes of Julian Assange.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:59 pm UTC

Of course, dude. Bromosexuality is so totally not gay even if it does include the occasional bro job.

KnightExemplar wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I haven't seen the movie, and it sounds like you haven't either. Maybe she does discuss Paul Elam's issues, maybe she doesn't. Its hard to say unless we watch the movie.
I've read two reviews of the documentary


Readings of secondary material (ie: movie reviews) are acceptable evidence.

Of course, direct experience with the primary material (ie: watching the movie directly) is preferred. But there's nothing wrong with basing your opinion on reviews (that is the point of reviews after all). Generally speaking, if someone makes a claim that they watched the movie directly however, I'll probably slant my opinion in their favor.

But yeah, there's nothing wrong with secondary material. Its just "weaker" evidence.
You were only ever going to get secondary sources unless you watched the thing yourself, so I'm not sure why you made an issue of this in the first place.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:08 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Of course, dude. Bromosexuality is so totally not gay even if it does include the occasional bro job.

KnightExemplar wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I haven't seen the movie, and it sounds like you haven't either. Maybe she does discuss Paul Elam's issues, maybe she doesn't. Its hard to say unless we watch the movie.
I've read two reviews of the documentary


Readings of secondary material (ie: movie reviews) are acceptable evidence.

Of course, direct experience with the primary material (ie: watching the movie directly) is preferred. But there's nothing wrong with basing your opinion on reviews (that is the point of reviews after all). Generally speaking, if someone makes a claim that they watched the movie directly however, I'll probably slant my opinion in their favor.

But yeah, there's nothing wrong with secondary material. Its just "weaker" evidence.
You were only ever going to get secondary sources unless you watched the thing yourself, so I'm not sure why you made an issue of this in the first place.


These terms are relative, but I find them important to keep in mind. This is an art more than it is a science.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_source

So watching the movie would be the Primary Source. Alternatively, sending emails and asking the director (or the interviewers directly) for their role and contributions to the movie would also qualify as primary source material. It takes a bit more work to get primary source but its clearly the strongest way to build an argument.

Reading what reviewers are saying about the movie would be reading about secondary sources. These people saw the movie and then made an opinion. Secondary sources are still considered evidence in the great scheme of thing, but its much weaker.

Tertiary Sources and further are very weak evidence. We for the most part trust Wikipedia. The very argument we are creating is a Tertiary source at best (especially since none of us have actually watched the movie or otherwise feel like contacting a primary source... like the director or sending an email to Paul whatever his name is). So anyone who actually bases their opinion on the discussion here would be basing it on very weak set of evidence.

--------

When Hippo demonstrated that his evidence was at least at the secondary level, I backed off. Because secondary source material is better than what anyone else in this thread has contributed so far.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby Whizbang » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:12 pm UTC

I agree. Discussing evidentiary levels is preferable to discussing the content and nature of the film in question.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:15 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:I agree. Discussing evidentiary levels is preferable to discussing the content and nature of the film in question.


Since everyone in this thread basically said they don't want to watch the film (myself included), what else is there to discuss? At very least, now I need to make sure that people are at least basing their arguments on secondary (or better) evidence. I just gotta make sure that no one is coming in here with like, Facebook or Reddit as the basis of their argument (which would not qualify as even a Tertiary Source)
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby Whizbang » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:22 pm UTC

You're right. Once we cut all these trees down, we should be able to see the forest.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7560
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby Zohar » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:22 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:At very least, now I need to make sure that

Why? Why do you need to make sure of that? As for the content of the thread, people discuss off-topic things. It happens. We talk about the people mentioned in the film, disconnected from the film itself. We talk about our apprehensions regarding watching the film. But yeah we also talk about stuff the film talks about without seeing it. If you feel we've veered so off-topic, you're welcome report the thread.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30448
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The Misogyny Kool-Aid

Postby Belial » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:24 pm UTC

Okay yeah no. We're not giving free advertisement, however small, to this shit.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests