Anyone seen The Red Pill movie?

...

...

redpilled as fuark, bros
xD

Colour me suprised.

That's the one with Big Red in it, right?

You will be shot, hanged, beaten and raped for your shit taste.

No and never will.

Cassie Jaye is/was a liberal feminist in the vein of "women should have equal rights." That's not an idpol position, just a superficial one. Feminism turns into idpol when it starts claiming that men are oppressors of women.

The men's rights movement has some idpolers in and around it but by and large it's made up of people who take issues with problems that are specific to men, like high suicide rates or workplace death rates. That's not idpol any more than recognizing that black people are more likely to get stopped by police or get harsher prison sentences.

Both of the positions, feminism and MRAs, look at identity before class but that in itself isn't identity politics. There are issues specific to identity division that will have to be overcome, and while overthrowing capitalism will contribute to that the most (and is a hard prerequisite), these issues won't disappear completely when capitalism does.

I have not seen it, OP. I'll get to it at some point. There are other things on my list above it.

tbh, while they'll never accept the label, most self-identified MRAs I've talked to are better feminists in the classical sense than most self-identified feminists. It's really weird. If the nuts hadn't essentially won the ideological battle back in the second wave of feminism, I think there would be a lot of common ground and cooperation now between the men's and women's movements. Not to be, sadly.

The film is worth seeing if you get the chance. If you've ever been the least bit interested in gender politics there's probably not much new to you but it's well shot, well composed and Cassie Jaye's video diaries really bring a personal element to it that is hard not to relate to.

shitposting flag

Most people who self-identify as feminists (without being prompted) are the loud obnoxious types who buy into the crazy shit. Most people who would tick the "I'm a feminist" box on surveys aren't going to whip out that label when they first meet you.

They won in the sense that people tend to associate feminism with complaining about manspreading or whatever, but most people, even most feminists don't really buy into that shit. What's really curious to me though is that people who laugh at a given news source for that exact kind of identitarian bullshit will take it for its word when it says MRAs are a bunch of woman haters, or that [manchild with distorted view of women] is an MRA even though a quick google search debunks that claim. For some reason the crazy people have the power to define not only their own group but also other groups in people's minds.

I'd be planning to watch it even if I had no interest in this subject on the basis of so many people wanting it not to be seen.

It's interesting looking and it's not the worst looking thing I've seen so far, but since the film is not out yet and I see that the films creator is a bit too lenient with alt-lite and alt-right folks though I think that is in part because the MRA movement is someone tied up in those movements and those people give her a platform because a lot of feminist are having a knee jerk reaction to this movie.

You're kind of right about that. One thing that's strange about feminism is the fact that it's been pointed out that because of patriarchal society effects negatively too such as men being afraid of reporting domestic and rape because society will make fun of them or if a man shows anything that is not exactly masculine then they might ridiculed etc… I'm not a feminist myself, but it's unfortunate because a lot of feminists now a days seem to forget their own theory as I've seen them laugh at male rape victims and ridicule them when they need help. I think it's like says a lot of self identified feminists are very vocal and buy into a lot of crazy shit. Tbh this behavior is starting to remind me of the time a liberal "leftist" argued for America having a Monarchy which is funny because that is an extremely reactionary point of view to have.

*a patriarchal effects men negatively too

...

...

That's because "patri archy" was never concerned with men in general, just powerful people who are mostly men.

Lots of MRAs don't like this. The people with big voices like Paul Elam have opened the doors to these types because they make a living off what they do and see it as an opportunity to expand their audience. They probably would have done the same to people on the left wing if those people had a response to the MRAs other than to accuse the movement of trying to defund planned parenthood and whatnot.

You say that like this isn't the most brocialist board or forum on the internet

You say that like brocialist is an insult.

I should specify I actually agree with this and the only reason I'm responding is to clear my point of view because while I said that I am not a feminist think that the original post while it did demonstrate the point I was trying to make about feminist not being feminist anymore I do want it known that I think that feminists that aren't crazy as well men's rights have good intentions, but I don't think that those issues are for one so important that we must focus on them to heavily like a lot of feminists and MRAs do. I think that the biggest issues now are the environment and class right and that the political world is being dragged down by identity politics to the point where it is actually harming politics in general. Honestly crazy "SJWs" and crazy "misogynists" are nothing compared to the fact that parts of the planet are about to become uninhabitable sooner than later.

MRAs are idpol. Protip: being against idpol means being against reactionary idpol like racism, sexism, etc, not just against liberal nonsense.

Also, I should note that a big part of the environmental problems do come from the profit as a lot of people here know so it is still linked to class as far as humanity is concerned.

I like to kinda hang out on the periphery of both major camps in gender politics and you're right that there is a lot of distaste in the men's movement for new right and how entangled they are becoming. But like you said, when you depend on your work there for livelihood like Elam does or even if you just want to get your voice out there, you'll inevitably go to the people who will actually have you and let you make your case.

And especially the filmmaker here, she is making a living as well as a political statement with this film and, surprise surprise, the liberal & feminist establishment won't have her and have actively been trying to sabotage her from the moment she said it wasn't just going to be a hit piece about the evil misogyneckbeards. So if she wants to promote the film, which ultimately must be a moneymaking exercise under the capitalist system, where can she go?

It's sad, because I always felt gender liberation be it for women or men was something that more naturally fell under the auspices of the left, but the whole thing is so tribal and polarized it's hard to know which way to go sometimes.

Don't stick your dick in crazy,
Don't rub your labia with crazy.
Just don't!

Kinda looks good.

youtube.com/watch?v=6LN-Y-HI4HA

This pic seems to be the message.

Word.

The men's rights movement isn't racist and sexist. There are racists and sexists in the movement but they don't define the movement any more than nazbols define the left.

Turning social and policy issues into tribal identity that can be marketed to is a feature of capitalism. There is zero reason why women's issues and men's issues (to say nothing of children's issues because forget kids amirite) should be mutually exclusive but capitalist ideology has memed everything into a zero sum game. My favorite example of this is that probably the biggest impact on women getting paid less than men overall is that they tend to be the one who takes years off working to raise the kids and that sets them back. The only way to change this factor is for men and women to take off an equal amount of time to raise kids (whether that's because they have someone professionally raise the kids, men start taking off more time to be a stay-at-home-parent, or we start raising kids communally is just detail) but the idea that men would take a more active role in child rearing triggers the FUCK out of most people who bring up the wage gap. At the same time, most of the people in the MRM hate the wage gap argument (which is really just a distraction from wages themselves being a problem) and would rather explain how it's about individual choices than to incorporate it into their activism. And all of it is like this. One giant mess.

Don't slam your clam on crazy.
Don't catch your snatch on crazy.
Don't wrap your flaps on crazy.
Don't stuff your muff with crazy.
Everyone should get a catchy rhyme.

There's policy and legal dimensions to this too, as in most places maternity leave is much more generous than paternity leave, often with a government policy mandating this. So when a couple has a kid and is deciding on whether someone should stay home and who that should be, it's not just that it's a traditional role for women (one which many, maybe even a majority of women, still choose for themselves in that situation) but there are also financial considerations to be made. If the woman will receive pay for 6 months and the man will receive 2 weeks paid parental leave, it's not much of a choice.

Beyond that, the wage gap thing is an almost entirely truth-free zone. Feminists will tend to outright lie about it, and MRAs will take an approach that is too statistical and without nuance or social considerations. There can be good arguments made about how when professions become female-dominated, pay goes down and why that might be. There's not a great deal of research or discussion about the reasons, just a lot of ideology.

There's a guy out there called Tim Goldich, who features briefly in the film, who is worth checking out for anyone interested in gender politics. He wrote a book called Loving Men, Respecting Women and has done a few videos here and there proposing a new approach to this topic. Shame he gets so little air time from either camp, because his is probably the most even-handed and practical way of making progress that I've seen.

Gross

I'm really curious as to what those reasons are. But suppose the female-dominated field becomes a lot more important over time, pay must go up, no? Or it doesn't work like that.

I'm honestly not sure, like I said, there really isn't a lot of legitimate research done here. Feminist "advocacy research" is notoriously prejudiced and there's not much in the way of independent work being done, I would guess because feminism has something close to ideological hegemony in the social sciences and publishing something that bucks the accepted narrative is a great way to get your career torpedoed.

I've heard arguments from the boilerplate feminist response that women are less valued because muh patriarchy, to women on aggregate not being as willing or able to negotiate for higher pay (preferring flexibility), to these kinds of jobs simply becoming easier, with less skill and hard labour involved as technology picks up the slack, which reduces pay but also reduces stress which makes those jobs more attractive to women who tend to have different priorities for work.

The general trend, I would have to guess, is that as fields become more "important" (read: profitable), the stress level and inflexibility of the job probably tends to go up with the pay, which means more career-oriented men looking to earn more even at the expense of health/family life are then entering the profession. But that's really just a guess.

This is the kind of thing that would have to be changed. I just didn't go into it because it's details that don't change the thrust of my point. In order to change those sorts of things there needs to be a cultural shift as well, an impetus for change. It's not going to change by itself or because a small portion of people want it to.

Word. It pisses me off especially because wage labor is a much bigger problem but people are fighting over some bullshit that's tangentially related to it.

I'll take a look. Both camps have already been subverted into petty tribalism to some degree (I'd argue feminism more so than the MRM due to being around longer) so of course they're resistant to attempts to build bridges. It threatens their ability to draw lines in the sand that let them sell "male tears" mugs or "that means semen" mugs.

Sage for doublepost. I'm aware that women are less likely to negotiate for higher pay so that's the hypothesis I'd start with. It really makes me think about all those campaigns to get lots of people, especially women into STEM (fields with traditionally competitive pay).

Would you argue that this is one of the paradoxes of a patriarchy (not in the SJW sense) being both beneficial and harmful to men, simply capitalism being capitalism, or both ? Men are pushed to work and work and be man enough to provide for their family but their health and family life suffer immensely as a result of this work stress.

This is where, IMO, we might be coming up against the limits of what is practical under the capitalist system. The wage labour/capital/profit setup means that whichever way we go, there is going to be structural resistance which may, in spite of intentions good or bad, be insurmountable.

Especially when the profit motive becomes not just part of the social conditions we're looking at, but directly involved in the politics that's grown up around them.

The success, or rather lack thereof, of these campaigns where women are concerned is certainly interesting. Some would have us believe this is because of innate differences (on average) between male and females leading to different priorities and interests, which I don't think can or should be entirely discounted. Others point to a toxic culture or "boys club" that discourages women, which may have some merit, though I find it harder to believe given the lengths some companies and public entities are going to which result in an almost 2:1 hiring preference for women over men in these fields (when the women apply).

What's really interesting is that in countries that rate very highly on "gender equality" or "equal opportunity" as defined by various international NGOs, they are finding that women actually go into these fields LESS despite every opportunity and incentive to do so.

I don't know the exact figures but I hear sometimes that more women were in STEM fields during the 70's and 80's than there are now. If true I find that fascinating, it's almost as if when you push and push people into certain things as we do today, they tend to not want to do it, for whatever reason.

I tend to chalk this up to the "we don't have to try and prove anything anymore" effect. In a country where gender equality is low, I would wager that men and women are much more motivated to shake things up and really push themselves and the boundaries, leading to more success and entries into certain fields.

I dislike the term patriarchy because it's so loaded and focuses exclusively on a male power/female victimhood dynamic, which is quite ahistorical and the feminist capital P Patriarchy especially is a caricature.

But yes, ultimately I think the traditional system - as created and upheld by both sexes over history to deal with the conditions humanity found itself in - has caused and continues to cause harm to men and women in different ways.

But this is not a sneering admission that "Patriarchy hurts men too" (implication being that MOAR FEMINISM is the solution), but an understanding that both sexes have had advantages and have also had to make sacrifices for the sake of survival and a functional society. But also that many of those social traits that were adaptive through history are now maladaptive in the modern world and need to be reevaluated.

But to shill my man Tim Goldich again, he abstracts in a way that boils down to men being respected, but not loved which leads to being trusted with overt power and responsibility but ultimately considered disposable and with no inherent value beyond what they produce. And also to women being loved, but not respected which means they have tremendous inherent value and treated with empathy and with considerations to their comfort and safety, but ultimately not taken seriously or trusted to wield overt power or put themselves in dangerous situations.

Sage but that last paragraph makes a ton of sense to me. I might just check out Mr. Goldich, thanks user.

One perspective I've seen is that, given that these countries with high gender equality metrics also tend to be the most wealthy and with a functional welfare state, there is less pressure for women to move into these high paying but stressful and inflexible fields in order to help provide for extended family etc. in spite of what may be their preferred choices.

Whereas places (esp. Asia) where they score lower and the lower classes are less comfortable, women number much higher in these fields because there is greater pressure for everyone to earn in order to stay afloat.

I'm not super well read on the topic, but it does make a certain kind of sense.

Yup. Hence it's always important to tie identity related issues back to capitalism. Idpol and "idpol" movements/ideologies can be very good at finding problems but are ultimately insufficient to solve any of them.

FWIW there's plenty of evidence to suggest sexual dimorphism plays a role in this kind of thing, but having gone to a STEM school there is absolutely an atmospheric element that pushes women away. There are "boys' club" types who openly disrespect women in the field as being less capable, but they're a minority (I have personally seen this and have known multiple women at the college who reported being part of this with certain professors). Men and women tend to relate to each other (and the opposite sex) differently, too, so even the most "welcoming" group made up of one sex is going to be offputting to members of the opposite sex just based on the social dynamics already in play. Whose responsibility it is to adapt, the people who already have an established culture, or the people seeking to join, is a question for the ages. If it turns out that women have little interest in the subjects to begin with though it gets much easier to answer.

I think most people prefer to avoid high-stress, high-power careers. I suspect the gender disparity is probably more to do with the people on the edge of the bell curve tending toward more "male" or "female" versions of this according to their gender. A higher preference for extremity in employment (both for "success" as in CEOs and for dirty jobs like sewage work) may also just be a male-associated trait. As a population is shaped by evolutionary patterns, it would benefit them to reduce occupational hazards or occupational stress for women (the reproductive bottleneck) and offload that onto men. The men who die will leave behind a greater number of women, but historically the high-power men in a society were the ones who would have multiple wives in patriarchal systems. Poorer people were almost always monogamous, but the cost of say, being a soldier in an army with a very high mortality rate, could be offset by getting to marry the "extra" women due to other soldiers dying. This is of course culturally enforced too, but any time something is enforced by the culture it's going to end up shaping biology, since the people who fit the culture will do better and pass on those traits to the next generation.

Bump for doublepost and previous post accidentally saging.

On your point about loving but not respecting women, people including feminists tend to discount the power that women have in shaping society given their time with and power over kids. My maternal grandfather is like the epitome of the Greatest Generation, WWII vet and all, and he actually took some personal risk as a member of his community to put his neighbors in their place when they tried to keep black people from moving into town. My grandmother on the other hand agreed with the neighbors and (my mom tells me) he put her in her place too (by which I mean he gave a verbal dressing down and opined that black people need to be given a fair shot to make it like white people had). My mother to this day doesn't understand why her father cared that much, and harbors all kinds of retrograde sentiment regarding race "black people were happier as slaves," etc. My point isn't to use this anecdote as evidence, but to illustrate what is already empirically supported: mothers have a stronger impact on their children's social mores than fathers do. Just some detail I thought I'd add as to how complicated this subject is.

...

For sure, I work in IT myself and I see it from time to time as well. I also wonder what kind of role the disproportionate numbers of, dare I say it, people on the autism spectrum (a condition much more common in men than in women) being attracted to and occupying those fields makes. In some ways, you could say that autists are sort of "hypermasculine" in certain ways like emotional ignorance and exclusionary focus on the mechanical. I suspect that may contribute to making it a more awkward environment for your average neurotypical woman than for her male counterpart, who may be more inclined to dismiss odd or standoffish behaviour rather than take it as offensive or threatening.

Yeah, I actually have a similar story about my paternal grandparents, with my grandfather (who was an aviation mechanic in WWII) working with a bunch of aboriginal blokes and taking a pretty hard stance for treating them more fairly whereas my grandmother still thought of them as savages.

But yeah, the idea of women ultimately wielding greater social and moral power is not a new one and is something that was understood for a long time, but political feminism tends to gloss over it as unimportant. But there is a reason why social movements absolutely require women to gain any traction in society, even the men's movement finds itself in a situation where it's most effective voices are female.

I just watched the movie, and it was fantastic. I find it pretty striking just how hostile the feminists and whoever else was demonstrating against the MRA's were. Like goodness, this is exactly why when feminists say they're for helping males too I never believe them. I also find it pretty sad that all of them could be sheltered under the umbrella of socialism… feminists, MRA's, MGTOW's, redpill loners. All of these societal ills can be traced back to the domination of capital, and if only people could put aside their petty problems we might all be able to take a gigantic step towards overthrowing capital.

I will say though to sum up my thoughts that stem from this movie that there was one MRA chick who summed it up pretty well. You can't have a movement named after one gender, and within that same movement name the ultimate stem of evil (patriarchy) after the opposite gender. It just don't make no goddamn sense, and it alienates people. On the same token, MRA's are just as full of idpol given their focus on men. Nah motherfucker, feminists and MRA's be damned because the only thing that currently matters is doing away with the base of capital that oppresses men, women, orange and purple people alike.

Pic pretty related.

Not gonna get deep into psych, but there's absolutely a tendency for gendered thinking that possibly ties loosely into how the brain is split along its hemispheres. Even ignoring the gendered element, it's definitely the case that systemic, logical, analytical thinking tends to be quite separated from holistic, intuitive, creative thinking.

One of them has even noted that because of this dynamic she doesn't think it's possible for men to fix men's problems, that the traditional roles would have to be reversed with women stepping in to save the men, but that it would only work if women care enough about the men in their lives to see the value of doing so. She has further given support to this by pointing to attempts to introduce feminism in the middle east being met with skepticism and "what about the men?" from the women there.

Whoops
>Even ignoring the gendered element, it's definitely the case that systemic, logical, analytical thinking tends to be quite separated (cognitively and socially) from holistic, intuitive, creative thinking.

I think she's probably right. This is where (I claim, ::schniff::) we're probably slamming into the barriers of capitalist social order again. Especially in the advanced capitalist cultures, people are so atomised and alienated, intra-class competition so ingrained - and establishment liberal feminism has fostered an atmosphere of political and economic antagonism between the sexes on top of that - that it's hard to see this happening easily under current conditions.

India is an interesting case as well, where there is a large and increasingly influential men's movement that operates parallel to their women's movement (and butting heads occasionally, as you can imagine). It's lead almost entirely by women trying to work against the injustice they see their sons, brothers, husbands and fathers suffering because of India's particular brand of traditionalist gender roles. It's interesting to look at these places and wonder if the approach that was taken in the west to gender relations was perhaps not the only or best way.

Yeah, when you get down to the core of the issues it's economics, specifically capitalism, every time that's preserving the status quo. As for the West's attempt at gender politics, that was just the first and most influential version. Dichotomy is a "Western idea" in a lot of ways and informs the way that we pit one identity against another. Traditionally "oriental" cultures tend to view things more holistically. Maybe ironically maybe not, maybe coincidentally maybe not, this difference in thinking is pretty similar to the difference I mentioned here between "male" and "female" ways of thinking. Like you mention, they're going to go about the same project in their own way and whether it's strictly better, strictly worse, or neither there will be something of value to learn in the process.

I actually went to a local screening of it. The anons saying it was identity politics the movie are correct.

Take identity politics to the trash: both left and right.

Where/how did you watch it?

I can make it black and white if you want.

I sailed my canoe into a local bay and bartered with the friendly merchant for a low price of free 99.